• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

Buddha said:
Such claim is easy to disprove if these phrases were said in a language that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is news to you, but there is no such thing as a catalog of all the languages that have ever existed here on planet Earth. Therefore, it is quite impossible to prove that a person is speaking "in a language that doesn't exist".
 
Buddha said:
I assumed that you believe me that Joe exists. If you don't we are back to square one -- as I said before, I cannot prove that I am a sane person, which means that I cannot prove that I was writing about real persons.
Click to expand...

Why exactly should we believe anything that a stranger posts under a pseudonym on the internet? You claim to have empirical evidence for reincarnation, you should provide such evidence not tell us just-so stories that you expect us to accept at face value.

Given that you've failed to provide your logical proof of god or your empirical evidence of reincarnation and you've misrepresented most of the posters who've attempted to address the flaws in your arguments (hell, you've even managed to completely misrepresent an automated message from the mod team ffs), give us one good reason why we should simply believe you when you post claimed violations of reality as it is currently understood?
 
Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anything recovered under hypnosis is suspect and total crap
 
Buddha said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, not that you bring it up...

Hypnotism does not exist, say the experts

The Amazing Kreskin ... began a stage career as a magician and hypnotist when he was 11. Now 59, he still treads the boards in the US, but insists: "Nobody on stage has ever been hypnotised in the history of the world."

So certain is he of this he has offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove that hypnosis exists.
Click to expand...
 
Buddha said:
I assume that past lives exist, after that I use this assumption to prove that they exist. But this is not how my past lives research started.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the phenomena you have researched (if genuine, a major assumption) is not in fact inherited race memory?

DNA has a MUCH higher information density than extant data storage technologies. It's more likely that the "past life" experiences being described are in fact ancestral memories encoded in the DNA or RNA of the individual.

As a matter of fact, inherited race memories are a MORE likely explanation than reincarnation, as we have evidence that life experiences can alter our DNA!

Frankly, your "research" into this topic has been half-assed at best.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Well, not that you bring it up...

Hypnotism does not exist, say the experts
Click to expand...

We should bring up that stage hypnosis is, by all accounts, completely separate from diagnostic or therapeutic hypnosis and is mostly a gimmick.

That said, the latter categories are also somewhat mischaracterized. The prevailing thinking when I studied this is that the hypnotic state is merely one of several related modes of consciousness. When we say that people "cannot be hypnotized," what we mean is that certain modes of consciousness underlying the phenomenon cannot be induced intentionally by any of the means commonly employed throughout history to do so. That's not to say you can't sort of work your way into any of them by individual or guided meditation, or by other means.
 
JayUtah said:
We should bring up that stage hypnosis is, by all accounts, completely separate from diagnostic or therapeutic hypnosis and is mostly a gimmick.

That said, the latter categories are also somewhat mischaracterized. The prevailing thinking when I studied this is that the hypnotic state is merely one of several related modes of consciousness. When we say that people "cannot be hypnotized," what we mean is that certain modes of consciousness underlying the phenomenon cannot be induced intentionally by any of the means commonly employed throughout history to do so. That's not to say you can't sort of work your way into any of them by individual or guided meditation, or by other means.
Click to expand...

I think the criticism I posted is relevant in part because a good deal of the "past life regression" that people undergo is more stage hypnotism than anything else.

Therapeutic hypnotism is a bit like achieving multiple orgasms. Just because you can't do it the way you've been trying doesn't mean you're physically incapable of it.
 
halleyscomet said:
I think the criticism I posted is relevant in part because a good deal of the "past life regression" that people undergo is more stage hypnotism than anything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly the sort of criticism I was leveling at Buddha's homemade process. He says he adapted it from Edward Conze's formulation of meditation, but it really comes down to Buddha just up and claiming he can wave his hands and make people remember their past lives, even if they don't want to.
 
Buddha, are you familiar with the story of Bridey Murphy? Probably the most famous case of "reincarnation" in the US. All over the news, tv etc. Turns out she was a "victim" of cryptomnesia. You have a memory of something in the past but do not recognize it as such and think about it as something new.
 
Buddha said:
The telekinesis part is based on the research done at the Princeton Univ, you can find the pertinent articles at their website.
Click to expand...

No, you can't. I assume you're talking about PEAR, which has already been discussed here at length. Princeton never liked that group and finally kicked them to the curb in 2007 and deleted all their publications from the princeton.edu domain, although maybe there are some random URLs still working.

Here are some relevant threads:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74510
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96084
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195767
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38958

In case it's not obvious, there are people at this forum who know much more about many of these topics than you do. If all you're going to do is regurgitate PEAR and insist that skeptics must take their work seriously because "it was done by scientists," then you had better be prepared to get very down and dirty with scientific methodology -- a topic you demonstrated in this thread you know very little about.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
Perhaps you may suggest which is the adequate thread to merge the redundant one "Buddha" is planning to start.
Click to expand...

Personally I think A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe? should be renamed "Buddha's (bad) Philosophy thread" and this thread merged into it. Any future "Drop and run" threads Buddha creates to briefly pretend to discuss one of his mini-manifestos should be merged into it. I see no reason for him to get to clutter the forum with abandoned arguments and critics he's fled.
 
halleyscomet said:
Personally I think A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe? should be renamed "Buddha's (bad) Philosophy thread" and this thread merged into it. Any future "Drop and run" threads Buddha creates to briefly pretend to discuss one of his mini-manifestos should be merged into it. I see no reason for him to get to clutter the forum with abandoned arguments and critics he's fled.
Click to expand...


The name couldn't contain a value judgement (though I totally share it). Maybe more in the style of "Merged: Icebear's thread to post things that he finds interesting"
 
aleCcowaN said:
The name couldn't contain a value judgement (though I totally share it). Maybe more in the style of "Merged: Icebear's thread to post things that he finds interesting"
Click to expand...

You're right. The title should remain impartial.

"Merged: Buddha's Philosophy Thread" sounds good to me. It covers the content without making a value judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom