Do any of you believe in Reincarnation?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

There are documented cases of children that have spoken of places that they have never been, and never seen, with remarkable accuracy. I'm not saying to take it all at face value, but something causes it.

Of course _something_ causes it, but it is the fantastical conclusions people leap to to explain it away that bother me.

For example one of Ian Stephensons case studies of reincarnation was about a woman who had a split personality. And that second personality had "memories" and "language" from an earlier civilisation. All sounds very bizarre until one reads on and finds out her father studied that culture and its language heavily.

Children are sponges and they take in language and knowledge and facts and figures at an amazing rate. Knowledge that appears to be later forgotten but then suddenly jumps out of them in later life. Especially in cases of split personality disorder.

So simply saying "something causes it" says too much... and too little.... at the same time. We can not use open questions as evidence for fantastical assertions and "I do not know how Child X possesses knowledge Y" is an open question. Nothing more. Any anyone who instead says "I do not know how Child X possesses knowledge Y... therefore reincarnation." is playing a fools game where bother speaker and listener are being the fool.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

We don't understand the human brain half as well as we'd like, and the evidence may very well be waiting for us sometime down the road.

That is the same kind of talk that is used to "support" everything from god based religion.... to homeopathy. Rather than substantiate the core claims, what such people do instead is point to all the things we DO NOT know... suggesting that maybe evidence or substantiation for their assertions might some day be found somewhere.

Nay. Talking about how much we do NOT know takes AWAY from the credibility of unsubstantiated assertions. It does not add credibility TO them. Because there is hardly a fantastical assertion you could not write down right now on the spot, from the top of your head, that you could not "support" in this manner.

If you find yourself engaging in a line of thinking for which the only support is to talk about how you have no support.... then it is time to rethink the line of thinking. Entirely.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

I stand by my previous assertion: that simply because we haven't found evidence does not mean that no evidence exists.

But that is not your previous assertion. You have rather clearly reworded it since the last time I replied to you.

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Of course _something_ causes it, but it is the fantastical conclusions people leap to to explain it away that bother me.

For example one of Ian Stephensons case studies of reincarnation was about a woman who had a split personality. And that second personality had "memories" and "language" from an earlier civilisation. All sounds very bizarre until one reads on and finds out her father studied that culture and its language heavily.

Children are sponges and they take in language and knowledge and facts and figures at an amazing rate. Knowledge that appears to be later forgotten but then suddenly jumps out of them in later life. Especially in cases of split personality disorder.

So simply saying "something causes it" says too much... and too little.... at the same time. We can not use open questions as evidence for fantastical assertions and "I do not know how Child X possesses knowledge Y" is an open question. Nothing more. Any anyone who instead says "I do not know how Child X possesses knowledge Y... therefore reincarnation." is playing a fools game where bother speaker and listener are being the fool.

You're making an equally spurious claim: that something is not possible because you have not seen evidence to support it. That's the same kind of one-way thinking that far-right creationists use when trying to 'debunk' evolution -- 'you can't prove transitional fossils are really an earlier, less-evolved life form, so I refuse to accept that evolution exists'.

That is the same kind of talk that is used to "support" everything from god based religion.... to homeopathy. Rather than substantiate the core claims, what such people do instead is point to all the things we DO NOT know... suggesting that maybe evidence or substantiation for their assertions might some day be found somewhere.

Again, prove to me that they won't be. Galileo disputed geocentrism, and his contemporaries called him a heretic because available evidence clearly indicated that the Earth was the center of the universe. As humanity became more knowledgeable in astronomy, new evidence was uncovered that proved Galileo's assumption correct.

Besides which, the entire scientific method is based on collecting data to empirically test unsubstantiated claims. If there was no chance that new evidence could be uncovered in the future, what purpose does experimentation serve?

But that is not your previous assertion. You have rather clearly reworded it since the last time I replied to you.

I apologize; I was in a bit of a rush between three simultaneous chores. Should've slowed down to read my own writing

In terms of my actual previous assertion, tied to 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', I submit the following:

By determining that a given experiment or method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X (when X is present) one can confidently exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. This allows one to deduce that X cannot be present if a null result is received.
Thus there are only two possibilities, given a null result:

1. Nothing detected, and X is not present.
2. Nothing detected, but X is present (option eliminated by careful research design).

