Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **August 27th, 2014, 6:15 pm**

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
I mean "experience" in the sentient subjective experience sense that Chalmers' uses.

Expound.

Posted: **August 27th, 2014, 6:41 pm**

Okisites said: Subatomic God and ReasonMadeFlesh, Please formulate your hypothesis according to phenomena mentioned in the OP, if you agree that the phenomena was real and cannot be neglected.

Subatomic God replied: As I said before, our understanding of reincarnation is above the original understanding of reincarnation, therefore it would be best to work with our consensus rather than one that still remains a mystery and within ambiguity.

SG & RMF, Okisites is justified in complaining about your replies because your conception of reincarnation is much more ambiguous and speculative than the one he described in his OP. He placed his thread here in the Science forum because he is soliciting response to actual research studies that suggest reincarnation may occur whereas you two are engaging in vague speculation on the general theory of reincarnation - such speculation belongs in the Metaphysics forum, not here.

As an example, in his post #56, ReasonMadeFlesh concluded: "I mean there will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist, and everyone of them is YOU and YOU experience them one body at a time, and don't remember the gaps in your awareness nor register memories through other peoples bodies."

Your conclusion is completely contrary to that of the studies quoted in the OP in that these studies document cases of people who did recollect precise "past life" events that were shown to be historically accurate.

Posted: **August 27th, 2014, 6:56 pm**

Felix wrote:
SG & RMF, Okisites is justified in complaining about your replies because your conception of reincarnation is much more ambiguous and speculative than the one he described in his OP. He placed his thread here in the Science forum because he is soliciting response to actual research studies that suggest reincarnation may occur whereas you two are engaging in vague speculation on the general theory of reincarnation - such speculation belongs in the Metaphysics forum, not here.

As an example, in his post #56, ReasonMadeFlesh concluded: "I mean there will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist, and everyone of them is YOU and YOU experience them one body at a time, and don't remember the gaps in your awareness nor register memories through other peoples bodies."

Your conclusion is completely contrary to that of the studies quoted in the OP in that these studies document cases of people who did recollect precise "past life" events that were shown to be historically accurate.

Incorrect. Ours is on a scientific level, while his is on a speculative level.

Posted: **August 27th, 2014, 7:13 pm**

Subatomic God said: Ours (our theory) is on a scientific level.

o.k., then reference the scientific research studies that support it, as Okisites has done with his position.

Posted: **August 27th, 2014, 7:21 pm**

Felix wrote:
o.k., then reference the scientific research studies that support it, as Okisites has done with his position.

You call them scientific? It's based on hoaxes and fabrications.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 9:07 am**

Felix wrote: As an example, in his post #56, ReasonMadeFlesh concluded: "I mean there will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist, and everyone of them is YOU and YOU experience them one body at a time, and don't remember the gaps in your awareness nor register memories through other peoples bodies."

Your conclusion is completely contrary to that of the studies quoted in the OP in that these studies document cases of people who did recollect precise "past life" events that were shown to be historically accurate.

I agree - which is precisely why I'm calling BS on it.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 1:21 pm**

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: I agree - which is precisely why I'm calling BS on it.

As am I. It's not contrary to "evidence"; it's contrary to "nonsense".

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 2:11 pm**

Subatomic God wrote: As I said before, our understanding of reincarnation is above the original understanding of reincarnation.

First it is not a mere understanding (i.e. idea, theory), it is also a real phenomena. Yours understandings are only understandings without any connection to any real phenomena. You seems to think that mere understanding or theorizing or ideas can be counted as scientific, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED that mere theories cannot be scientific. Mere thought, idea, understanding is mere philosophy.

So for being Scientific, You need to add your theory with observable phenomena, then only it can be counted as Scientific. Without a real life phenomena attached to your theory or understanding, it is simply a philosophy which is worthless as per scientific understanding.

So you are doing philosophy, and I want people to be scientific, which your idea of Reincarnation is certainly not because it is not backed by any phenomena, nor it explains the phenomena given in OP. BECAUSE I want you to be scientific, AND I think you cannot be scientific by yourself because of your overly philosophical nature, therefore I think, I need help to you. THEREFORE I will say, that you need to only “reason” (not explain) the following hypothetical example of Reincarnation on the basis of what actually happens in real phenomena.

