Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

[JayUtah]

I am growing tired of listening about Popper and his failed philosophy...

I never brought up Popper in this thread. You keep bringing him up, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom. Please stop trying to change the subject. Instead, address what I do write, not what you wish I had written instead.

You said you had empirical proof of reincarnation. When that proof is shown to be in error, it is not rehabilitated by claiming you now don't believe in empiricism or that you disagree with some authors who wrote on related subjects. Your proof is either empirical or it is not. If it is, it is either empirically correct or it is not. For the reasons amply given, yours is not.

You were given the opportunity to tell us what you think empiricism means. You didn't respond directly to that question, but over the past couple of days you've tried to describe the process. It's clear from those snippets of description that you have no idea what an "empirical proof" really entails, yet you claim a Master's level education in a STEM field.

...so I will skip that portion of your post.

Since the reason you gave is a blatant straw man, I'm going to conclude instead that you are ignoring the parts of my post for which you have no good answer. Make any excuse you want; the criticism still stands and you are unwilling to address it. Therefore your proof fails forthwith.

An aggrandizement is also a form of mental illness...

No, it is not. It is rather the most common of all human motivations. You're thinking of megalomania, which is not the same thing as simple ego-reinforcement.

It would be simpler for you to say that I am mentally ill and drop out of discussion because, as I noted before, it makes no sense to argue with a crazy person.

I never said you were mentally ill, nor do I think you are. You asked why you would embellish stories. I answered that you embellish stories for the same reason everyone else who embellishes stories does so -- to make the stories (and by extension, themselves) look good. There's nothing crazy about that, but there's something very anti-empirical about it. That's what you're being criticized over.

I'm sure you would like it if I stopped pointing out what's wrong with your proof. Most fringe claimants eventually try to shame, threaten, or persuade their critics to stop responding so that they don't have responsibility to answer and can claim victory. I will not be run off so easily. I told you at the very outset that I would be merciless but fair. It's clear you are now simply ignoring the majority of what your critics write. You cannot endure fair criticism.

So I win. You are unable to answer my posts, and you're fabricating all sorts of excuses for why I shouldn't write them why you shouldn't read them. That's as clear an admission of defeat as any other. Of course I would have preferred a more honest concession. There's no shame in admitting your proof doesn't work. There's considerable shame in continuing to pretend long after it's obvious to everyone that you're wrong.

But I am completely immune to criticism; I don't know why...

Because you employ some fairly common psychological defense mechanisms to subjectively defuse it. It's part of the pattern of ego reinforcement.

 

[JayUtah]

You're judging me too harshly.

No, I am not. If my criticism were too harsh you could ask the moderators to intervene and sanction me for it. I think you simply can't stomach real criticism. You want a few light bumps that you can overcome easily, just so that you can say your proof endured criticism. But you don't want to face the reality not only that your proofs don't work, but that you really aren't as accomplished as you think you are.

I do not want the critics to lower their standards, I just simply do not have time to respond to all posts.

You're conflating two of my points.

The bit about lowered standards refers to your suggestion that your critics should approach your proof with an "open mind." It was further suggested that if they did so, they would accept it. My response was that your plea is a common formula in fringe argumentation that uses open-mindedness as a euphemism for lowering of the standards of proof. It invites the critics to be less rigorous in their analysis of the argument than they would otherwise be. It's one of a number of social-engineering methods I've noticed you using to try to prevail dishonestly in debate.

You obviously want me to lower my standards. You're flat-out telling me I'm being too harsh. You want me to go easier on you. I won't, so stop asking.

The bit about not having time to answer your critics is an old chestnut. It's the most common excuse given by fringe claimants for ignoring their critics once they realize they're in over their heads. We know it's just an excuse because we can see the difference in behavior between someone who's conscientious but simply overwhelmed, and someone who can't actually address the problems. The conscientious claimant prioritizes his answers to address the most vexing problems first, because that's the biggest bang for his buck. In contrast, you typically focus on minute quibbles that don't really advance the argument. You pick one or two irrelevant elements of the previous day's discussion and address only those, ignoring the most devastating rebuttals.

Many of us have been engaging in debate for years with fringe claimants. We're well attuned to their patterns. You're not being as inscrutable as you think.

Let's make a deal -- I accept that I am wrong if you explain how Joe was able to reproduce phrases in a Turkic language.

No, it's not up to your critics to propose and defend alternatives when they've already given their other reasons for why you're wrong. It was up to you as an empiricist to falsify all the other antecedents at the time, and you failed miserably to do that. No one's fault but yours, and no one's responsibility but yours. Don't shift the burden of proof.

I will be happy to review your materials and suggest ways in which it could have been made empirically valid. Please send me a complete, unedited video record of your interview with Joe showing both his face and yours, so that I can have just as much data as you had at your disposal.

Oh, right, you didn't collect that data. You can't provide me with the same level of information you had. So that makes your challenge to me pretty dishonest now, doesn't it?

Let's make a different deal. You accept that you're wrong because your critics have amply proven it, and you've essentially stopped paying attention to them. And we agree that you're honest and sincere.

But the language that Joe reproduced is completely useless, it might be as well a dead language, it is not even Turkish.

What language exactly was it, then? You seem to be revising your claim to suggest that what you heard might actually have been gibberish, and that you interpreted as a language that, in your judgment, resembled Turkish. I'm simply flabbergasted that you don't see how this cannot possibly be considered empirical evidence. You really have no clue how science works.

 

[JayUtah]

Natasha's mother told me that her daughter grew up at the Church of Scientology's kindergarten where nobody speaks Russian.

Did she spend all her time with that group -- and only that group? The major problem with the scientia obscura method of proving reincarnation (and you're not the only person to attempt it), is that it requires a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the subject's upbringing and exposure in order to eliminate all other possible sources for tidbits of historical knowledge. That's nearly impossible to achieve with empirical rigor. It becomes an argument from ignorance, which dooms the proof.

Theoretically speaking, she could have lied about that although I do not see why -- she could not have known in advance that she would meet a Russian-speaking person.

The first person she tried this on was someone who didn't speak Russian, and he bought it. And you bought that he bought it. You also bought that Natasha was coherently verbal at six months. That is notably implausible for ordinary human development, but it does happen to be possible according to the received wisdom of Buddhist-style reincarnation claims. That's an obvious bias in your evaluation of the story.

If we take for argument the hypothesis that Natasha's mother lied about Natasha being exposed to Russian, then the subject would seem to come up only in the company of a Russian-speaker. It's not as if the whole thing had to be cooked up years in advance as an elaborate scam. "Oh, you speak Russian? My daughter speaks Russian and we think it's from a former life because she had no way of learning it here." Right on the spot she can decide that she's going to conceal Natasha's real experience, as it becomes desirable to do so.

Really these straw men are becoming tedious. Do you understand that it's not a matter of coming up with increasingly improbably straw-man alternatives, but rather a matter of looking for reasonable ones?

She was not trying to promote her book either because the cult doesn't allow its stuff to write their own books. In order to do that she would have to quit her job.

Straw man. You propose to falsify the hypothesis that she had a motive to lie. The hypothesis you need to falsify is whether she lied. And actually that's not even true. The hypothesis you really need to falsify is whether there was another way Natasha obtained some comprehension of Russian. You're sort of warming up to the notion that you need to do that, but you haven't yet arrived at the prospect that you have no way empirically to do it.

 

[Buddha]

One of my opponents raised an interesting objection to the past lives recall procedure that i described at this thread, I did't have time to reply to it in the morning.
I wrote that this procedure won't work for the people who do not gave past lives, he responded by noting that a procedure that cannot be reproduced for all individuals is not valid.
There is the procedure that every hypnotist uses to put her subjects in trance. But, as the statistical data shows. only 1/3 of the population can be hypnotized (the procedure didn't work in my case, for instance) Does this mean that the procedure is not valid? I do not think so.
The past lives recall procedure that I presented here should work on every individual if the conditions are right. Let's say that it failed for someone. Then I predict that it will work in that person's next life because at that time he will have a past life.

 

[JayUtah]

I wrote that this procedure won't work for the people who do not gave past lives, he responded by noting that a procedure that cannot be reproduced for all individuals is not valid.

That was me, and that's still true. If you cannot distinguish failure of the method from a legitimate outcome of a successful method, it has no empirical validity.

There is the procedure that every hypnotist uses to put her subjects in trance.

No, you are not an expert in hypnosis. Not every practitioner uses the same method. Once again you're trying to pretend that whatever little thing you know or guess about something must be true, and here you're just repeating popular misconception. You don't seem to conceive of the notion that there are things other people know, but you don't.

I've asked you nicely to stop gaslighting your critics. It's becoming an irritant.

But, as the statistical data shows. only 1/3 of the population can be hypnotized (the procedure didn't work in my case, for instance) Does this mean that the procedure is not valid? I do not think so.

Not a correct analogy. Not everyone is a skilled hypnotist. Let's say you came to me and claimed to be an expert hypnotist. I provide a subject whom you know nothing about, and you fail to hypnotize her. Is that because she's one of the many people who can't be hypnotized? Or is it because you're a poor hypnotist? Or is it because hypnosis itself is bogus? What observation would you require to determine the real cause for your failure to hypnotize?

Would you control for the susceptibility of the subject, and insist that I provide a subject known to be susceptible to hypnosis? Would you control for variations in your ability and insist that we try it on ten subjects and apply statistics?

Hypnosis can be empirically valid if properly controlled. Your method derived from Conze could also be empirically valid if you applied appropriate controls. You did not, and even assert that none are required. The absence of control makes your method empirically invalid. Further, there is evidence confirming that the hypnotic effect is an actual neurological phenomenon, and evidence discriminating what makes someone suggestible. Thus while it is possible for a subject or practitioner to misstate an outcome, there exists empiricism that can distinguish between claimed causes. Your method has none of that. You simply claim it works on no basis other than your belief, and you have only speculative explanations for why it doesn't produce a predictable outcome in other cases.

The past lives recall procedure that I presented here should work on every individual if the conditions are right.

No, you told us before it wouldn't work on everyone. Now you're changing your story. Describe what you did to ensure that the conditions were right in your trials.

 

[Crossbow]

One of my opponents raised an interesting objection to the past lives recall procedure that i described at this thread, I did't have time to reply to it in the morning.
I wrote that this procedure won't work for the people who do not gave past lives, he responded by noting that a procedure that cannot be reproduced for all individuals is not valid.
There is the procedure that every hypnotist uses to put her subjects in trance. But, as the statistical data shows. only 1/3 of the population can be hypnotized (the procedure didn't work in my case, for instance) Does this mean that the procedure is not valid? I do not think so.
The past lives recall procedure that I presented here should work on every individual if the conditions are right. Let's say that it failed for someone. Then I predict that it will work in that person's next life because at that time he will have a past life.

Note: the emphasis is mine.

My oh my! That sure is a clever cop out.

Because its use serves to support the idea that reincarnation is real thing while at the same time showing that evidence of reincarnation cannot always be provided.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Without pain and without glory, this thread has reached the end of its natural life. It'll certainly experience several cycles or "reincarnation" as "Buddha" will continue to recycle and drop the same crap trying every time to have it with a different odour. And he'd be replied to endlessly, because it's funny.

That doesn't mean that, from an eschatologic point of view, this thread serves no purpose. It has a kumar quality and as such it shows an individual, "Buddha", who took a few steps towards analysing reincarnation and quickly felt it proved because it satisfied his epistemological hedonism. This "Buddha" can't go further, he's stuck defending the little he has poorly done and won't take any further step to search for real evidence of his beliefs (like most believers in anything do). Besides, for Narcissus, a mirror was enough.

There have been several interesting threads on reincarnation and memories of past lives in this forum. This is not one of them, and we have to thank "Buddha" for that.

 

[8Sime8]

How can memories verify reincarnation, given that memories are imagined events that are maintained and perpetuated within the present?

More generally: How do memories represent the past?

Compare a memory to a digitally rendered image.

How is a digital image which is said to represent something of the past, used differently to a digital image which is said to represent something present?

Does it make sense to speak of a single image by itself as representing something past?

Or does the concept of 'representing the past' involve the present comparison of two or more images?

 

[Loss Leader]

I accept that I am wrong if you explain how Joe was able to reproduce phrases in a Turkic language.