To the extent that option 2 can be eliminated, one can deduce that if X is not detected then X is not present and therefore the null result is evidence of absence.

(Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The trick, then, is to determine which is true: that nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect, or that something is present but not (currently) quantifiable by any sufficiently 'sensitive and reliable' method.

[Huckleberry3911948]

beliefs about afterlife are like dead leaves in the autumn. they blow around a great deal and vanish when we die.
reincarnation makes sense to me, but i have no proof, none of afterlife.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

You're making an equally spurious claim: that something is not possible because you have not seen evidence to support it.

But I made no such claim. Anywhere. Ever. So keep your words out of my mouth son, I have more than enough of my own in there. Is what I am saying so difficult for you to reubut that you have to attack things you make up on my behalf instead?

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

Again, prove to me that they won't be.

Do it yourself. It is not my claim that they won't be. And I am not in the habit of proving claims I have not made that people have shoved into my mouth as a dodge to what I actually did say.

My point is simple, yet you can not address it: That simply saying "Evidence for my claim might some day be found" is not evidence for your claim.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

Besides which, the entire scientific method is based on collecting data to empirically test unsubstantiated claims.

My point exactly! So while putting words in my mouth you are also making my point for me as if it was your own. Get out there and get the data to test the unsubstantiated claims that reincarnation is a fact. Where is the data? I have seen none of it on this thread, much less so from you yourself.

But I keep waiting all the same.

[FredNotBob]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

But I made no such claim. Anywhere. Ever. So keep your words out of my mouth son, I have more than enough of my own in there. Is what I am saying so difficult for you to reubut that you have to attack things you make up on my behalf instead?



Do it yourself. It is not my claim that they won't be. And I am not in the habit of proving claims I have not made that people have shoved into my mouth as a dodge to what I actually did say.

My point is simple, yet you can not address it: That simply saying "Evidence for my claim might some day be found" is not evidence for your claim.



My point exactly! So while putting words in my mouth you are also making my point for me as if it was your own. Get out there and get the data to test the unsubstantiated claims that reincarnation is a fact. Where is the data? I have seen none of it on this thread, much less so from you yourself.

But I keep waiting all the same.

You're the one going on the attack with a bunch of ad hominems.

I'm done.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

You're the one going on the attack with a bunch of ad hominems.

I have done no such thing. You are just making stuff up now to cover your exit. I am evaluating openly the evidence people want to offer for the topic of the discussion at hand. As you are not presenting any, I can not evaluate it. Simple as.

But I will not do, ever, is provide evidence or support for claims I have simply not made. Or claims you have invented and put in my mouth. That is simply not going to happen.

You made an assertion and I am simply explaining to you what is wrong with that assertion. Where is the "ad hominem" in that exactly? Perhaps you have made an error in understanding what "ad hominem" actually means?

Let us stay on topic here. The topic is reincarnation and whether we believe it exists. Your only support of the notion so far is that there are children who possess knowledge and we thus far have no idea how they acquired that knowledge.

I simply point out that open unanswered questions are not themselves evidence for the answers one simply makes up for those questions. "I do not know X.... therefore Y is true" is a line of reasoning one should "avoid like the plague" as the saying goes.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

I'm done.

Oh good, another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums".

[FredNotBob]

I present this final message as a 'courtesy response', in the hope that I will then be allowed to walk away from this discussion. Following this response, I will not respond further on this topic.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I have done no such thing. You are just making stuff up now to cover your exit. I am evaluating openly the evidence people want to offer for the topic of the discussion at hand. As you are not presenting any, I can not evaluate it. Simple as.

Is what I am saying so difficult for you to reubut that you have to attack things you make up on my behalf instead?

Is an ad hominem -- it attacks my alleged inability to rebut your statements, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Let us stay on topic here. The topic is reincarnation and whether we believe it exists. Your only support of the notion so far is that there are children who possess knowledge and we thus far have no idea how they acquired that knowledge.

I simply point out that open unanswered questions are not themselves evidence for the answers one simply makes up for those questions. "I do not know X.... therefore Y is true" is a line of reasoning one should "avoid like the plague" as the saying goes.

My argument is, and throughout this discussion has been, that the absence of evidence does not automatically entail that the a stated event or phenomenon does not exist.

