I hope we're wrong about reincarnation

[Craig Weiler]

Craig, you said that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed. You are a dear old chap and quite well respected in the parapsychology community and popular on this forum and my intention is not to argue but I am slightly different than other members on here who will just believe anything without evidence.

If you want to make a claim I want to see scientific evidence. What empirical evidence is there consciousness cannot be created or destroyed? Please show me a single scientific peer reviewed paper by a physicist that says this. If it was true I would be very much on board but it isn't. In fact if we Google the term "consciousness cannot be created or destroyed" only new age/paranormal websites come up which tells us something. It is a grosse misunderstanding of conservation of energy. I am not expecting to have a huge debate with physics with you but can you point me in the direction in why you are making that claim? Where have you heard or taken it from? Your response was well received meaning other members of this forum believe what you wrote, so as above to anyone else please list scientific evidence for consciousness not being created or destroyed. Please do not dodge this point, I want to see this evidence.

Hi CallofDuty,
I'll go into more detail and see if we can get on the same page here. No, you won't find any evidence that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed. Neither will you find any evidence disproving this or supporting any other assumption because consciousness (i.e. emotions, ideas, concepts, experience, information) cannot be measured or observed directly. We can observe the brain performing functions, for example, but no one has any idea how you get from there to having experiences or ideas. (See the hard problem of consciousness) If you cannot measure or directly observe something, then you have no proof that it exists. (If you think that you can observe consciousness, try writing down what love is without resorting to either physiological processes or referring to different emotions.)

So no one really has the upper hand in saying what consciousness is and is not. All we can do is start with assumptions and work from there. Materialists assume that consciousness is an emerging property of the brain. Others, including myself, think that evidence is better explained by viewing consciousness as a fundamental property of physics. Either way, everyone is beginning with assumptions.

That's why the proof I dealt with above was terribly inadequate. It began with an unchallenged, unquestioned assumption.

But it ain't necessarily so.

 

[brooke]

We can observe the brain performing functions, for example, but no one has any idea how you get from there to having experiences or ideas.

So no one really has the upper hand in saying what consciousness is and is not. All we can do is start with assumptions and work from there.

Either way, everyone is beginning with assumptions.

In other words, you don't know much, just like the rest of us. Bravo! Never thought I'd read something like that from you, but life is about surprises. I agree that you know very little about what's really going on...just like everybody else on this forum and on this planet. We should all remind ourselves of this rather obvious fact, particularly on those occasions when we decide, for whatever reason, to play the role of "expert" in exchanges with others, telling them what is "really" happening. Here, I applaud your willingness to assert your almost complete uncertainty about what's going on with consciousness. I agree completely! Cheers!

 

[Craig Weiler]

In other words, you don't know much, just like the rest of us. Bravo! Never thought I'd read something like that from you, but life is about surprises. I agree that you know very little about what's really going on...just like everybody else on this forum and on this planet. We should all remind ourselves of this rather obvious fact, particularly on those occasions when we decide, for whatever reason, to play the role of "expert" in exchanges with others, telling them what is "really" happening. Here, I applaud your willingness to assert your almost complete uncertainty about what's going on with consciousness. I agree completely! Cheers!

The better educated someone is on a subject, the better they are at recognizing what they don't know.

 

[Boo boo]

It's good to keep an open mind.

 

[Haruhi]

r

All his cases have been shot down, if you check out the skeptical literature. Sarah Thomason, a linguist from the University of Michigan has evaluated three of Stevenson's main cases and found a naturalistic explanation for every case. You can find her paper here:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thomason/papers/xenogl.pdf

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

I do not agree. The most compelling Stevenson type cases have never been refuted and suggest that reincarnation happens and some people can remember their past lives.

Furthermore, no a priori argument against reincarnation can be persuasive, as they all have assumptions could be false. Only by examining the cases we can find out what happened and not developing arguments.

Memories of past lives are not evidence for reincarnation. It should actually point you in the opposite direction.

Memories of past lives are evidence of reincarnation, because if I remember being a deceased person, so my memory is evidence that I have reincarnated in my current body. But it is true that memories of past lifes are not definitive proof of reincarnation, because there is no necessary connection between the self and its memories, is only the most plausible connection.

 

[CallofDuty]

The most compelling Stevenson type cases have never been refuted and suggest that reincarnation happens and some people can remember their past lives.