This is the same Joe who's dead now? The one who can't give us his own testimony or let us know you're lying or misremembering?

Provide contact information for the people you are talking about.

Let's say that it failed for someone. Then I predict that it will work in that person's next life because at that time he will have a past life.

A prediction that can never be tested. How fortunate for you that your predictions are unfalsifiable.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

A prediction that can never be tested. How fortunate for you that your predictions are unfalsifiable.

Gosh, I think my memory must be failing, remind me, what did Buddha say about unfalsifiable hypothesis in his last thread?

 

[Thor 2]

Gosh, I think my memory must be failing, remind me, what did Buddha say about unfalsifiable hypothesis in his last thread?

Someone, (Buddha?),must help us out here - I can't recall either.

Your inscription at the bottom of your post:

"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

Reminds me that Scorpion was something of an authority in the field of reincarnation. We could use this expertise here.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Reminds me that Scorpion was something of an authority in the field of reincarnation. We could use this expertise here.

Well, if "Authority on reincarnation" means "pulling made up stories out their...." , actually, never mind.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Buddha, please provide as many details as you can about your past life.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Buddha, please provide as many details as you can about your past life.

Don't you know the rights to privacy and to plead the fifth cover both present and past lives?

Besides "buddhA" is "immune to criticism". That means, he flies high above the mundane, higher than an eagle, like the Sputnik 1 perhaps, transmitting his monothematic ... barks just one-way so he can avoid coping with the intelligent criticism aimed at his.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Henrik was sitting in a Madrid café and reading a newspaper, it was 1948. “Can you copy a phrase from the newspaper?” I said. Henrik did better than that, he copied the whole paragraph. It was an article about crime statistics, I translated the copied paragraph for him, he had no idea what it meant.

How did Henrik know it was a "Madrid café"?

Do transcribe the paragraph here, or even better, take a snapshot of it and upload it here. I'm sure you kept a copy of it. I would never believe that you didn't save that piece of paper as evidence and you are just pretending to pass your verbal references to it as "evidence".

So far, nothing of what you're saying since you became a member holds water.

 

[Mojo]

How did Henrik know it was a "Madrid café"?

And why was he reading a newspaper in a language that he didn’t understand?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Supposedly, he wrote down what he was "viewing" letter by letter. As both Spanish and Swedish uses an almost identical alphabet that is potentially possible.

Also supposedly, "buddha" later read this paragraph and detected the language and the topic but, how did both know it was a Madrid café?

 

[Mojo]

Supposedly, he wrote down what he was "viewing" letter by letter.

But why didn’t he understand it? According to Buddha, people remember languages they spoke in a previous life.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm sure as "buddha" is "immune to criticism" (and as we already know from other users here, that is a handle for the good o'le "he doesn't know how to deal with criticism so he's forced to ignore what he can't manage while he tries to keep a proud and self-confident stance").

The "Madrid café" thingy is not easy to invent. Besides, "buddha" bought all the things he invented for himself doing it bit by bit. A complete, complex, right-away invention regarding the "Madrid café" damages the self-image he has built of and for himself, so he'll dismiss as quickly as he can all of this with his fantasies of superiority and being beyond criticism so he can continue to fly in the wonderful magic carpet he weaved from his farts.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But why didn’t he understand it? According to Buddha, people remember languages they spoke in a previous life.

Apparently it was described as if modern Henrik was looking at some sort of picture of what proto-Henrik was reading at the time. The image crossed the boundaries of time and life, so modern-Henrik could describe it as he was seeing it.


It's very interesting because there are typographic issues regarding Spanish papers in 1948 which are able to make Henrik confused about the exact letters he read. That's why the piece of paper is important, so there are three possibilities:


1) "Buddha" will provide an image of the piece of paper or a transcript of it
2) "Buddha" will say he's saving that for a future book he has the intention to write on this subject
3) "Buddha" will ignore all of this and will reply only to JayUtah's who continues to provide bit by bit morsels of keen criticism that "buddha" can easily turn into new fake replies (that is, to pedal the bike in order to avoid it to fall)


and as we all know, with "buddha", the correct choice is number 3