So here is the example you need to reason only:-

Suppose there is a white muslim boy of only 5 years old talking about the memories of past life in some absolutely different country(say Africa), race(say black people), religion(say Christian) and also knows the language of previous life, recognized a tow/city and family members perfectly, have some special talent of previous life(say writing poems), looks the same as the diseased previous life personality, have marks of previous life wounds or accidents, but also forgot something which is not very important. And Muslim parents accepting that he had a previous life, and reincarnation as their son, and all of it is found to be correct by Credible Psychologists, HOD’s, Scientists working in this area.

So this boys show these traits:- • Claiming he had previous life in different country, religion, race. • Can speak in the language of previous life, even when he is not exposed to it. • His looks are same as of previous life person. • He has birth marks at the same place where the previous life diseased person had wounded. • He told the name of himself in previous life and the names of member of his family including neighbourers, friends etc. as according to investigation conducted • He also had previous life talents, in this case poems, and scientists found that his writing style is similar to the personality of previous life. • Muslim parents as well as Christian parents believed that this little boy is the one reincarnated, even no one’s beliefs permit them to believe in reincarnation.

So this is the case in front of you Subatomic God, to say, WHAT IS THE REASON OF THIS PHENOMENA, where 5 year old boy have same looks, talents, birthmarks, memories, and language(known) and claiming to have previous life with different religion, race, parents, country, which are found to be perfectly correct by investigators/psychologists. WHAT WILL YOU REASON FOR THIS, Subatomic God? This is the question. Please give some time comprehending it, and understand it with open mindedness, and then answer.

You had two options, first you should claim that Scientists/Psychologists/HOD’s are lying and deliberately making up stories to prove their point, OR you need to have some alternative theory to explain these phenomena, other than reincarnation.

And you must choose one of these options. If you believe that scientists/Psychologist/HOD’s are lying, then you should considerably prove that, as well as all the people claiming to be reincarnated, along with the traits they are showing which are listed above. I don’t think you are able to do this. And if you think scientists are not lying, then you must explain the phenomena with other theory that will replace the reincarnation theory, quite considerably. As it is not logically sound to reject both of them i.e. saying scientists/psychologist to be right and denying to give alternative theory of this phenomena, and rejecting reincarnation thereby. Failing to pick up any of the option will only prove you yourself BS. It will not be logical to reject both the options. I hope you’ll understand this conundrum.

This is the way how scientific ideas are indulged, not by claiming outright that something is BS. There had been many people in past that claimed something to be BS, but then recognize the fact of the absurd claim, and I don’t think you would like to place yourself with those big masses of people. You know, it is very easy, to say anything, just anything, to be BS. If you are of so much scientific way of thinking then try something harder, not just any easy BS claims.

@ ReasonMadeFlesh the above reply is also for you, and you can indulge it with thorough reasoning, instead of claiming something to be BS. You are calling psychologist, the actual field workers and investigators, to be BS, when you yourself had not thought about it properly and honestly.

Logic_ill wrote:
I don´t think reincarnation is scientifically proven but I get the feeling that it may be real. I have no idea how it works, even though I have read and listened to what believers say about it. For all I know, we may not all reincarnate. It shouldn´t matter too much because it wouldn´t make much of a difference if we don´t remember and cannot prove it. The important thing is that we be ourselves in our current life. I take it into account only because my behavior is important to me. I try to do my best because, first of all, it makes sense to me, and second, because I am not too crazy about human experience and would not like to have to repeat it. Suicide is another reason why I take reincarnation into account. The idea has crossed my mind in the past but just to think that I might come back and in worse conditions than what I was in, makes me go with the flow.

There may be exceptions to why a person might commit suicide that I would consider. However, my life has been pretty easy up to now. I think I´m fortunate, so I wouldn't risk it.

How the idea/fact can be considered to be scientifically proven, in your opinion?

How you feeling it to be real? Does anybody inside telling you this to be real?

If I will say that the belief or reality of reincarnation can really makes a difference, because it can develop huge moralizing effect on every human that may force them to be moral towards every human being and society. Would you then consider it to be really making a difference?

The idea had crossed your mind in the past but just to think that you might come back and in worse condition, THAT IS THE MORALIZING POINT that you will not leave any place on earth to be undesirably worse to be in. And you’ll try to remove every possibility to be in worse situation and thereby correcting and removing every worse condition on earth, you don’t like to be in. This is the idea of Reincarnation leads to, which is highly moralizing. This is how idea of reincarnation makes a difference, that you should properly understand.

