Philosophy Discussion Forums

You W: "Would you like to elaborate on more of your understandings, though I probably do not understands or know about very much."

Would you like to elaborate on more of your understandings, though I probably do not understands or know about very much.

Do I dare? That is the realm of the brother wolf. He has the special connection of smell. When everything is right, he takes off with the energy of knowing. It is a synesthetic connection of chemical knowledge… and to borrow the phrase we all participate. Should you and I be so foolish or should I reason it and lose it? Did anyone felt the power of the molded clay and heard the voice chanting... It is the paw of brother wolf. Hear, hear, ye… or you.

Okisites said: "Please explain that credible alternative explanation (to reincarnation), in your words and understanding, as best as possible for you."

I did that. I attributed it to extrasensory perception or psychic (nonphysical) awareness. That's how the biographical information of deceased people was known to the children in the study you quoted. Why did they tune into the lives of those particular people? Presumably because they shared similar natures. When we see a living animal that is practically identical in appearance and character to a deceased one, we don't say that it may be the reincarnation of the dead one, do we? It's the same principle, except most people think that only people possess mind and soul.

Felix wrote:Okisites said: "Please explain that credible alternative explanation (to reincarnation), in your words and understanding, as best as possible for you."

I did that. I attributed it to extrasensory perception or psychic (nonphysical) awareness. That's how the biographical information of deceased people was known to the children in the study you quoted. Why did they tune into the lives of those particular people? Presumably because they shared similar natures. When we see a living animal that is practically identical in appearance and character to a deceased one, we don't say that it may be the reincarnation of the dead one, do we? It's the same principle, except most people think that only people possess mind and soul.

Sorry for being late Felix,

I somewhere heard that "at least seven people in the world looks similar with facial appearances". But this is not such cases we are talking about. Reincarnation cases consist of memory of previous life, even of Christians, Muslims, who had agreed to that even against religion and religious beliefs. It consist of knowing the previous life language, geographical memory, birth marks (or death marks). Also notice the hypnosis experiments to take one to their previous life journeys, where one have no intention to know the previous life. I think this is too much to just take it as a case of just similar facial appearance.

Secondly extrasensory perception, I don't know how can one such case of knowing the past life memories, languages, birth marks, geographical memory as well as hypnosis experiments, is explained by extransensory perception. When exactly does this extrasensory perception starts to work? Is it starts working in early childhood or just when child is still in a womb, because birth marks(or death marks) generally start to grow in womb. So does extrasensory perception starts working in womb, when child is still not fully conscious that he/she is an human and not an insect?

I don't know how theory of extrasensory perception explains these phenomenons, and how you supports it and find it convincing. Please elaborate how Extrasensory perception explains each of these phenomenons.

And do read the cases given in the link provided in OP. You may not believe in it or like to believe in it, but it will still be a good thriller stories, if you believe that psychologist and scientists are not lying and depicting everything correct, and not trying to make up stories. If you think that scientists are lying and making up stories, then there is no thriller for you.

Okisites wrote:I had been reading reincarnation cases(stories) examined by very credible scientists ( I hope you too consider them as such) since 4-5 days, and many of them is really interesting that led me scratch my head and wonder, and ask myself that how it could these cases could be so convincing and propagated by credible scientists.

Reincarnation is complete and total BS. Its widespread acceptance serves only to reinforce the already obvious conclusion that people are idiots.

The fascinating thing about such patently ludicrous beliefs is that supposedly intelligent human beings continue to be taken in by them.

The proper question is, why are people so stupid?

It's okay, that it is total BS(i.e. Bull ****), but the matter is how can you prove or express that properly (You know, your assertion do not count to be as legitimate and valuable. It is simply be taken as BS, if you do not associate it with some good logic or justification or explanation or something alike,.

I am sorry to say that you are generalizing too much. What proof you had of this kind of Phenomenon? Just a blind exaggerated assertions? If so, it is not acceptable, no matter how much shout is made.

So please address the issue with logic and explanations, not with assertions.

Okisites wrote:I am sorry to say that you are generalizing too much. What proof you had of this kind of Phenomenon? Just a blind exaggerated assertions? If so, it is not acceptable, no matter how much shout is made.

So please address the issue with logic and explanations, not with assertions.

I'll gladly use logic and reason to explain the complete idiocy of reincarnation, however, not even I can prove a negative. I can't prove that there's no such thing as reincarnation, just as I can't prove that there's no such thing as bigfoot, or ghosts, or alien abductions, or any number of other idiotic beliefs. What I can do however, is to point out the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and shortcomings in any supposed evidence in support of such claims.

