Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[Eos of the Eons]

A lot of people have signed onto scientology and that fiction writer's pseudoscientific woo woo. It claims to cure all ills and make you perfect on earth while alive.. unlike most other religions. It has it all, and uses the same kinds of made up words about souls and past lives affecting the present.

All woogag has to do is tack on the cure for all ills... by curing the soul too. What sets the psychon straight to make the physical body perfect too?

New cult in the making?

 

[wogoga]

So you concede that the rather deterministic than probabilistic construction of the bacterial flagellum cannot even in principle by explained by quantum mechanics and similar theories?

Nope. I said that it's only possible to produce probabilistic models in QM. That doesn't mean that the actual evolution of the flagellum is impossible.

The problem we are dealing with is the goal-directed construction of the flagellum by enzymes. The even more problematic evolution of such a complex rotary engine (powered by the flow of protons across the bacterial cell membrane) is a different question.

You wrote that "since the laws of QM are probabilistic, not deterministic, no such precise simulation (of the construction of the bacterial flagellum) is possible".

But how can the purely probabilistic laws of QM or similar be responsible for the very determined construction of such a complex rotary machine? How can the probabilistic behaviour of quanta lead to a rather deterministic behaviour of enzymes being capable of efficiently building such a complex machine?

If QM-based simulations of the deterministic happenings in living cells are in fact impossible as a matter of principle, then it is a trivial logical consequence that QM cannot explain the happenings in living cells.

However, the non-deterministic nature of quanta resp. elementary particles can be seen in a new light: this non-determinism is a prerequisite that a psychon of a higher organisation-level can have an effect, because a fully deterministic nature of the parts would not allow any freedom to the whole.

For instance, if a transcription factor in a human cell were fully determined by its electrons, protons and neutrons, then its movement as a whole would only resemble Brownian motion, but the transcription factor would not be able to find its destination on the incredibly long DNA. In order to do that, a transcription factor as a whole must be able to purposefully move (similar to migratory animals), and this implies an effect on the behaviour of its parts.

Cheers,
Wolfgang (the psychon guy aka the woo gag)

 

[idunno]

The 'entropy principle' shows clearly that scientific dogmas in the same way as religious dogmas hardly can be refuted by empirical data.

Is the above true???

 

[wollery]

The problem we are dealing with is the goal-directed construction of the flagellum by enzymes.

Anthropomorphism. How do you know that the flagellum was the goal? This is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

The even more problematic evolution of such a complex rotary engine (powered by the flow of protons across the bacterial cell membrane) is a different question.

What problem? I directed you earlier to a youtube video showing one possible way it could have evolved. Each stage in the evolution model gives the bacterium an evolutionary advantage, which is precisely what you'd expect from undirected evolution.

You wrote that "since the laws of QM are probabilistic, not deterministic, no such precise simulation (of the construction of the bacterial flagellum) is possible".

But how can the purely probabilistic laws of QM or similar be responsible for the very determined construction of such a complex rotary machine? How can the probabilistic behaviour of quanta lead to a rather deterministic behaviour of enzymes being capable of efficiently building such a complex machine?

That a result occurs is not surprising. The laws of QM are probabilistic. This means that it is impossible, a priori, to know for certain what the outcome will be. This does not mean that there will not be an outcome, just that you don't know what it will be before you start. Of course, building such an evolutionary model from QM would be extremely problematic in terms of computer memory and processing power, but if you could, and could run it a few billion times, you might well end up with a flagellum from one simulation.

You are once again comparing apples and oranges. You marvel about the impossibility of something improbable happening!

If QM-based simulations of the deterministic happenings in living cells are in fact impossible as a matter of principle, then it is a trivial logical consequence that QM cannot explain the happenings in living cells.

That's so wrong it's off the chart. I never said simulations were impossible, I said the outcomes were probabilistic in nature, so for any particular post hoc result you may not get a simulation that matches it exactly. That doesn't mean the simulations are bad, or that the laws are wrong, just that there are a lot of possible outcomes.

However, the non-deterministic nature of quanta resp. elementary particles can be seen in a new light: this non-determinism is a prerequisite that a psychon of a higher organisation-level can have an effect, because a fully deterministic nature of the parts would not allow any freedom to the whole.

Unwarranted assumption.

