Philosophy Discussion Forums

Subatomic God wrote:

Artimas wrote: you don't have death without life,

The Universe recycled itself even before life/light existed.

That's true, good point.

Okisites wrote:Sorry for being late, but you should know that I am very slow responder. My average is less than 1 post per day. So the discussion with me will be slower.

I too am a slow responder, but I haven't yet abandoned this discussion. I am currently researching the case of Thusitha Silva which was mentioned in earlier posts. It's a bit confusing as accounts vary a bit on the details. For instance accounts differ on whether the brother was actually mute, or simply "dumb". If anyone knows of a reliable online resource for this case I would appreciate it. A concise listing of all of the predictions made by Thusitha would be helpful. I believe that I am aware of most, if not all of them, but I'm not sure, it depends upon how exactly one breaks them down.

As it stands now the more that I look into this case the more I'm convinced that the accuracy of Thusitha's predictions is simply a matter of chance, easily explaned by statistical probability. Her predictions do at first appear to be impressive, but when examined more closely they aren't particularly convincing.

Part of the problem is that not one of the 30 or so predictions that Thusitha makes are absolutely indispensable. She could get any one or more of them wrong, as she does, without invalidating the entire case. After all, the only prediction that she made that would have ended a lot of the debate outright was her former father's name, and of course she got that wrong. It would've been much more statistically impressive if she had gotten that point right. But the fact that she got it wrong doesn't seem to have done anything to invalidate the rest of the case in the eyes of its proponents. As for the rest of her predictions, although they seem impressive, they're easily explainable or fungible.

As I say though, I'm still researching this case. But one thing appears to be certain, it's not very strong evidence for reincarnation.

-- Updated Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:40 pm to add the following --

Subatomic God wrote:The Universe recycled itself even before life/light existed.

Prove it.

Partinobodycular wrote:I am currently researching the case of Thusitha Silva which was mentioned in earlier posts....

Is this the case of the Sri Lanka toddler that was mentioned earlier? When you say you're researching it, is that via one of Stevenson's books?

In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground. Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground. The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out,,,

If that is the case, how is it 'explained by statistical probability'? There is only one subject in the story, namely, the girl, and she gave an account which was corroborated in many particulars. Are you saying that the apparent facts she mentioned, were simply invented by her, and that they just happened to be right? Is that what you mean by 'easily explainable or fungible?'

Partinobodycular wrote: Prove it.

Dark matter was a state when life/light did not exist. All light/life in space came from the Universe's darkest event.

Space level evolution: Dark Matter > New Matter > Light Matter

Human level evolution: Ignorance > Information > Intelligence

Quotidian wrote: Is this the case of the Sri Lanka toddler that was mentioned earlier? When you say you're researching it, is that via one of Stevenson's books?

I don't have a copy of the book. The most reliable source that I currently have is this article at scientificexploration.org:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... venson.pdf

If you are aware of any facets in which it's in error or incomplete please let me know. The more information that I can get, the better.

Quotidian wrote:If that is the case, how is it 'explained by statistical probability'? There is only one subject in the story, namely, the girl, and she gave an account which was corroborated in many particulars. Are you saying that the apparent facts she mentioned, were simply invented by her, and that they just happened to be right? Is that what you mean by 'easily explainable or fungible?'

As I say, I'm still researching the case, so this view is preliminary. Some claim that Thusitha was correct on 27 of 30 statements, but Dr. Stevenson's numbers show her as being correct in 23 of 28 statements, with 2 unverified. However some of those correct statements were fungible. For example, "She said that her house was near the main Hindu Temple (Devale) at Kataragama." What exactly does "near" mean in this statement? Next door? Across the street? Within a few blocks? Within a mile? In a small town like Kataragama one is apt to be "near" to a lot of things, no matter where you are, especially if you have two homes from which to chose.

Other things like "her father was a farmer", this can cover a broad spectrum of interpretations from someone who runs a full fledged farm to someone who merely plants a few vegetables. The latter being something that is probably quite commonplace in small towns in Sri Lanka, and could well apply to the majority of men in Kataragama.

Also the statement that her father was also a "priest at the temple". What exactly does this mean, and in what way did her father fulfill this statement, if indeed he did? It isn't mentioned as one of the three statements that weren't fulfilled. But in what way was it fulfilled? Applying it to something us westerners can better relate to, was he actually a priest, or was he more like a deacon or an elder? In a town with so many temples it wouldn't be surprising if the majority of men served in some minor religious capacity. At least from time to time.

If you look at all of the statements, and as I say I'm not even sure that I have the complete list, the majority of them are either open to interpretation, or could apply to the majority of men in Katagarma, or are assumed to be true from the outset. Very few of them are actually specific enough that they could be considered relevant.

So when you break it down to the pertinent statements there really are only a few that are statistically relevant. The father's name is one, and she got that wrong. The dumb brother is another, but that one is open to interpretation. A couple statements, like the one about glass in the roof are difficult to handicap without knowing the prevalence of glass roofs in Sri Lanka, but may well turn out to be easily explainable as well.