So with that in mind, what evidence do you have that reincarnation is indeed an actual phenomenon. Keep in mind that every time you cite an example that turns out to be less than credible, your standing as a rationally minded individual diminishes. But if you're absolutely certain that reincarnation is real, then go ahead, give it a shot.

I agree with the posters here who say that reincarnation is a very shaky idea.

However, just the general idea that life is cyclical rather than linear is much more solid.

Partinobodycular said: what evidence do you have that reincarnation is indeed an actual phenomenon?

Did you read Okisites first post? He cited some of it there.

I read a book in which there is a description of how tibetan lamas went about finding the latest reincarnation of a high lama, the "psychic" tests the child suspected to be the reincarnated lama must pass, etc. http://www.amazon.cm/Dance-17-Lives-Mic ... 002TTICHI/

It's not going to convince anyone that reincarnation is true but it is a fascinating account.

The idea of reincarnation is false because it suggests that one can be "incarnated" in a different time and place. But in reality if one "incarnates" it will always be in the same time and place. Being incarnated in different times and places removes all meaning of the word "you" beyond the shallow temporal "now" of your present awareness.

Partinobodycular wrote:

Okisites wrote:I am sorry to say that you are generalizing too much. What proof you had of this kind of Phenomenon? Just a blind exaggerated assertions? If so, it is not acceptable, no matter how much shout is made.

So please address the issue with logic and explanations, not with assertions.

I'll gladly use logic and reason to explain the complete idiocy of reincarnation,

Please Proceed.

I can't prove that there's no such thing as reincarnation, just as I can't prove that there's no such thing as bigfoot, or ghosts, or alien abductions, or any number of other idiotic beliefs.

I can understand this problem. But I think I need to tell you, that evidence of somethings are case specific and relies on events and incidents. Such things generally occur in human related things. Such things cannot be proved inside the lab. Human cannot be tested in laboratory. You must understand it properly.

I think this case specific and incident dependent things are as legitimate as laboratory experiments, unless you can prove that case specific and incident dependent things does not count as evidence and proofs, and are not as reliable as laboratory experiment. Generally all the things related to human can only be proved, considering a particular incidents and what the people involved and seen and experienced in that incidents are most important.

Do you know something that is called eye-witness, who are very important to prove human related incidents, lack of which kind of people or person(eye-witness) could be blinding, misleading, case weakening, and eventually results in overall undesirable and tragic outcomes. So I think you need to understand the importance of eye-witness, in human related matters, or you should prove that depending on eye-witness is complete BS and should be discarded altogether from all human related maters, because all the eyewitnesses can be considered and probably have 50-50% probability of lying.

The second factor through which human related subjects are examined is cross-examination of statements given in due course of time, and using a psychological gullibility of human to prove something to be true or false.

I think you should prove such methods of determination of fact as completely BS, and should be discarded altogether.

Or you should ask me to prove, how the physics minded people prove such things wrong, is laughable and stupidity par excellence.

What I can do however, is to point out the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and shortcomings in any supposed evidence in support of such claims.

Very good, please proceed.

So with that in mind, what evidence do you have that reincarnation is indeed an actual phenomenon.

Let me first ask first, what kind of evidence you actually ask such that it can be considered as true and actual phenomenon? Do you want physics related proof? Do you want laboratory experiment with mathematical expression?

Or it will be okay to give you Judicial method to prove the facts? Or logic thesis to prove the facts?

Keep in mind that every time you cite an example that turns out to be less than credible

How? I cite on the basis of credibility of Scientists, Psychologist, A head of Department of Universities, not one but many.

your standing as a rationally minded individual diminishes.

Only in this kind of topics, unfortunately.

But if you're absolutely certain that reincarnation is real, then go ahead, give it a shot.

In discussion, I don't think I can prove anything without discussion. I hope you are not telling me to write a book here to prove my point. Its a discussion and I had given my points, now people are needed to give their points to counter my points.

I hope you'll understand.

Thank You. Okisites.

Reincarnation is simply living again through new bodies, it doesn't involve any soul or self to be transferred.

So long as consciousness exists somewhere in the universe, there will always be the sensation of "I" - one body at a time.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:Reincarnation is simply living again through new bodies

Very good, I think you agree with the Idea.

it doesn't involve any soul or self to be transferred.