For instance, if a transcription factor in a human cell were fully determined by its electrons, protons and neutrons, then its movement as a whole would only resemble Brownian motion, but the transcription factor would not be able to find its destination on the incredibly long DNA. In order to do that, a transcription factor as a whole must be able to purposefully move (similar to migratory animals), and this implies an effect on the behaviour of its parts.

Nope. The motion is determined by attractive and repulsive forces (those would be the electrons and protons at work). You're anthropomorphising, yet again.

 

[MattusMaximus]

A lot of people have signed onto scientology and that fiction writer's pseudoscientific woo woo. It claims to cure all ills and make you perfect on earth while alive.. unlike most other religions. It has it all, and uses the same kinds of made up words about souls and past lives affecting the present.

All woogag has to do is tack on the cure for all ills... by curing the soul too. What sets the psychon straight to make the physical body perfect too?

New cult in the making?

The $cientologists have their "body thetans" and this weirdo has his "soul-psychons"... if L. Ron Hubbard can get away with it, why not this jackass?

I swear that if I had no scruples and simply wanted to make a butt-load of money, then I'd start a religion/self-help/pseudoscience cult as well. Far too many folks seem susceptible to this kind of twisted thinking.

 

[bruto]

The $cientologists have their "body thetans" and this weirdo has his "soul-psychons"... if L. Ron Hubbard can get away with it, why not this jackass?

I swear that if I had no scruples and simply wanted to make a butt-load of money, then I'd start a religion/self-help/pseudoscience cult as well. Far too many folks seem susceptible to this kind of twisted thinking.

A bit of sideways drift here, but if you have never read Mark Twain's essay on Christian Science, you should.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Christian Science is Mark Twain's enduringly popular work that ridicules the Christian Science Church and pokes fun at its founder Mary Baker Eddy. Established in late 19th-century, the church put forward the principle of healing through prayer and greatly relied on the power of human imagination. Twain has brilliantly employed wit, humour, and satire to voice his views.

http://www.bestofmarktwain.com/christianscience.html

Interesting, I never knew that even existed. Thank you.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.2/bookid.1286/

Is this all of it?

I'm lovin it...

For of all the strange and frantic and incomprehensible and uninterpretable books which the imagination of man has created, surely this one is the prize sample. It is written with a limitless confidence and complacency, and with a dash and stir and earnestness which often compel the effects of eloquence, even when the words do not seem to have any traceable meaning. There are plenty of people who imagine they understand the book; I know this, for I have talked with them; but in all cases they were people who also imagined that there were no such things as pain, sickness, and death, and no realities in the world; nothing actually existent but Mind. It seems to me to modify the value of their testimony. When these people talk about Christian Science they do as Mrs. Fuller did: they do not use their own language, but the book's; they pour out the book's showy incoherences, and leave you to find out later that they were not originating, but merely quoting; they seem to know the volume by heart, and to revere it as they would a Bible-- another Bible, perhaps I ought to say. Plainly the book was written under the mental desolations of the Third Degree, and I feel sure that none but the membership of that Degree can discover meanings in it.

Does remind me of my assessment of scientology too.

I daresay that this nuttiness is oddly more acceptable than atheism. Atheism, in all that it offers in non-nuttiness is regarded as more evil than cults that actually cause harm. Very twisted, this world of full of people that would rather embrace insanity over just thinking there is simply just a physical world to appreciate around us.

 

[wogoga]

I might have missed some posts...

Try post #29 with links and maybe also #154 and #158.

Am I right in thinking that has he yet to answer the Q about how he knows (i.e. why we should accept) that souls (and therefore psychons and everything else that rides on this whacky concept) are anything other than a feature of popular fantasy-fiction?

Psychon is a basic concept of a theory. Only by comparing the logical predictions of the whole theory with reality we can decide whether such psychons do exist or do not exist. A world with a limited number of human and other souls, all being the result of evolution and representing a huge amount of information concerning e.g. instinctive behaviour and intelligence, cannot be identical to a world where living beings are essentially soul-less machines.

So in order to decide whether psychons or reductionist materialism correspond better to reality, it is enough to look at empirical (e.g. demographic) data. Especially in demography it will become increasingly problematic to always explain after the fact by mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses what has been predicted before the fact by demographic saturation.