Thank You, Okisites.

-- Updated 29 Aug 2014, 00:51 to add the following --

Subatomic God wrote:
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: I agree - which is precisely why I'm calling BS on it.

As am I. It's not contrary to "evidence"; it's contrary to "nonsense".

Understand the difference between evidence and nonsense.

You are calling me nonsense.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 2:26 pm**

Okisites wrote:
First it is not a mere understanding (i.e. idea, theory), it is also a real phenomena. Yours understandings are only understandings without any connection to any real phenomena. You seems to think that mere understanding or theorizing or ideas can be counted as scientific, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED that mere theories cannot be scientific. Mere thought, idea, understanding is mere philosophy.

The "scientists" in your "sources" are not real "scientists". They call themselves that because they wear lab coats... If they were real, they would be world renowned like other scientists, not on TV and commercialized in the same way s every other hoax with cheap cameras and vague insinuations which is always a recipe for deceit.

So you are doing philosophy, and I want people to be scientific, which your idea of Reincarnation is certainly not because it is not backed by any phenomena, nor it explains the phenomena given in OP. BECAUSE I want you to be scientific, AND I think you cannot be scientific by yourself because of your overly philosophical nature, therefore I think, I need help to you. THEREFORE I will say, that you need to only “reason” (not explain) the following hypothetical example of Reincarnation on the basis of what actually happens in real phenomena.

Philosophy is the father of science - real science, not make-believe science that's built upon lies and deceit which are again, treated as every other hoax in human history.

So here is the example you need to reason only:-

Understand the difference between evidence and nonsense.

You are calling me nonsense.

Of course, hence why you believe the make-believe stories, as you do. The stories aren't true - they are made up; humans lie and make up stories, hence rumors at school. It's what people do when they cannot actually reason; they make a living out of their dark matter.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 2:37 pm**

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.

They'll blame the genes.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 3:13 pm**

Subatomic God wrote:
Okisites wrote:
First it is not a mere understanding (i.e. idea, theory), it is also a real phenomena. Yours understandings are only understandings without any connection to any real phenomena. You seems to think that mere understanding or theorizing or ideas can be counted as scientific, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED that mere theories cannot be scientific. Mere thought, idea, understanding is mere philosophy.
The "scientists" in your "sources" are not real "scientists". They call themselves that because they wear lab coats... If they were real, they would be world renowned like other scientists, not on TV and commercialized in the same way s every other hoax with cheap cameras and vague insinuations which is always a recipe for deceit.

Your are actually crossing the limit of what can be said to be scientific. As I told you that Science is a theory with Phenomena, not just a theory, and that you cannot deny because you cannot present any scientific theory that is not back by phenomena naturally happening and/or made to happen by understanding of nature (i.e inventions). So science always have phenomena to back up the theory. So the people I am calling scientist had fulfilled the conditions to consider their work as scientific. Otherwise you need to tell what actually is Science, and also prove.

Your idea that your theory alone with natural phenomena can be counted as scientific is absurd.

Subatomic God wrote:
Okisites wrote:So you are doing philosophy, and I want people to be scientific, which your idea of Reincarnation is certainly not because it is not backed by any phenomena, nor it explains the phenomena given in OP. BECAUSE I want you to be scientific, AND I think you cannot be scientific by yourself because of your overly philosophical nature, therefore I think, I need help to you. THEREFORE I will say, that you need to only “reason” (not explain) the following hypothetical example of Reincarnation on the basis of what actually happens in real phenomena.
Philosophy is the father of science - real science, not make-believe science that's built upon lies and deceit which are again, treated as every other hoax in human history.

Fathers are generally not greater than son/daughter in mindfulness. You can generally kick the ass of father but lick the same of the son/daughter. This is generally a common phenomena and this is why human is evolving, not devolving, because son is evolved more than father.

No doubt, philosophy is father of science but Philosophy is stupid father, while science is a smart intelligent son, because it had more to back it up, and shut the mouth of others, while the Father philosophy is nothing to back it up and can anytime be rejected and ridiculed by simple will.

Subatomic God wrote:
Okisites wrote:
Understand the difference between evidence and nonsense.

You are calling me nonsense.

