Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
scientific research on reincarnation from a medical, scientific view (= secular, modern medicine; not religious or ancient history)
Dr. Tucker, is a psychiatrist (=medical doctor) and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neuro-behavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. His main research interests are children who claim to remember previous lives, and natal and prenatal memories. He is the author of the book "Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives" (2008), which presents an overview of over four decades of reincarnation research; another book "Return to Life Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives" (2015)
"Well, I think it's very difficult to just map these cases onto a materialist understanding of reality. I mean, if physical matter, if the physical world is all there is, then I don't know how you can accept these cases and believe in them. But I think there are good reasons to think that consciousness can be considered a separate entity from physical reality. And in fact, some leading scientists in the past, like Max Planck, who's the father of quantum theory, said that he viewed consciousness as fundamental and that matter was derived from it. So in that case, it would mean that consciousness would not necessarily be dependent on a physical brain in order to survive, and could continue after the physical brain and after the body dies. In these cases, it seems - at least, on the face of it - that a consciousness has then become attached to a new brain, and has shown up as past life memories."
"Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another. He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, the self may not be merely a by-product of the brain, but rather a separate entity that impinges on matter. Tucker argues that viewing the self as a fundamental, non-material part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the brain. "
non material part ... what part is that? is there anything that suggest a non material part exist?
non material part ... what part is that? is there anything that suggest a non material part exist?
according to Dr. Tucker, Max Planck, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, and research studies on reincarnation, yes
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
--Max Planck, theoretical physicist, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
Ok let's go back to your previous question and explore it further "does the mind survive the death of the brain"
[...]There is a great deal people have forgotten about the non-physical portion of reality. A dual-aspect view is basic common sense. The "weirdness" of the idea stems mostly from unjustified assumptions that "the physical brain produces the mind" rather than the "non physical mind inhabits and uses the brain." Once we understand and remove these superficial unjustified assumptions, the idea is not quite so weird.
I think it might be helpful to focus for a moment on the concept of 'physical'. Physical things conform to natural law (or, more accurately, instantiate or manifest natural law) and "natural law" is understood as something that can, at least in principle, be mathematically modeled. Basically, for something to be "scientific" it must be something that can be modeled insofar as science runs on theories, and a theory is essentially a model. A scientific theory is a testable model. A philosophical theory might not be testable (at least at the given moment), but it is still essentially a sort of rational model, which is to say, it is a "set of rules" that explain how Reality gets from state A to state B. To count as a rational model, the set of rules have to be at least partially deterministic, which is to say, it must be possible to predict (with better than random chance) what B will look like, given that we are starting from A.
Bottom line: Is qualitative experience a phenomenon that can be rationally modeled? Physicalism generally implies "yes" whereas non-physicalism (idealism or substance dualism) implies "no".
My approach - dual-aspect theory - implies epistemological limits stemming from the brute-fact nature of qualia (or, at least, of some foundational qualia or proto-qualia). We cannot, even in principle, explain brute facts in terms of anything "deeper" but then the question is: Is a model a "deeper" explanation? Or is it simply a "way of understanding" that, perhaps "feels good" to rational minds?
One consideration: Many philosophers and scientists (most notably anyone favoring the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics) argue that physics tells us nothing about the "essence" or "inner reality" of things. Physics can only reveal Nature as She is "exposed to our method of questioning" - not as She is "in Herself". We observe the observable properties of things, not the intrinsic properties of things.
This brings us to Immanuel Kant's distinction between "things-in-themselves" (aka "noumena") and "things as they appear to us" (aka, "phenomena"). Bohr was basically a Kantian when he made the quip about us only knowing Nature as "exposed to our method of questioning."
The non-physicalist ought to take comfort in the Kantian distinction. Science can only explore phenomena - never, even in principle, can science say anything about the noumenal realm, which leave room for non-physical souls and, perhaps, God. They are the noumenal "intrinsic essences" that lurk below appearances and, presumably, animate the phenomenal world.
On my dual-aspect approach we have, contrary to Kant, some access to at least some "noumenal" essences. In particular, qualia are (according to my view) fundamentally noumenal, which is to say our knowledge of qualia is not via the "appearances" of noumenal things, but rather, qualia are, themselves the intrinsic properties - the "inner essences" - of Reality (or, at least, of some parts of Reality). Qualia are the way in which the "appearances" just are the "intrinsic essences".
So now: In what sense, if any, are qualia "physical"? As a brute-fact noumenal essence of Reality, a quale cannot be explained in terms of anything "deeper" and, thus, an individual quale, as such, probably can't be modeled. But qualia - i.e., systems composed of many interdependent qualitative elements - can (according to my approach) be rationally modeled. All logical systems require "brute facts" that cannot be further explained, and science is meant to be logical, so we can't fault scientific theories for positing some brute facts. In the context of science, qualia (according to me) are not "non-physical" - they are just the "brute fact" elements upon which scientific theories are logically based. On my view, science can, in principle, model the dynamics of mind (i.e., consciousness) via the exploration of the physical correlates of consciousness which, I claim, will eventually be understood in terms of principles of chaotic self-organizing systems. If I am right about this, then consciousness is physical, even if the individual qualia or proto-qualitative elements of consciousness cannot be modeled, as such, because they are the brute-fact foundational elements upon which the theory of consciousness is based.