These are your own words:

NOTHING we currently know even suggests a separation between the two that allows for subjectivity or human consciousness or human experience to survive between incarnations and brains.

'No evidence has been presented, therefore it cannot be.' Argumentum ad ignorantiam -- a false dichotomy that ignores a third scenario: that evidence is present, but undetectable through current technology or scientific methodology.

I have now given what I consider to be a reasonably full and complete response to your argument; as I said above, I did so as a courtesy and I will now withdraw from this discussion.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

I'm done.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

I present this final message

See? Nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet forums strikes again. It is a tongue in cheek "law" really, designed to lighten a tense mood, but it is amazing how it is more often true than not.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

in the hope that I will then be allowed to walk away from this discussion

That is a little unfair I feel. No one, least of all me, to my knowledge, is compelling you to post on this forum or respond to anyone on it. I am here because it is a discussion forum and this is a topic I like to discuss. If you feel there is a post from me, or a discussion with me, that you no longer wish to partake in then simply dont. Simple as.

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

Is an ad hominem -- it attacks my alleged inability to rebut your statements, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Again it is no such thing. You made an argument, and I have offered a counter argument. That is not ad homninem. If you think it is then you have simply misunderstood the phrase ad hominem.

But I think it is fair that I only be expected to defend arguments I have actually made. Right?

You, twice in one post no less, attacked positions I never actually espoused and asked me to defend them. Why should I when they are not my positions???? Why is it "Ad hominem" to refuse to address and defends words I never once said?

Originally Posted by FredNotBob

My argument is, and throughout this discussion has been, that the absence of evidence does not automatically entail that the a stated event or phenomenon does not exist.

And my argument is, and throughout this discussion has been, that I wholly agree with that. Just because we have no evidence for X, does not mean X does not exist. But that lack of evidence does not allow us to treat an unsubstantiated claim as being remotely credible?

Is it possible that reincarnation exists? Of course it is! I would never deny that possibility. But as I said there is literally no evidence on offer to suggest it does, and lots of evidence on offer to suggest it does not. There is no evidence at all suggesting a brain/mind disconnect. There is swaths of evidence showing a brain/mind dependency.

So reincarnation is NOT an evidence neutral subject and hence is NOT applicable to the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" mantra that you are essentially espousing here.

But you say 'No evidence has been presented, therefore it cannot be.' and in doing so you are simply inserting words in my mouth, repeatedly, despite me repeating again and again that this is NOT the position I hold.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by chuckmann

It depends. Is Purgatory "reincarnation" as in a multiplayer place of purification?

Over the years I have come to believe that there is no hell, but there is a place where we earn purification, and therefore attain paradise. I wonder now how many passes we must make through purgatory is we are slow learners.

Interesting theory. I do believe in Hell, but I can also buy into what you're saying. I've always likened purgatory, with reincarnation, so it does seem possible.

[Chango]

Sort of. I don't think we live, die and are reborn in an unbroken chain of lives across a historical timeline... that idea is too closet-minded and limited in my opinion.

My latest pet theory is that every possibility happens across an infinite multiverse, including life.

I'd suppose you (in this universe) live and die, then cease to exist here but (hopefully) the experience of your life becomes part of a bigger "you" in a higher level of existence of which our physical word is just a tiny sliver of a more complete reality. The game continues all at once (linear time being irrelevant, after all) across an unimaginable spectrum of life possibilites, each contributing to that "bigger you".

In that way we are all individuals, yet also all one as we would have each literally walked in each other's shoes across an infinite spectrum of life possilbilites. Beyond that, we could essentially consider ourselves "god" (or a least a tiny piece of god)... and god itself could be defined as the literal combined consciousness of the multiverse. And in a infinite universe there can easily be an infinite number of "gods" who may even combine into "supergods", and so on.

In the end, there are no victims and perpetrators, saints and sinners, wise or foolish, leaders or followers, chosen or cursed, punishments or rewards to be handed out as we will all have played all possible roles and our "higher selves" will have all perspectives.

For us back in the "normal" world living as the "pieces", the point of life is simply to live. What is important in the end is to realize what we do to others (good or bad) is literally what we do to ourselves in the grand scheme of things and behave accordingly, learn all we can and enjoy the journey.

I don't know if that made any sense... feel free to pick it apart as this stuff is fun to think about...