By the way, you seem to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, always having opposed the concept soul to the concept matter. And why do so many persons on such forums become angry or even feel personally attacked when they are confronted with a purely scientific concept, similar to a religious concept of the past. Even before the advent of Christianity, Aristotle considered such concepts part of natural science. And do all the persons trying to ridicule panpsychism actually consider themselves superior to the outstanding panpsychists of the past such as e.g. Nicolas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Spinoza and Leibniz?

Could it be that such persons becoming angry when confronted with scientific hypotheses not agreeing with the prejudices of their current world view are in fact reincarnated religious zealots of the past? We should not forget that our descent from Adam and Eve was once considered by the educated majority in the same way a fact as today reductionist materialism is considered a fact.

Sorry, Wolfgang

Is somebody sceptical of all not agreeing with orthodoxy sceptic or orthodox?

 

[wollery]

Psychon is a basic concept of a theory. Only by comparing the logical predictions of the whole theory with reality we can decide whether such psychons do exist or do not exist.

You might start with the Giant Panda and the Australian rabbit population.

A world with a limited number of human and other souls, all being the result of evolution and representing a huge amount of information concerning e.g. instinctive behaviour and intelligence, cannot be identical to a world where living beings are essentially soul-less machines.

Why not?

So in order to decide whether psychons or reductionist materialism correspond better to reality, it is enough to look at empirical (e.g. demographic) data. Especially in demography it will become increasingly problematic to always explain after the fact by mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses what has been predicted before the fact by demographic saturation.

Except that your theory of demographic saturation has been shown to have holes in it large enough to drive an oil tanker through.

By the way, you seem to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, always having opposed the concept soul to the concept matter.

I don't oppose the concept of the soul, but have yet to see any evidence at all to support it.

And why do so many persons on such forums become angry or even feel personally attacked when they are confronted with a purely scientific concept, similar to a religious concept of the past.

Please provide quotes from people who have become angry or admitted to feeling personally attacked. Such complaints usually precede the complainant leaving in a huff.

Even before the advent of Christianity, Aristotle considered such concepts part of natural science. And do all the persons trying to ridicule panpsychism actually consider themselves superior to the outstanding panpsychists of the past such as e.g. Nicolas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Spinoza and Leibniz?

Appeal to authority.

Could it be that such persons becoming angry when confronted with scientific hypotheses not agreeing with the prejudices of their current world view are in fact reincarnated religious zealots of the past?

Possibly. Possibly not. Or was that a rhetorical question?

We should not forget that our descent from Adam and Eve was once considered by the educated majority in the same way a fact as today reductionist materialism is considered a fact.

Apples and oranges again. Descent from Adam and Eve never had any observable evidence to support it.

 

[ben m]

Try Especially in demography it will become increasingly problematic to always explain after the fact by mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses what has been predicted before the fact by demographic saturation

I'm sorry, do materialists have "mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses" for demographic changes? The null hypothesis, as far as I'm aware, is "different populations grow or shrink due to the complex interaction of economics and culture with individual family planning choices." Do you have examples which show this approach to be "increasingly problematic"?

As for it being "ad-hoc"---sure it's ad-hoc, that's how cultural/economic studies are done. For example, let's look at a series of statements much like yours:

• "Mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses are used to explain trends in popular music from 1910-2008"
• "Mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses are used to explain the price of gold"
• "Mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses are used to explain the successes and failures of post-colonial democracies"
• "Mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses are used to explain differential adoption of chili peppers in world cuisines post-Columbus"

Do each of these observables need a single unifying explanation? We lack of a unifying cause for trends in popular music---does that, by itself, discredit rational materialism? The best we can say about the price of gold is that "it fluctuates and/or stabilizes depending on current trends in mining and on perceived instabilities in major currencies"---is that an acceptable solution? Why is that more/less acceptable than a similar statement about how populations fluctuate and/or stabilize?

Why does the ad-hoc nature of demography tell you that we need a Demography Psychon? Does the ad-hoc nature of other socioeconomic complexities lead to a Gold Psychon, a Pop Music Psychon, and a Post-Colonial Democracy Psychon?

 

[six7s]

Try post #29 with links and maybe also #154 and #158.