Basically, we will eventually model the mind by modeling physical brain activity because physical brain activity just is the mind, and vice versa. Brain doesn't "produce" mind (substance dualism), nor does mind "produce" brain (idealism). Rather, "mind" is brain "known intrinsically" (subjectively) whereas "brain" is mind, known extrinsically (objectively). And (if this is right), the fact that mind (mental dynamics/conscious experience) can be mathematically modeled, and the fact that these models can be discovered by studying physical processes is, essentially, all I mean when I say that I am a physicalist. There is no non-physical soul that enters the brain, then "drives it around" like a car, then gets out to go drive around another car. Rather, the "driver" of the car is the self-organizing dynamics of the car's steering system (it's a "self-driving car").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Reincarnation is not associated with any religion or set of religions. to me it simply describes and names a purely mechanical process.
Here we agree. And I think I can give a bit of explanation for the "mechanical process." As I've tried to explain in other threads, the "driver" of the car (let's say "me" in this case) can appear in "other cars" so long as Reality is, for all practical purposes (FAPP), big enough for comparable self-organizing dynamics with "my memories" to appear in some other part of the multiverse. This is because physical processes are what philosophers call "universals" - which is to say, there can be many particular instantiations of the one and same process. I am the process. I experience my subjective/qualitative "feelings of being me" whenever and wherever the process is instantiated. Thus, despite being a physical process, I could nevertheless find myself "reincarnated" in other bodies, etc., so long as - somehow - my memories (from this life) are manifested in other physical processes. And, since memories are physical subroutines of the physical process that constitutes "being me" there is, in principle, no reason why "I" with "my memories" couldn't appear in FAPP an infinite number of "lifetimes" with an infinite number of life narratives (like a fractal with infinite variations of "the same" foundational pattern).
Here [Tzaphkiel and I] agree [about reincarnation]. And I think I can give a bit of explanation for the "mechanical process." As I've tried to explain in other threads, the "driver" of the car (let's say "me" in this case) can appear in "other cars" so long as Reality is, for all practical purposes (FAPP), big enough for comparable self-organizing dynamics with "my memories" to appear in some other part of the multiverse. This is because physical processes are what philosophers call "universals" - which is to say, there can be many particular instantiations of the one and same process. I am the process. I experience my subjective/qualitative "feelings of being me" whenever and wherever the process is instantiated. Thus, despite being a physical process, I could nevertheless find myself "reincarnated" in other bodies, etc., so long as - somehow - my memories (from this life) are manifested in other physical processes. And, since memories are physical subroutines of the physical process that constitutes "being me" there is, in principle, no reason why "I" with "my memories" couldn't appear in FAPP an infinite number of "lifetimes" with an infinite number of life narratives (like a fractal with infinite variations of "the same" foundational pattern).
Except that no teaching of reincarnation I've ever heard says that your memories are part of your other "instantiations" in any meaningful way. That's because reincarnation has to explain why most people have zero memory of a past life, and why those who claim to, make unverifiable claims. In other words, reincarnation considers this a feature, not a bug, and that's why they go on about you having full memory of all your "lives" in the interstitial space between lives, where for some reason you're eager and wiling to subject yourself to the whole process again without the benefit of those memories.
The different concept (largely, Buddhist) of rebirth dispenses with this issue entirely by saying that only one's "karma" survives, not something that organizationally speaking is still describable in any meaningful way as "you". And the endpoint of Buddhism is the complete dissolution of self, not its preservation in any way. This dissolution is seen as liberation from the endless turn of the "wheel of existence", and its attendant endless suffering.
So I take it then, that you're talking about something that's likely rather different from what Tzapkiel is talking about -- not so much a disconnected serial afterlife with some sort of ultimate objective, as a sort of timelessness of expressed being in multiple realities, quite independent from any timeline or even really any particular universe. Thus it may well be that any ONE instance of such a consciousness would for all practical purposes be mortal and finite anyway, from its own perspective. So (correct me if I'm wrong) you're suggesting that while "you" with "your memories" may appear in multiple "realities", you're not really contemplating the sort of transition from life to life that standard reincarnation teachings generally contemplate.
So (correct me if I'm wrong) you're suggesting that while "you" with "your memories" may appear in multiple "realities", you're not really contemplating the sort of transition from life to life that standard reincarnation teachings generally contemplate.