We see this sort of thing all the time and time on the internet in debates - people claiming there is evidence for an afterlife, apparitions, spirits, mediums or reincarnation etc. But no specific evidence given and then completely silent when someone asks about the evidence. Like I said to the other user on here, please cite specific cases. If you make a claim you need to back it up. For example Craig Weiler claimed consciousness cannot be created or destroyed, I called him out on this and he has since admitted "you won't find any evidence that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed". He then goes onto say there is no evidence disproving or supporting the claim, so why did he make the claim in the first place?

If there is no evidence for a claim then what is the point in making such a claim? But back to your example. You claim Stevenson type cases have never been refuted. What is your evidence for this bold claim? I already have evidence against this, which you would have to accept at a minimum now. See Thomason's paper:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thomason/papers/xenogl.pdf

Which refutes three of Stevenson's main cases including the Gretchen case which was regurgitated in loads of paranormal books as evidence for reincarnation. So as above which Stevenson cases are you claiming have not been refuted? I could refute everyone that has been cited in the skeptical literature by quoting the skeptical literature. But it is ok if you want to be silent on this, I am not forcing you to debate this with me. I will only respond from now on if specific cases are mentioned. I am interested in evidence not empty claims. I used to work in a casino so I am used to people making claims that they could not back up, lol.

 

[Super Sexy]

I'd agree that past life memories, even if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, should not be taken as definitive evidence of reincarnation.

But could you elaborate on why you think that said memories would be evidence of the opposite conclusion?

Oh, I just mean that it might lead one to speculation that dismantles the whole idea of a (reincarnated) self to begin with (the opposite direction).
I'm just curious as to what exactly is reincarnated. If someone tells me "you will be reincarnated," what do they mean by the word "you"? That seems to be the most important question to ask before one asks about the question of reincarnation.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Oh, I just mean that it might lead one to speculation that dismantles the whole idea of a (reincarnated) self to begin with (the opposite direction).
I'm just curious as to what exactly is reincarnated. If someone tells me "you will be reincarnated," what do they mean by the word "you"? That seems to be the most important question to ask before one asks about the question of reincarnation.

Hey! Horse! did you not see that golden pun I laid out earlier in the thread? I trot you would love it :(

 

[Super Sexy]

Hey! Horse! did you not see that golden pun I laid out earlier in the thread? I trot you would love it :(

I actually laughed out loud when I first read it (if that makes you feel any better). I just wasn't signed in at the moment, then I forgot to go back and give it the deserved like.

 

[Szechuan]

. So as above which Stevenson cases are you claiming have not been refuted? I could refute everyone that has been cited in the skeptical literature by quoting the skeptical literature.

How impressive. About as impressive as a YECer pointing at creationist literature as evidence that the Earth is only circa 6000 years old. The mere presence of an existing opinion in a pseudoskeptical rag is not evidence in and of itself that anything has been refuted. It is merely evidence of a dissenting opinion based on their own assumptions and biases.

For the record, I have no horse in this race. I don't think about reincarnation at all, and when I do, it's not an idea that appeals to me.

Also, if someone chooses to remain silent to your claims about what 'skeptics' have 'proven', that is not evidence that the person cannot reply or is silently seething in their humiliation from your debating prowess. No. Generally speaking, when confonted with a fundamentalist of any stripe, the wiser course is to let them carry on. Fundamentalists are not usually amenable to reasoned discussion. I've read a few of your posts and been singularly unimpressed by your obvious bias which precludes one from holding a fruitful discussion with you.

 

[CallofDuty]

How impressive. About as impressive as a YECer pointing at creationist literature as evidence that the Earth is only circa 6000 years old. The mere presence of an existing opinion in a pseudoskeptical rag is not evidence in and of itself that anything has been refuted. It is merely evidence of a dissenting opinion based on their own assumptions and biases.

Mate, with all due respect you are just 'baiting' or trolling for an argument. Nothing you have said is about the Ian Stevenson cases.



User Haruhi made a very bold claim:

The most compelling Stevenson type cases have never been refuted and suggest that reincarnation happens and some people can remember their past lives.

I have already demonstrated why this is false, see the Thomason paper above which debunked three of those cases, this was not only opinion but based on evidence. And please explain why Thomason's papers are "pseudoskeptical rags” Have you read them, no. Have you read Ian Wilson's books or any of the skeptical literature on this subject? No. And once again it is not just a 'pseudoskeptic' sitting in a room going this is false, Wilson discovered actual fraud in some of the Stevenson cases, did his own interviews with witnesses etc. That's not opinion. And thomason is a professional linguist who has spent hours and hours evaluating three of Stevenson's main cases and found a naturalistic explanation for each case, the same as professor Robert Baker. This can not be tossed aside with ad-hominem attacks.

Also, if someone chooses to remain silent to your claims about what 'skeptics' have 'proven',

The skeptics don't go about proving anything. It is up to the paranormal proponents such as yourself to 'prove' your claims. But you never do. The burden of proof is on the claimant never ever the skeptic. The user above has claimed Stevenson's claims have never been refuted and he has been called out on this because he was wrong.

I've read a few of your posts and been singularly unimpressed by your obvious bias which precludes one from holding a fruitful discussion with you.

Sorry to burst your bubble pal, but nobody is immune from cognitive biases. There is a good book on the market which explains this "How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life", everyone has biases. And judging by a lot of the pseudoscience you have posted on this forum, you are no exception.


If this thread wants to move forward then I suggest to mention a specific Stevenson case. I have been researching his cases in the literature for nearly twenty years so I am well read in this area. I look forward to Haruhi's response if he chooses to if not I will not further post here and no - I am not interested in your ad-hominem attacks Szechuan. But fire away if you must. Regards.

 

[brooke]

The better educated someone is on a subject, the better they are at recognizing what they don't know.

Since none of us know much of anything, I'll take that with a grain of salt!

 

[MysticG]

Mate, with all due respect you are just 'baiting' or trolling for an argument. Nothing you have said is about the Ian Stevenson cases.

Just wanted to second Szechuan's post. We get skeptic missionaries here all the time telling us all how stupid and credulous we are. Someone like you shows up about once every couple of months to boost their ego by spewing skeptic dogma all over the forum.

Like the ones before you, you fail to recognize that you are part of a belief system that calls itself 'skepticism'. Like anyone who has been duped into fundamentalism, you don't see that it is a belief system, but simply see it as "The Truth". I already know that there is nothing that I or anyone else here can say to change your mind.

Many posters here are former skeptics who were able to see through that belief system and break out of it. We know the 'skeptical literature' as well as you do. I used to read the skeptic forums and even subscribed to the magazines. But now it just seems so... small and limiting. If you want to know how we think of skeptics, consider how you think of fundamentalist Christians.

So if you wonder why most posters are ignoring you, it's because you aren't saying anything new - you are just reciting your tired, old creed and posting links to the writings of your high priests (like Carroll - are you equally skeptical of Carroll, or do you just accept what he says as truth because he is a 'skeptic' ?). There are posters here who would be happy to discuss the Stevenson cases with an interested party - someone who sincerely wants to investigate with an open mind - but who in their right mind would waste their time arguing with a debunker?

Anyway, best of luck to you, mate - Let me know when you've got something interesting to say and I'll take you off of my ignore list. But there is just no point in talking to someone who already has all the answers. Maybe in a few years you'll discover that things aren't as black and white as you think.

 

[Boo boo]

Agreed. Some "skeptics" are interested in the "truth", because they believe that it fits their worldview.

 

[Szechuan]

Yada, yada, yada. Welcome to ignore.

 

[Craig Weiler]

We see this sort of thing all the time and time on the internet in debates - people claiming there is evidence for an afterlife, apparitions, spirits, mediums or reincarnation etc. But no specific evidence given and then completely silent when someone asks about the evidence. Like I said to the other user on here, please cite specific cases. If you make a claim you need to back it up. For example Craig Weiler claimed consciousness cannot be created or destroyed, I called him out on this and he has since admitted "you won't find any evidence that consciousness cannot be created or destroyed". He then goes onto say there is no evidence disproving or supporting the claim, so why did he make the claim in the first place?

If there is no evidence for a claim then what is the point in making such a claim? But back to your example. You claim Stevenson type cases have never been refuted. What is your evidence for this bold claim? I already have evidence against this, which you would have to accept at a minimum now. See Thomason's paper:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thomason/papers/xenogl.pdf

Which refutes three of Stevenson's main cases including the Gretchen case which was regurgitated in loads of paranormal books as evidence for reincarnation. So as above which Stevenson cases are you claiming have not been refuted? I could refute everyone that has been cited in the skeptical literature by quoting the skeptical literature. But it is ok if you want to be silent on this, I am not forcing you to debate this with me. I will only respond from now on if specific cases are mentioned. I am interested in evidence not empty claims. I used to work in a casino so I am used to people making claims that they could not back up, lol.

Please do not misinterpret what I say, as you have done here. I was very clear in my meaning and I do not appreciate having things twisted. From the beginning I was making points about assumptions. I never claimed anything else. You cannot simply come on this board and pull this kind of crap and get any respect. You have to pay more attention.