Thanks for at least trying... but, alas, having read those posts twice, I am only closer to thinking that:

• the OP is talking out of his ass
• the OP hopes that others will be blinded by his bull-science to the point where we can only see how wise he is

Wolfgang, please note that using looooooong strings of looooooong words in a seemingly random and definitely incoherent manner does NOT make you an authority on the subject of souls

However, although incoherent, your posts are not indecipherable and, after a bit of effort, I gather that you are either reluctant and/or incapable of answering a simple question, let alone proffering a concise and coherent argument

I assume, given the 'rationale' in your 'logic', that you have jumped to a conclusion (one that fits with how you would like to see the world) and then tried to build a hypothesis to support it all. Alas, your logic is fundamentally flawed - insofar as you are basing your ideas on something (the concept of souls) that is, for all we know, pure fantasy

Psychon is a basic concept of a theory. Only by comparing the logical predictions of the whole theory with reality we can decide whether such psychons do exist or do not exist.

Only? Nonsense - even if psychons do exist, our comparisons may well be flawed simply by using a vague and incoherent hypothesis (N.B. not 'theory')

If I were to assert that pink unicorns are shielded by the cloak of the Great Underpant Monster and are, therefore inconsequential in terms of thermal variance, my claim would not be further justified by the 'logical prediction' that there is a probability of 0.42 that 42% of all the corn dogs that go missing in the night are down to there being a pink unicorn in every domestic refrigerator

A world with a limited number of human and other souls, <waffleSnip/> cannot be identical to a world where living beings are essentially soul-less machines.

OK... lets try some numbers... eschewing the emotive phrase 'soul-less machines' in favour of 'the same as any other species of mammal'

Q. Can a world with ZERO human and other souls be identical to a world where living beings are essentially the same as any other species of mammal?

A. Yes

If you have a problem with this, then, erm... that's your problem... build a bridge, and get over it

So in order to decide whether psychons or reductionist materialism correspond better to reality, it is enough to look at empirical (e.g. demographic) data.

Huh? Are you serious? If so, think again... or perhaps start thinking and quit with the wishful dreaming

Especially in demography it will become increasingly problematic to always explain after the fact by mutually inconsistent ad-hoc hypotheses what has been predicted before the fact by demographic saturation.

Again, quit with the loooooooong strings of loooooong words that, collectively, mean nothing

By the way, you seem to ignore the whole philosophical tradition, always having opposed the concept soul to the concept matter.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

And why do so many persons on such forums become angry or even feel personally attacked

Huh? what relevance does this have to the discussion? None! You are, it seems, simply projecting your frustration onto others in a desparate attempt to deflect attention from your unsubstantiated woo. TIP: it doesn't work

when they are confronted with a purely scientific concept, similar to a religious concept of the past.

Which "purely scientific concept"? Your woo dressed up in a lab-coat?

Even before the advent of Christianity, Aristotle considered such concepts part of natural science.

If all else fails, try the (wholly irrelevant) 'appeal to authority'

And do all the persons trying to ridicule panpsychism

Quit with building straw-men

No one is here to "ridicule panpsychism", we're here to assess the evidence - and, so far, you haven't provided any

Don't conflate the circular 'reasoning' in your woo-affirming woo as being 'evidence' for anything other than you being an über-wooist

Could it be that such persons becoming angry when confronted with scientific hypotheses not agreeing with the prejudices of their current world view are in fact reincarnated religious zealots of the past?

Given that you have NOT put forward ANY scientific hypothesis, its fairly obvious that, of all the contributors to this thread, you are the one "confronted with scientific hypotheses not agreeing with the prejudices of their current world view"

Try channelling that anger

We should not forget that our descent from Adam and Eve was once considered by the educated majority in the same way a fact as today reductionist materialism is considered a fact.

The "same way"? This is so mind-numbingly WRONG! that I suspect your deluded worldview will forever blind you to reality

Sorry, Wolfgang

You said it... but please note that the comma is superfluous

 

[bruto]

Psychon is a basic concept of a theory. Only by comparing the logical predictions of the whole theory with reality we can decide whether such psychons do exist or do not exist.

Reality seems hard to come by in your world.

 

[wogoga]

You might start with the Giant Panda and the Australian rabbit population.