Correct. According to the "mechanism" that I'm suggesting, "reincarnation" is not the standard "soul-hopping" concept that most people think of. I might remember being Julius Caesar in a previous life if, for some reason, a physical system ever exists in which memories consistent with those of Julius and me are both instantiated in a single body.
BTW, we now have good evidence for believing the memories are not "records" of the past "written" in our neural tissue. Rather, memories are fresh creations every time they arise, and in most cases, each time they arise there are slight changes based on the moods, thoughts, associations, etc., of the current moment. Thus memories are fluid and, over time, they can become more false that true as "historical records".
I could also have "memories" that I interpret as "being Julius" even though, as a matter of historical fact, Julius Caesar himself never had any such experiences. In the case of "memories," the spectrum from "delusions" to actual "memories" is a continuum wherein the "memory" become more and more an "actual memory" depending on how well it corresponds to some actual subjective experiences of some actual person in the past. Thus, in the annals of past-life stories, we should expect a range from simply false (insofar as they don't match up with anything in recorded history) to more or less "true" depending on how closely they align with known historical facts. And then there is another complication: In a multiverse, a memory could presumably align with an actual fact in another universe that did not happen in our universe. Thus a memory could be "false" relative to our actual universe, but true relative to some other universe.
Kids, don't try this at home, but for even more fun and games, we might consider this: I'm not convinced that the past is always "entirely fixed" in stone. Some facts are fixed (determinate), whereas others might be indeterminate. (This follows from "delayed choice experiments" in QM where, for example, the "path" of a photon from some distant galaxy is apparently not determinate in our universe until the photon is "observed" on earth.)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-05-2017 at 12:29 PM..
Kids, don't try this at home, but for even more fun and games, we might consider this: I'm not convinced that the past is always "entirely fixed" in stone. Some facts are fixed (determinate), whereas others might be indeterminate. (This follows from "delayed choice experiments" in QM where, for example, the "path" of a photon from some distant galaxy is apparently not determinate in our universe until the photon is "observed" on earth.)
Indeed, what seems certain to me is that people put way more stock in their recollection of past events than they arguably should. I have noted throughout my life that casting back more than about twenty years in my memory, things are pretty hazy / dicey, as if old experiences are being cast aside to make room for new ones, unless the old experiences had a sufficiently (un)pleasant emotional content associated with it. I also find my mind actively ditching some of the worst content; I can't recall much of my first marriage it if I TRY, all I know anymore is that it was a toxic relationship with certain general features but I can't recall the particular details of something my first wife said or did in a particular encounter. So ultimately I feel like my childhood and early adulthood are like a story I heard (re)told about someone else, a protagonist somewhat like me, but not really me. After all, one changes as one goes along in life anyway.
And in point of fact, isn't our past in large measure the stories we tell ourselves about it, from our unique perspective? I've certainly noted that Other People can have a TOTALLY different recollection about aspects of my past that I am quite convinced they must be making up just to mess around with me.
There's a standard fantasy I have from time to time, about what I would do if I could somehow be magically transplanted with all my accumulated knowledge and experience back into my teenage body -- what would I actually do differently in life? And something about that stands out: the "magic" would have to extend to me somehow remembering my former self as well as my present self; quite honestly if I were dropped into the middle of any random day in the early 1970s I would be completely lost. What are the names of my teachers, what classes am I supposed to attend, what periods are they, what open homework assignments do I have, when do my parents expect me home. I'd even have to think a minute about what my dog's name was at the time and be careful not to call it the name of my current dog, and I'd probably approach my old home with some doubt about whether it was 3 or 4 blocks back from the main highway whose name I no longer recall, etc.
So you're right, memory is far more imprecise than we generally want to acknowledge. Perhaps in the above fantasy a surprising amount of it would "come back" to me, but somehow I doubt it. The past is truly "gone with the wind", buried in the sands of time.
the small fact remains that if a brain is in a similar state as a previous brain, or present brain, it will behave similarly. Given genetics and limited number of "probable states" we have a large number of overlaps.
Thats where the line of logic starts.
But since when do we let raw facts get in the way of a belief statement based on personal needs selling a product? i wouldn't ever do that meself.
according to Dr. Tucker, Max Planck, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, and research studies on reincarnation, yes
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
--Max Planck, theoretical physicist, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
no, quantum theory is based on not knowing what is going on down there. it assigns a probability (and waving) based on known outcomes. That's, they know the outcomes not the mechanisms.
Also, when we get down to the fabric of space we get a "fuzzy" location. think of making a figure 8 as fast as you an on a graph paper using only two squares. it gets "fuzzy", thats the tunneling.
"reincarnation". If a brain state repeats, the person acts like the original. There are not exact duplicates, just due to the number, but I bet there are a bunch of similar brain states repeated. Now, yesterday, and will be again tomorrow.
these are just basic lines of logic using what we do know. I think you see a rainbow and don't understand its different then you think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd forgotten about him. No he hasn't been around. Hope he's ok.