Of course, hence why you believe the make-believe stories, as you do. The stories aren't true - they are made up; humans lie and make up stories, hence rumors at school. It's what people do when they cannot actually reason; they make a living out of their dark matter.

I don't. You made believe stories. I have very credible sources, that you don't have in explanatory form. I first based it on reasearch of Scientists/Psychologists/HOD's, and secondly it is based on Phenomena, none of which you have. Therefore you are philosophizing i.e. make-believe stories, with no grounds. You cannot REASON and just making a story that children of 2-7 years old are lying, and so many scientists are lying, and the bodily existing phenomena and resemblance is lying, and Christians and Muslims who don't believe in Reincarnations are lying. You are making stories just like anybody.

First let me tell you, that I had told you that you cannot reject both of the two options given to you, because it is not logically sound to reject both. You had chosen one option i.e. Scientists are lying, now you need to prove it considerably. Otherwise you are only proving yourself not just nonsense, but BS.

Just like you claimed that these scientist are not scientist, I can also claim that those scientists are not real scientists who do not agree with possibility of it, but jokers or simple say animals just like dogs, donkeys, pigs or any animal you can think of, who cannot believe unless they have shown something with eyes. This is just an animal trait to believe only when seen, just like any animal you can think, and unable to believe on the basis of possibility or plausibility on the basis of theory+phenomena occurrence. I not just claim it, but I can prove it that the Scientist that you consider to be real scientists are actually simple animals, who cannot believe unless they see it.

So let me tell you please read my previous reply again, and reply it properly with full of your mind working, because I certainly know, that if your mind is in working condition you must find something good reasoning over there, otherwise I need to prove the contrary.

Thank You, Okisites. I am turning my PC off now.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 3:20 pm**

Okisites wrote: I have very credible sources,

No, you do not.

End of your story.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 4:45 pm**

Okisites wrote:So here is the example you need to reason only:-

Suppose there is a white muslim boy of only 5 years old talking about the memories of past life in some absolutely different country(say Africa), race(say black people), religion(say Christian) and also knows the language of previous life, recognized a tow/city and family members perfectly, have some special talent of previous life(say writing poems), looks the same as the diseased previous life personality, have marks of previous life wounds or accidents, but also forgot something which is not very important. And Muslim parents accepting that he had a previous life, and reincarnation as their son, and all of it is found to be correct by Credible Psychologists, HOD’s, Scientists working in this area.

So this boys show these traits:- • Claiming he had previous life in different country, religion, race. • Can speak in the language of previous life, even when he is not exposed to it. • His looks are same as of previous life person. • He has birth marks at the same place where the previous life diseased person had wounded. • He told the name of himself in previous life and the names of member of his family including neighbourers, friends etc. as according to investigation conducted • He also had previous life talents, in this case poems, and scientists found that his writing style is similar to the personality of previous life. • Muslim parents as well as Christian parents believed that this little boy is the one reincarnated, even no one’s beliefs permit them to believe in reincarnation.

In order for anyone to adequately respond to your example it will be necessary for you to provide more specific information, such as the source of the story, and the names of those involved. Otherwise we have no means of addressing the veracity of the claims, and your example is of no value.

So if you would be so kind as to provide additional information, it would be much appreciated.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 6:07 pm**

Most of the reports that Okisites quoted came from Dr. Ian Stevenson, who has been studying past life phenomena for over 40 years. Here is a book he wrote with psychologist Jim Tucker: http://www.amazon.cm/Life-Before-Childr ... 31237674X/

If you two, Subatomic God and ReasonMade Flesh, think his research is not credible, than give us more reliable evidence that supports your speculative theories about reincarnation.

Posted: **August 28th, 2014, 6:12 pm**

Felix wrote:Most of the reports that Okisites quoted came from Dr. Ian Stevenson, who has been studying past life phenomena for over 40 years. Here is a book he wrote with psychologist Jim Tucker: http://www.amazon.cm/Life-Before-Childr ... 31237674X/

If you two, Subatomic God and ReasonMade Flesh, think his research is not credible, than give us more reliable evidence that supports your speculative theories about reincarnation.

You can't study something that has no scientific background or foreground - people study mystical creatures for more than 40 years; years do not validate yet to be proven claim, it actually ruins it.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?

Re: Reincarnation is now scientifically proved?