Concerning the Giant Panda you can find all what seems relevant to me in post #160. In post #164 you objected:

"The population of Giant Pandas has been dropping steadily for a very long time, and the reason is ridiculously simple. At some point in the past, the Panda went from being a carnivore to being a vegetarian, eating a diet of little but bamboo."​

However, this would only be relevant if it had happened in recent times. If the Giant Panda population actually had substantially decreased in the last centuries and fertility were nevertheless so low that the population could not recover, then this actually would constitute strong evidence against my evolution-by-reincarnation theory. The assumption that the population of a related species* has been growing in the recent past at the expense of the Giant Panda is not plausible, because the only closely related species, the Red Panda has a similarly small number. So only a few thousand panda souls exist, and the populations of the two panda species are limited by their very low soul numbers.

*Such a situation could have happened at the end of the last ice age with elephant populations increasing at the expense of the mammoth populations.

The exponential growth of European rabbits in Australia at a time when these animals seen as agricultural pests were losing more and more of their habitat in Europe isn’t astonishing at all. Hundreds of millions of rabbit souls exist. And the decision to ban all rabbit farming in Australia even increased the problem.

"All rabbit farming for meat production was banned until 1987, when Western Australia changed its legislation to allow farming of rabbits in that state. New South Wales and Victoria followed suit in 1995 and 1997, respectively, and now farming for meat is allowed in all states with the exception of Queensland. Despite the ban on farming, Australia has had an established rabbit meat industry for many years, based on harvesting wild rabbits. In the early 1990s, over 2.7 million wild rabbits per annum were sold for meat. With the release, in 1996, of rabbit haemorrhagic disease as a biological control agent, the population of wild rabbits was dramatically reduced, with only 100,000 being harvested per annum in the late 1990s." (Farmed Rabbits in Australia)​

Instead of banning rabbit farming, they should have captured wild rabbits and used them for farming. It is an obvious fact that domestication and aquaculture is paralleled by a decrease of the corresponding wild populations. So the decline (having started already in 1950) of wild rabbit populations in the 1990s was simply caused by the spread of rabbit farming in Australia and the rest of the world.

"The centre of world rabbit production is Europe, where demand is highest, accounting for 75 percent of world production. In 1990, total global production was estimated at 1.5 million tonnes." (Breeding rabbits for food and income)​

To these 1.5 million tonnes rabbit meat of 1990 corresponded around 1 billion rabbits and at least 250 million rabbit souls, because rabbits are generally ready for slaughter at about 11-13 weeks of age when they weigh around 3 kg, and 50% of the weight at slaughter is meat (source).

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[calebprime]

The entire JREF performs a full frontal assault on Wolfgang, but the brave lads are eviscerated by his sharp teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

 

[wollery]

Concerning the Giant Panda you can find all what seems relevant to me in post #160. In post #164 you objected:

"The population of Giant Pandas has been dropping steadily for a very long time, and the reason is ridiculously simple. At some point in the past, the Panda went from being a carnivore to being a vegetarian, eating a diet of little but bamboo."​

However, this would only be relevant if it had happened in recent times. If the Giant Panda population actually had substantially decreased in the last centuries and fertility were nevertheless so low that the population could not recover, then this actually would constitute strong evidence against my evolution-by-reincarnation theory. The assumption that the population of a related species* has been growing in the recent past at the expense of the Giant Panda is not plausible, because the only closely related species, the Red Panda has a similarly small number. So only a few thousand panda souls exist, and the populations of the two panda species are limited by their very low soul numbers.

*Such a situation could have happened at the end of the last ice age with elephant populations increasing at the expense of the mammoth populations.

Such a shame that your argument is rendered moot by the fact that the Red Panda and the Giant Panda aren't related. The Giant Panda is a bear, of the family Ursidae, which are carnivores. The Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens) is in a family of its own, and is actually most closely related to raccoons. See this paper.

Care to try again, this time with the correct attribution of related animals?

Which brings me to another question. If souls are specific to each ethnicity of humans (such as the Japanese), with human ethnicities being separated by only very small differences in DNA, how come they can happily cross from one species to another in the animal kingdom?

The exponential growth of European rabbits in Australia at a time when these animals seen as agricultural pests were losing more and more of their habitat in Europe isn’t astonishing at all. Hundreds of millions of rabbit souls exist. And the decision to ban all rabbit farming in Australia even increased the problem.

"All rabbit farming for meat production was banned until 1987, when Western Australia changed its legislation to allow farming of rabbits in that state. New South Wales and Victoria followed suit in 1995 and 1997, respectively, and now farming for meat is allowed in all states with the exception of Queensland. Despite the ban on farming, Australia has had an established rabbit meat industry for many years, based on harvesting wild rabbits. In the early 1990s, over 2.7 million wild rabbits per annum were sold for meat. With the release, in 1996, of rabbit haemorrhagic disease as a biological control agent, the population of wild rabbits was dramatically reduced, with only 100,000 being harvested per annum in the late 1990s." (Farmed Rabbits in Australia)​

Instead of banning rabbit farming, they should have captured wild rabbits and used them for farming. It is an obvious fact that domestication and aquaculture is paralleled by a decrease of the corresponding wild populations. So the decline (having started already in 1950) of wild rabbit populations in the 1990s was simply caused by the spread of rabbit farming in Australia and the rest of the world.

"The centre of world rabbit production is Europe, where demand is highest, accounting for 75 percent of world production. In 1990, total global production was estimated at 1.5 million tonnes." (Breeding rabbits for food and income)​

To these 1.5 million tonnes rabbit meat of 1990 corresponded around 1 billion rabbits and at least 250 million rabbit souls, because rabbits are generally ready for slaughter at about 11-13 weeks of age when they weigh around 3 kg, and 50% of the weight at slaughter is meat (source).

How fortunate that there were all those spare rabbit souls floating about waiting for a population boom.

 

[six7s]

It is an obvious fact that domestication and aquaculture is paralleled by a decrease of the corresponding wild populations.

Obvious? To whom? You, who wants/needs to twist observations to fit your hypothesis?

Reading your long-winded obfuscations, the only thing that is obvious to me is that you know very little about farming and/or hunting/gathering

www.puresalmon.org » Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies (PDF)

ROSAMOND L. NAYLOR*, REBECCA J. GOLDBURG†, JURGENNE H. PRIMAVERA‡,
NILS KAUTSKY§ , MALCOLM C. M. BEVERIDGE¶, JASON CLAY#, CARL FOLKE§ ,
JANE LUBCHENCO** , HAROLD MOONEY* & MAX TROELL§
* Stanford University, Institute for International Studies, Encina Hall 400E, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-6055, USA
† Environmental Defense, 257 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10010, USA
‡ Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Tigbauan, Iloilo , 5021, Philippines
§ Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
The Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
¶ Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK
# World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington DC 20037, USA
** Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvalles, Oregon 97331-2914, USA

Global production of farmed fish and shellfish has more than doubled in the past 15 years {1985 - 2000}. Many people believe that such growth relieves pressure on ocean fisheries, but the opposite is true for some types of aquaculture. Farming carnivorous species requires large inputs of wild fish for feed. Some aquaculture systems also reduce wild fish supplies through habitat modification, wild seedstock collection and other ecological impacts. On balance, global aquaculture production still adds to world fish supplies; however, if the growing aquaculture industry is to sustain its contribution to world fish supplies, it must reduce wild fish inputs in feed and adopt more ecologically sound management practices.

Note how scientific research doesn't resort to woo in order to account for observations and findings... Observe first, hypothesise second

The worldwide decline of ocean fisheries stocks has provided impetus for rapid growth in fish and shellfish farming, or aquaculture. Between 1987 and 1997, global production of farmed fish and shellfish (collectively called 'fish') more than doubled in weight and value, as did its contribution to world fish supplies¹. Fish produced from farming activities currently accounts for over one-quarter of all fish directly consumed by humans. As the human population continues to expand beyond 6 billion, its reliance on farmed fish production as an important source of protein will also increase.
___________________________________________
¹ Food and Agricultural Organization Aquaculture Production Statistics 1988-1997 (Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 1999).

TIP: when reality is in conflict with your hypothesis, twist your hypothesis, not the facts

Anyhoo...

You are still talking as though souls actually exist in reality (as opposed to simply being part of your fantasy)

WHY?

 

[wogoga]

The effect of aquaculture on correponding wild stocks

Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies (PDF)

Thank you for the interesting paper from June 2000. If may be true that "global aquaculture production still adds to world fish supplies", because lower mortality rates in captivity lead to higher saturation rates with more fish (souls) living and growing at the same time.

