• 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.

Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

wogoga said:
Reincarnation (according to panpsychist evolution) does not exist across the boundaries of species. Demographic data strongly suggests that it is now quite improbable for a typical Japanese soul be born outside Japan. So we can exclude that a mosquito is reborn as something different from a mosquito. A soul represents a huge amount of information concerning species and individual characteristics.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Still four centuries ago heliocentrism seemed as ridiculous as reincarnation today
Click to expand...


Wolfgang, seriously...


 
Last edited:
The OP is a variation on currency devaluation, with souls as a metaphor. As noted above, 1,000,000,000 humans in mid 1800's, 6,000,000,000 now. Each soul now is 1/6th as valuable, using the soul gold standard. (It's a plot by the Fed and the Rothschilds.)

Conclusion: Life is cheap

Under this idea, life is not just "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" per Hobbes' depiction, but continually cheapening as time increases. Calvin, with his insistence on predestination and being in the right club to get a membership at the Best Souls Country Club, would seem to be in accord with this offering from wogoga, if he ever got that board out of his arse.

Considering the tension between Calvin and Hobbes, how does the tacit approval of a seven year old boy cartoon character bolster the prospects of validity for wogoga's idea?

Calvin' dad may have the answer.

http://www.simplych.com/light.gif

DR
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
I like it. So, you think God is slow playing us.
Click to expand...

Maybe he has a marginal hand and wants to see a cheap flop with lots of people in the pot, hoping not to get reraised before the flop.

I'm guessing he has a middle pair.
 
Feeling free to stray off topic now:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could track the molecules of our corpse?
Imagine the implications of different corpse disposal techniques!

What an amazing journey our molecules make after we are no longer in charge of them!
This should be worthy of some wooishness, but woo isn't frisky enough to play.

I've yet to meet a scientist that can list the top 10 species on earth, by bio-mass.

Never met a geologist that could tell me where the longest continuous flow of fresh water is. Said place should be a holy shrine. Instead, it isn't part of the conversation.

What?
 
jsfisher said:
If reincarnation is a trivial scientific fact, as you hypothesize, please provide a falsifiable prediction.
Click to expand...
wogoga said:
If reductionist materialism is such a self-evident fact, as you assume, please provide a falsifiable prediction.
Click to expand...
jsfisher said:
Evasion attempt noted. Straw man noted.
Click to expand...


This is the typical behaviour of a believer. The own religion or belief system is so self-evident that arguments or facts supporting it are not necessary. The religions or belief systems of the others however have to provide arguments and facts.

Consciousness, i.e. the mental aspect of the world is the first we experience in our life. Or do you claim that thirst, hunger, tiredness and pain are material things? 'Matter' however is a rather complex concept, created by ordering our sensory input. So the belief in the primacy of matter in all respects is quite questionable, at least from the logical point of view.

BTW, panpsychist evolution, in marked contrast to purely materialist evolution, is full of falsifiable predictions.

Let us deal with this concrete experiment: One creates a constant environment for 200 rats where the rats have to learn a given task. One always breeds a new generation of 200 rates from the slowest learners, i.e. from the least intelligent rats. In such cases, purely materialist evolution (neo-Darwininism) actually is able to make a prediction: the rats of later generations should learn the task less efficiently than the first generation.

Experiments of this kind been performed. However, the results of such adverse selection experiments have been a complete refutation of neo-Darwinism: the learning ability increases despite selection of the slowest learners, i.e. selection of the least intelligent rats. So from a purely scientific point of view we must conclude: the learning capacity is not transmitted by the genes, because genetic transmission would entail a decrease in learning capacity and not an increase as found in the experiments.

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
wogoga said:
This is the typical behaviour of a believer. The own religion or belief system is so self-evident that arguments or facts supporting it are not necessary. The religions or belief systems of the others however have to provide arguments and facts.
Click to expand...

You didn't present it as a religion or belief system. You called it a, and I quote, "a trivial scientific fact." So, while your "own religion or belief system is so self-evident that arguments or facts supporting it are not necessary" (to you, anyway), as a scientific fact, you need to provide a bit more.