All in all the case of Thusitha Silva appears to be one of cryptomnesia and confabulation. She unintentionally made up a story based upon past memories, embuing it with details from her subconscious. It was a story of a past life in Kataragama as she imagined it would be. The details were just vague enough to be applicable to a broad spectrum of people, yet specific enough to appear paranormal. But as evidence for reincarnation it's not very impressive, unless you want it to be.

I'm continuing to look into the case, but the more that I look, the less impressive it gets.

Partinobodycular wrote:
I'm continuing to look into the case, but the more that I look, the less impressive it gets.

You shouldn't have wasted your time with someone who gets angry at others for not agreeing, when they cannot prove their own beliefs, let alone keep themselves from doubting them.

Subatomic God wrote:Dark matter was a state when life/light did not exist. All light/life in space came from the Universe's darkest event.

Space level evolution: Dark Matter > New Matter > Light Matter

Human level evolution: Ignorance > Information > Intelligence

So prove to me that dark matter exists. In fact, prove to me that any matter exists.

You stated that the universe recycled itself even before life existed, but how do you know that? How do you know that the universe created me, and not that I created it?

P.S. Yes, I know Spiral Out, it's off topic. Feel free to delete it.

Partinobodycular wrote: So prove to me that dark matter exists. In fact, prove to me that any matter exists.

You stated that the universe recycled itself even before life existed, but how do you know that? How do you know that the universe created me, and not that I created it?

P.S. Yes, I know Spiral Out, it's off topic. Feel free to delete it.

First I must ask you why you do not think it exists, when *Insert evidence here I will provide afterwards* is right in front of your face.

Partinobodycular wrote:All in all the case of Thusitha Silva appears to be one of cryptomnesia and confabulation.

So you say. The paper you link to doesn't provide any grounds for that claim, and I'm sure the researchers were aware of that possibility.

Partinobodycular wrote: [Thusitha] unintentionally made up a story based upon past memories, embuing it with details from her subconscious.

Any suggestion as to how such specific ideas might have entered the mind of a small child? The details are not general and vague, they are specific.

It was a story of a past life in Kataragama as she imagined it would be.

Motivated by what, exactly? Do you think she realized that, if she made up a story, and it happened to be correct, that she might gain something from it?

The details were just vague enough to be applicable to a broad spectrum of people, yet specific enough to appear paranormal. But as evidence for reincarnation it's not very impressive, unless you want it to be.

But the same could be said in reverse - the details are quite compelling, unless you're unwilling to believe such a thing could ever occur.

I don't think anyone should feel compelled to accept that something like reincarnation occurs; as I noted above, it is a controversial topic, even a taboo. But I think you should ask yourself why you feel compelled to argue that cases such as those Stevenson gathered are simply coincidence or confabulation.

As this is a philosophy forum, and not the National Enquirer or a paranormal science forum, I think the philosophical question is: what about the notion of re-birth makes it such a controversial topic? Why do many people say that such topics are not only wrong, but even dangerous?

Quotidian wrote:Any suggestion as to how such specific ideas might have entered the mind of a small child?

One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else. Such things occur regularly in cases of divorce where the children are conditioned to say things in court in order to support one side or the other.

Spiral Out wrote:One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else.

Do you think that the researchers would not have considered that possibility?

Spiral Out wrote:

Quotidian wrote:Any suggestion as to how such specific ideas might have entered the mind of a small child?

One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else. Such things occur regularly in cases of divorce where the children are conditioned to say things in court in order to support one side or the other.

And what is the gain of making such statements, as in the cases of divorce?

Quotidian wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else.

Do you think that the researchers would not have considered that possibility?

I'm sure they considered it but how did they rule that potential out conclusively?

Okisites wrote:

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else. Such things occur regularly in cases of divorce where the children are conditioned to say things in court in order to support one side or the other.

And what is the gain of making such statements, as in the cases of divorce?

Child custody, monetary settlements, reputation, status, criminal defense, division of assets, etc.

Spiral Out wrote:

Okisites wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)


And what is the gain of making such statements, as in the cases of divorce?

Child custody, monetary settlements, reputation, status, criminal defense, division of assets, etc.

I think I did some grammatical mistake here, So asking again.

What could be the gain of coaching a child to make statements of having past life? And what about the cross examination sudden unexpected questions that is answered correctly by child?

Spiral Out wrote:One major point that cannot be verified prior to the case is if the child was coached to say certain things and given specific information by someone else.

Quotidian wrote:Do you think that the researchers would not have considered that possibility?

Spiral Out wrote:I'm sure they considered it but how did they rule that potential out conclusively?

The same way as any scientific or legal investigater would. They discarded cases where they believed there was a possibility that children were being coached or that people were trying to dupe them. They asked a lot of questions and tried to ascertain if they thought the witnesses were reliable.

“The wish not to believe,” Stevenson once said, “can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.”