 

[Craig Weiler]

The skeptics don't go about proving anything. It is up to the paranormal proponents such as yourself to 'prove' your claims. But you never do. The burden of proof is on the claimant never ever the skeptic.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. If you claim that something has been debunked, it is up to you to prove that. If you say that psi has never been proven to exist despite a great deal of scientific evidence to the contrary, you have to prove that. As long as you make claims, you are bound to back them up. There is no free lunch for skeptics.

And incidentally, when you find that someone has debunked something, you're not done with your research. You have to also show that the inevitable rebuttal to the debunking is wrong. All of these controversies have a great deal of back and forth and it's sloppy research to ignore that.

 

[Craig Weiler]

Since none of us know much of anything, I'll take that with a grain of salt!

This is a common New Age trope. It's interesting to see a skeptic use it as well. It's the idea that because there is a mystery, everyone is on equal footing and all opinions are equally valuable. I have never found this to be true. I value the opinions of people who have not only studied subjects deeply themselves, but are also willing to build upon the knowledge of others and reference them.

You might be interested to know that a lot of my credibility arises from being willing to show the limits of my knowledge.

 

[CallofDuty]

Just wanted to second Szechuan's post. We get skeptic missionaries here all the time telling us all how stupid and credulous we are.

Not true, I have checked last night quite a way back on this forum and what kind of threads there are. There are hardly any skeptics on this forum. Steve001 and Paul C. Anagnostopoulos are the only ones I could find who are members on the JREF and they have been on here a long time. And possibly Kai (he seems skeptical of psi) but he has some odd philosophical views. Can't find any other recent skeptics. And definitely none claiming you are stupid. So your statement is false, do you want to retract it?

Many posters here are former skeptics who were able to see through that belief system and break out of it. We know the 'skeptical literature' as well as you do.

I doubt this is true either. The skeptical literature on this forum is rarely mentioned - if you believe it is give me a solid example. Check the threads if you do not believe me going back 6 months or more. Look at your own posts, you rarely name drop any skeptics or their writings. There was one thread on Martin Gardner but that was it. Skeptics like Chris French, Terence Hines, Susan Blackmore, David Marks, Robert L. Park or Victor Stenger are all ignored. The only post on Stenger was after he had died and users were claiming they were glad he was dead. Pretty harsh but no discussion of his writings and all his objections to psi. I could go on. I mentioned this in the other thread:

It is a recent skeptical paper on precognition. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full
No mention of it though on this forum apart from me. It's a well known fact paranormal believers ignore evidence against their beliefs.

So if you wonder why most posters are ignoring you, it's because you aren't saying anything new - you are just reciting your tired, old creed and posting links to the writings of your high priests (like Carroll - are you equally skeptical of Carroll, or do you just accept what he says as truth because he is a 'skeptic' ?).

I have a deep respect for Carroll, I have known him a long time but he is not the only skeptic I can quote. I have thousands of books in my personal library. I have two of Ian Wilson's books that debunked Ian Stevenson's cases. I am happy to quote from his book if anyone wants to debate the Stevenson cases.

Anyway, best of luck to you, mate - Let me know when you've got something interesting to say and I'll take you off of my ignore list. But there is just no point in talking to someone who already has all the answers. Maybe in a few years you'll discover that things aren't as black and white as you think.

I can quote scientific papers that have demonstrated paranormal believers ignore evidence against their beliefs (there was a recent study from 2014). When you ignore someone just for putting up evidence you do not want to read it just gives extra ammo to the skeptics. I am surprised someone else mentioned being 'open minded' because you guys clearly are not! So thanks. :)

 

[CallofDuty]

s

Please do not misinterpret what I say, as you have done here. I was very clear in my meaning and I do not appreciate having things twisted. From the beginning I was making points about assumptions. I never claimed anything else. You cannot simply come on this board and pull this kind of crap and get any respect. You have to pay more attention.

Let me bold this to make it stick.

What are you talking about Craig? This is what you posted:

Consciousness is fundamental to physics and can be neither created nor destroyed.

Where is your evidence for this extraordinary claim? You have none, yet it was you who made the claim.

You then twist this to make out I am pulling crap or misrepresenting you.

Lol. Just accept that you were wrong. I caught you out. You are making claims without backing them up with any evidence. It greatly annoys me because I experience it all the time from people and it is ignorant. But no harsh feelings. I do not want to further discuss this. I will not further engage on this thread as people do not actually want to discuss Stevenson's cases. They ignore the skeptical literature because the cases have been debunked and they are too scared to discuss it with me openly. I have asked many times but every time a proponent will not choose a specific Stevenson case. The place is just turning off topic into other things, so I am out. Thanks for the chat though.

Matt.