Yet the authors speak also of "an underlying paradox: aquaculture is a possible solution, but also a contributing factor to the collapse of fisheries stocks worldwide". And they even ask: "does aquaculture enhance – or diminish – the available fish supply?". Two quotes from the paper:

The use of wild fish to feed farmed fish places direct pressure on fisheries resources.

Capture fisheries landings as a whole have plateaued at around 85-95 megatonnes per year. Moreover, there has been a gradual shift in wild capture from large and valuable carnivorous species to smaller, less valuable species that feed at lower trophic levels.​

This obviously implies a decline in large and valuable species and a growth in less valuable species. We conclude that feeding valuable fish in aquaculture with less valuable wild fish rather decreases the wild stocks of the aquacultured species than the wild stocks used as food for them! This at least suggests that the reason of wild stock declines lies not in the fishing industry but in aquaculture.

The authors write that "Salmon catches worldwide actually rose by 27% between 1988 and 1997" and use this and cases of "relatively stable" catches in order to conclude: "These examples show little obvious effect of aquaculture production on capture rates of wild fish".

We must take into consideration that technological progress made it possible to more efficiently detect and catch fish and shellfish. So we cannot necessarily conclude from stable or increasing catches that the wild stocks themselves have not declined.

However, it is easy to find evidence that aquaculture of salmon negatively affects the wild populations, for instance:

Salmon are a resource treasured and shared by all Indigenous Peoples within British Columbia.

A Salmon Aquaculture Review was undertaken which gave a cautious "okay" for fish farming to proceed. The Review did not fully investigate the impact that fish farms have upon wild stocks and the environmental damage they can create. For example, the Review overlooked the fact that in some countries wild salmon have been almost entirely wiped out as a result of fish farms.​

On the decline of Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in British Columbia:

Pacific salmon abundance along the West Coast of Canada has been in sharp decline since the early 1990s.

The most likely reasons for the decline in Pacific salmon stocks include a combination of climate change, overfishing, and freshwater habitat destruction. There have also been suggestions that salmon farming in British Columbia has contributed to the decline of salmon stocks. The hypothesized effects of salmon farming include potential ecological interactions as well as disease concerns.

Although farmed salmon are also a potential source for these disease pathogens, surveys of pathogens in wild and hatchery fish show no patterns that could be attributed to salmon farming.​

Aquaculture's Troubled Harvest:

Spurred by a politically powerful commercial fishing industry, Alaska outlawed salmon farming outright. British Columbia, on the other hand, welcomed the industry with open arms.

Today, Alaska's wild salmon fishery ranks among the healthiest, best managed in the world. But British Columbia's commercial fishing industry barely survives; in 1999, the wild salmon harvest was the lowest in 50 years.​

Or from a recent newsletter:

The study focused on Pink Salmon north of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, but when combined with the results of earlier studies, suggest that Salmon farming as practiced in the Pacific Canadian province poses an existential threat to some wild Salmon. ​

For shrimp, the situation is quite similar. Quotes from Disease: Shrimp Aquaculture’s Biggest Problem:

One U.S. aquaculture entrepreneur, Thomas Powell of Jacksonville, Florida, advises potential investors that in a worst case scenario, exotic disease will wipe out 80 percent of the wild shrimp stocks, leaving the market open for aquaculture products. "It's a guess, based on what we've seen in Mexico, " says Powell, referring to an outbreak of IHHNV (infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus), that originated in Mexican shrimp farms and reduced the blue shrimp stocks in the northern Gulf of California to levels that could not support a commercial fishery from 1987 until 1994.

"During the 1993 crash of the Chinese (shrimp aquaculture) system, there was a 90 percent reduction in the (adjacent) wild stock."​

This 1993 crash in China was probably at least partly caused by aquaculture successes in other countries. For instance in Thailand, the annual production of farmed shrimp increased from less than 50’000 tonnes in 1998 to more than 250’000 tonnes in 1994 (see Figure 3 of Shrimp Farming in Thailand’s Chao Phraya River Delta).

By doing an internet search with e.g. aquaculture, wild, stock, collapse or similar you can convince yourself whether my quotes are representative or not.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[wogoga]

The assumption that the population of a related species* has been growing in the recent past at the expense of the Giant Panda is not plausible, because the only closely related species, the Red Panda has a similarly small number.