I would like to believe this, because my own question is that, if you are reincarnated after so many years of your death in previous life, then where you are in between the death in previous life and birth in this life. Why don't you remember the things happened to you after death in previous life, and before birth in this life, when you can remember things of previous bodily life. That means, if you can remember previous bodily life, then why can't you remember a life without body i.e. what is in between your death and rebirth.

So long as consciousness exists somewhere in the universe, there will always be the sensation of "I" - one body at a time.

Yes I believe that and most certainly it must be true, but I have read somewhere when the baby is born, the pressure on his brain(physical) is so immense that can lead a baby to forgets everything what is before, if there is any before of his life on earth.

So the process of rebirth inside the mother's womb, can be considered as so terrible that it can remove all your previous memories.

I hope, I am in line with the topic.

I'm agnostic when it comes to reincarnation (or "rebirth" as Buddhists would call it). I don't really want it to be true or untrue. Although if reincarnation/rebirth was a reality, it would seem to displace or at the very least compete with my own Christian understanding of the soul & afterlife. Having said that I have absolutely no idea how the phenomenon could be scientifically proven. It's not something that be can reproduced or recreated in a laboratory setting. And even if someone did succeed in doing this, the greater scientific community would never accept it. It's mysticism! It's woo! Science is dogmatically opposed to this kind of thing, and that's never going to change unless science itself does. Science won't.

-- Updated August 26th, 2014, 4:40 pm to add the following --

I would like to believe this, because my own question is that, if you are reincarnated after so many years of your death in previous life, then where you are in between the death in previous life and birth in this life

One of the bardos (Tibetan Buddhism). Catholicism would call it Purgatory.

Reincarnation is most certainly logical and physical. The thing about it, however, is that it's constrained by a conundrum very many fear without abstain. Especially the dream world - the closest experience to reincarnation possible. When we fall asleep, most people and scientists will say it's a recollection of memories being replayed - then there are those very wise men who understand the dream world on a largely-scaled ontological level like Junga who had instead explained the dream as being a world into a subconscious system that reflects our being via the contrasts of creation and distortion. Nietzsche was inferring something not dream related, but very important when you apply "the abyss stares back at you" to Junga's research - they both complete each other's studies.

Therefore it was always proven, but the train of thought that is required to understand the juxtapositions in this Universe can drive us insane because in order to see the Universe - you have to see yourself, for who you truly are. Otherwise, the Universe will not show its face, if you don't show yours.

Okisites wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:Reincarnation is simply living again through new bodies

Very good, I think you agree with the Idea.

it doesn't involve any soul or self to be transferred.

I would like to believe this, because my own question is that, if you are reincarnated after so many years of your death in previous life, then where you are in between the death in previous life and birth in this life. Why don't you remember the things happened to you after death in previous life, and before birth in this life, when you can remember things of previous bodily life. That means, if you can remember previous bodily life, then why can't you remember a life without body i.e. what is in between your death and rebirth.

So long as consciousness exists somewhere in the universe, there will always be the sensation of "I" - one body at a time.

Yes I believe that and most certainly it must be true, but I have read somewhere when the baby is born, the pressure on his brain(physical) is so immense that can lead a baby to forgets everything what is before, if there is any before of his life on earth.

So the process of rebirth inside the mother's womb, can be considered as so terrible that it can remove all your previous memories.

I hope, I am in line with the topic.

No no, the memories are always physical brain states which differ in each conscious subject.

My point was, so long as the universe brings forth consciousness, in the sense that I am something that the universe is doing in the same way that a wave is what the whole ocean is doing, who is not "brought into" the world but rather comes out of it, then there will always be the experience of "I" - one body at a time. There is no essential self which teleports into a new body. My point is, there will never be endless darkness in death while other people are still around because you can only experience reality one body at a time.

Look, think of it like this.

Suppose we clone you and kill the original - do "you" still exist?

Not you in the sense of being numerically identical to the clone, (the atoms can be different), but the argument proves there is no real essential self in the first place beyond continuity of memory, if memory goes we may as well be someone else. Lets think about alzheimers then. We are like eddies in a stream, patterns of information - whirlpools as it were, metaphorically spekaing. But... So long as our form is constant, there is the feeling of "I" a continuous thing, but that's a side effect or by product of linking our memories in a chain - an illusion - due to the fact that we are not "aware" of the gaps in "awareness" as it were, hence the feeling of time as connected and fluid and us persisting through it, like a needle being threaded or a spotlight or a play button on the timeline of a video, which itself does not exist in time, rather, constitutes and defines time relative to position of the part being played.

So long as consciousness is produced, there is "I", and they're all you.