Either provide the appropriate evidence to support your claim or retract it. And evasion attempts aren't evidence.
 
wogoga said:
Whereas the population of Japan e.g. increased from 1970 to 1975 by 8.2 million, the increase from 2003 to 2008 is only 0.1 million. Japan is the best example to test the saturation-thesis because migration is very low, and migration is the most important factor confounding demographic saturation. In a saturated population, the number of births is limited by the number of deaths, because all souls are alive and no child can be born without a soul.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that there is a prediction here that can be tested.

People still have free will in your world view, do they not? A given couple's decision to reproduce should be unaffected by whether the country they live in is "saturated", correct?

If that is so, then there should be many unexplainable (by so-called "materialist" means) fertility problems in Japan. I.e. there should be a marked increase in couples who want to have children, but cannot for reasons that medical science seemingly cannot explain. Said increase should have occurred during the exact same period that Japan's population growth slowed.

Is there any evidence of this?

--Tim Farley


P.S. Please do not simply Google "fertility" and "Japan" and use the results to compose an answer. The articles you get as a result of that are using "fertility" as a synonym for "population growth" and thus do not answer the question I am posing.
 
Last edited:
krelnik said:
It seems to me that there is a prediction here that can be tested.

People still have free will in your world view, do they not? A given couple's decision to reproduce should be unaffected by whether the country they live in is "saturated", correct?

If that is so, then there should be many unexplainable (by so-called "materialist" means) fertility problems in Japan. I.e. there should be a marked increase in couples who want to have children, but cannot for reasons that medical science seemingly cannot explain. Said increase should have occurred during the exact same period that Japan's population growth slowed.

Is there any evidence of this?

--Tim Farley


P.S. Please do not simply Google "fertility" and "Japan" and use the results to compose an answer. The articles you get as a result of that are using "fertility" as a synonym for "population growth" and thus do not answer the question I am posing.
Click to expand...

are you trying to force logic?
you should be called on this, yet I merely play a 'woo' on tv.

nevertheless,

May we survive logic.

(fuzzy is a good place to start, for wannabe cured of Asperger's people)

btw, I dig efficiency, but christ, can we have some color with that?
 
JoeEllison said:
No wonder all those Japanese ghosts are so angry!

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/eigakai/sadako.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

wogoga said:
This is the typical behaviour of a believer. The own religion or belief system is so self-evident that arguments or facts supporting it are not necessary. The religions or belief systems of the others however have to provide arguments and facts.

Consciousness, i.e. the mental aspect of the world is the first we experience in our life. Or do you claim that thirst, hunger, tiredness and pain are material things? 'Matter' however is a rather complex concept, created by ordering our sensory input. So the belief in the primacy of matter in all respects is quite questionable, at least from the logical point of view.

BTW, panpsychist evolution, in marked contrast to purely materialist evolution, is full of falsifiable predictions.

Let us deal with this concrete experiment: One creates a constant environment for 200 rats where the rats have to learn a given task. One always breeds a new generation of 200 rates from the slowest learners, i.e. from the least intelligent rats. In such cases, purely materialist evolution (neo-Darwininism) actually is able to make a prediction: the rats of later generations should learn the task less efficiently than the first generation.

Experiments of this kind been performed. However, the results of such adverse selection experiments have been a complete refutation of neo-Darwinism: the learning ability increases despite selection of the slowest learners, i.e. selection of the least intelligent rats. So from a purely scientific point of view we must conclude: the learning capacity is not transmitted by the genes, because genetic transmission would entail a decrease in learning capacity and not an increase as found in the experiments.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

sorry, but i'm not convinced until you can show me a documentary with spooky music.
 
wogoga said:
Let us deal with this concrete experiment: One creates a constant environment for 200 rats where the rats have to learn a given task. One always breeds a new generation of 200 rates from the slowest learners, i.e. from the least intelligent rats. In such cases, purely materialist evolution (neo-Darwininism) actually is able to make a prediction: the rats of later generations should learn the task less efficiently than the first generation.
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
Either provide the appropriate evidence to support your claim or retract it. And evasion attempts aren't evidence.
Click to expand...


Don't you recognize that the rat experiment itself is a falsifiable prediction? Because souls are reborn with increased probability in a similar environment by related souls (environment continuity), the souls of later-generation rats are at least partially the souls of rats having learned the task in previous lives. So they already have an instinctive predisposition to learn the task.

Or do you claim that this is not prediction but a postdiction because I expained existing experiments after the fact? In this case you should take into consideration that until now such adverse selection experiments are simply ignored by mainstream science because they are counter to expectations.