Such a shame that your argument is rendered moot by the fact that the Red Panda and the Giant Panda aren't related. The Giant Panda is a bear, of the family Ursidae, which are carnivores. The Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens) is in a family of its own, and is actually most closely related to raccoons. See this paper.

I don't understand your reasoning. You had claimed that an alleged population decrease of the Giant Panda caused by low fertility is evidence against Giant Panda reincarnation. I answered that if such a population implosion had occurred in recent times, "then this actually would constitute strong evidence against my evolution-by-reincarnation theory".

This conclusion is based on the premise that no closely related species has been growing at the expense of the Giant Panda population in recent times. However, if not even the Red Panda is relatively closely related to the Giant Panda then my argument becomes even more straightforward, and you simply have to provide evidence for your original claim in order to seriously attack the psychon theory.

The question of the relatedness between the Giant and the Red Panda is very interesting. Two quotes from Wikipedia:

"For many decades the precise taxonomic classification of the panda was under debate as both the giant panda and the distantly related red panda share characteristics of both bears and raccoons."

"The red panda and the giant panda, although completely different in appearance, share several features. They both live in the same habitat, they both live on a similar bamboo diet and they both share a unique enlarged bone called the pseudo thumb, which allows them to grip the bamboo shoots they eat."​

If the conclusion of the paper mentioned by you is correct and both Panda species are only very distantly related from the viewpoint of genetics then this is an interesting case of convergent evolution.

Future research may be able to decide whether animal souls (of a soul-species) can lead to convergent evolution in lineages drifting genetically apart, by alternately incarnating in the different lines. In the concrete case of the Giant and the Red Panda, such an assumption would imply that at least some of the souls of the Red Panda lineage were born in the Giant Panda branch after their separation from a common ancestor, and the other way round.

Such a propensity of their ancestors for incarnating in genetically quite different species could maybe also help to explain the extremely low soul number of the Red Panda (a few thousand), which is a rather small animal with a weight of only 3-6 kg. For comparison: for every Red Panda soul more than one million human souls exist.

As a possible scenario the following could have happened: Very difficult conditions, under which only a small number of the strongest and most capable individuals could survive and reproduce, lasted for a long period. Because at the same time the conditions were much better for another related species, the population size of this related species increased in the long run at the expense of the population (of the ancestors) of the Red Panda.

Independently of whether such a scenario is possible or not, it is a logical necessity for evolution-by-reincarnation that after a species has become extinct the souls are born within related species: the closer related such a destination species and the better its living conditions and reproduction, the higher is the probability of being born there; and the more distant this destination species from the extinct one, the more difficult it is for the soul of the extinct species to learn to survive to fertile age in the destination species.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[six7s]

I don't understand your reasoning

Probably because its based on reality, a concept you are evidently unfamiliar with

You had claimed that an alleged population decrease of the Giant Panda caused by low fertility is evidence against Giant Panda reincarnation.

Huh??? Where?

Nowhere?

N.B. Comparisons of fertility rates and populations are unnecessary in debunking your reincarnation fantasy, bearing in mind that:

your theory of demographic saturation has been shown to have holes in it large enough to drive an oil tanker through.

Remember?

I answered that if such a population implosion had occurred in recent times, "then this actually would constitute strong evidence against my evolution-by-reincarnation theory".

Please... it AIN'T a theory!

Furthermore, as all of your ideas are fundamentally flawed (being based on the the purely fantastic notion of souls), there is no need to make a big deal of one specific aspect being particularly nonsensical

you simply have to provide evidence for your original claim in order to seriously attack the psychon theory

You really don't understand how this forum works, do you?

Its quite simple:

• Woos turn up (with monotonous regularity) and start threads in order to make unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent claims
• The sceptical response is simply, rather than making counter-claims, to point out the inevitable gaping holes and ask if they can be plugged
• The woos fail to deliver
• Sceptics stay subscribed just in case this pattern is ever altered

The question of the relatedness between the Giant and the Red Panda is very interesting

Forget the pandas... they are completely irrelevant

Either:

• Address some of the many questions you have been evading
  To refresh you memory:
  
  

  For comparison: for every Red Panda soul more than one million human souls exist

  
  Where is your evidence for the existence of souls as anything other than a feature of cheap sci-fi and fantasy fiction?

Or

• Admit that you are a troll