And you are profoundly mistaken if you believe that my request to you as an answer to your request to me is an "evasion attempt".

Hypothesis of purely materialist biology:
  • A healthy egg cell, healthy sperma and an adequate environment (e.g. womb) is enough to give birth to an animal
Hypothesis of panpsychist biology:
  • In addition to egg cell, semen and environment, an animal soul and lots of other psychons are neeed
Apriori (ie. from a purely epistemological point of view) both hypotheses are possible. But they lead to different predictions. In the case of purely materialist biology, the only limitation on the number of a species is food and habitat. In the case of panpsychist biology we have a further empirically relevant limitation: the number psychons/souls having emerged during biological evolution.

Aristotle could have said: "The sphericity of the earth is a trivial scientific fact". Those who requested him to provide evidence so simple that they could understand it without effort, didn't recognize that the non-sphericity of the earth is also hypothesis which is not self-evident and therefore dependent on concrete evidence.

But in the same way as a spherical earth has become a trivial scientific fact for everybody, reincarnation will become a trivial scientific fact in the near future because it will influence our living in at least as many respects as the sphericity of the earth does.

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Don't you recognize that the rat experiment itself is a falsifiable prediction? Because souls are reborn with increased probability in a similar environment by related souls (environment continuity), the souls of later-generation rats are at least partially the souls of rats having learned the task in previous lives. So they already have an instinctive predisposition to learn the task.
Click to expand...

So, in addition to there being only a finite number of souls of each kind, the souls retain the life-experience of their most recent owner, and they tend to hang around the same general area after the previous owner dies just in case that retained life-experience might be needed by the next generation in that same area?

Is that really your hypothesis?

Or do you claim that this is not prediction but a postdiction because I expained existing experiments after the fact?
Click to expand...

Well, that plus the fact that the Lamarckian inheritance hypothesis hasn't faired all that well under repeated experimentation. Nor has any credible scientist suggested a psychon-based explanation for Lamarckian inheritance.

And you are profoundly mistaken if you believe that my request to you as an answer to your request to me is an "evasion attempt".
Click to expand...

You answered a question with a question wrapped around a straw man. That would generally be considered an evasion.
 
wogoga said:
This is the typical behaviour of a believer. The own religion or belief system is so self-evident that arguments or facts supporting it are not necessary. The religions or belief systems of the others however have to provide arguments and facts.

Consciousness, i.e. the mental aspect of the world is the first we experience in our life. Or do you claim that thirst, hunger, tiredness and pain are material things? 'Matter' however is a rather complex concept, created by ordering our sensory input. So the belief in the primacy of matter in all respects is quite questionable, at least from the logical point of view.

BTW, panpsychist evolution, in marked contrast to purely materialist evolution, is full of falsifiable predictions.

Let us deal with this concrete experiment: One creates a constant environment for 200 rats where the rats have to learn a given task. One always breeds a new generation of 200 rates from the slowest learners, i.e. from the least intelligent rats. In such cases, purely materialist evolution (neo-Darwininism) actually is able to make a prediction: the rats of later generations should learn the task less efficiently than the first generation.

Experiments of this kind been performed. However, the results of such adverse selection experiments have been a complete refutation of neo-Darwinism: the learning ability increases despite selection of the slowest learners, i.e. selection of the least intelligent rats. So from a purely scientific point of view we must conclude: the learning capacity is not transmitted by the genes, because genetic transmission would entail a decrease in learning capacity and not an increase as found in the experiments.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

So. Can you give us a reference to this experiment? While you are looking for it you might also check out the phrase "regression to the mean" as well. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.php
might be a good place to look. :boggled:
 
wogoga said:
Around 7 or 7.5 million in the case of human souls.
Click to expand...
Wow, that leaves about 5.993 billion people without souls, or 99.9% of the world's population.

Now that's what I call a soulless world! :rolleyes:
 
wogogo - your stuff is some of the silliest I've read in a long time.

I think you actually believe some of this crap.
 
wogoga said:
Because souls are reborn with increased probability in a similar environment by related souls...
Click to expand...

Whoa! Whoa!! Whoa!!! Hang on!

"Because souls are reborn"?

:confused:

Are you seriously expecting such wildly, extraordinarily unsubstantiated woo to pass on a sceptics forum?

If so, please think again... but go easy on the bong this time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom