Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[bruto]

So I cannot help.

Then perhaps you should not have made that assertion.

A substantial part of the information needed for the ontogenetic development of a men or a woman comes from the soul. It is reasonable to assume that human souls being able to change gender have appeared during biological evolution. Yet such a gender change entails a tendency to hermaphroditism, non-heterosexuality, transvestism and similar.

It sounds as if you're making this stuff up as you go along. There is zero evidence of this, and I see no reason to assume anything of the sort. And on what evidence do you base your association of non-heterosexuality, transvestism and hermaphroditism, other than that they have something to do with sex? Why should we consider that they are related in any way?

Could the threads Reincarnation Is A FACT!!!!!!!! of Space_Ed and Reincarnation is going to happen to you be an attempt of guilt by association?

I have no idea what that last statement means. If you mean that there's a lot of nonsense out there similar to yours, you're right, but your nonsense is nonsensical in its own right.

 

[six7s]

A substantial part of the information needed for the ontogenetic development of a men or a woman comes from the soul.

Please describe and provide evidence for 'the soul'

A substantial part of the information needed for the ontogenetic development of a men or a woman comes from the soul.

Without a description of the soul, this claim is meaningless

It is reasonable to assume that human souls being able to change gender have appeared during biological evolution.

Without evidence for a soul, this claim is anything but 'reasonable'

 

[wogoga]

There is even a saturation for pathogens like bacteria and viruses. A pathogen of a local epidemic cannot be a threat to mankind, nor can genetically engineered pathogens.

How does any epidemic begin if not locally?

As a local epidemic I consider in this context e.g. Ebola in opposition to influenza. Because pathogenic germs are animated by psychons and the number of such psychons is limited, the number of germs is also limited.

From this point of view, instead of killing all animals having come into contact with a pathogen, as it is regularly done in our days, in the long run it would make more sense to infect as many animals as possible, and to apply the efficient principle of natural selection. This leads on the one side to farm animals with stronger immunity and on the other side to less virulent viruses, because those viral strains tending not to kill their hosts can survive whereas those related strains killing their hosts perish together with their hosts.

Even after immunity, harmlessly small amounts of pathogens can survive. This has the advantage that also the corresponding antibodies do not become extinct in the host organism.

The immune systems, in the same way as many other properties of the animals of factory farming are degenerating. Over generations, serious negative effects can emerge.

In any case, we must take into consideration that pathogenic germs (in the same way as the many non-pathogenic germs) which use us or other living beings as hosts have emerged on earth and co-evolved with their hosts over millions of years.

The increase in world population has a positive effect on our health insofar as the numbers of all the germs using humans as hosts are limited by corresponding psychon numbers. So the more humans are alive at the same time, the lower are the proportions of such germs per human.

Big epidemics have always also been the result of weakened immunity due to bad living conditions, e.g. at the end of the first world war (the 1918 flu pandemic). In such cases, in which a virulent pathogen meets a weakened population, the rapid dying of the ones can lead to a further increase in the virus load of the others, because the virus psychons having lost their habitat in the deceased can become active in the infected surviving. Virus particles without corresponding psychons are as harmless as a destroyer without crew and energy.

In any case, it does not serve the interest of the germs that they sometimes kill their hosts. So instead of trying to exterminate such pathogens, we should rather try to transform them into harmless symbionts.

As long as there are enough birds and related species as hosts for the avian influenza virus, there is absolutely no risk that this virus suddenly could start using humans as hosts. Why should it? The corresponding psychons have co-evolved with birds and are optimally adapted to birds. Without necessity psychons do not like to change their environment, in a similar way as educated human souls do not like the change their world view.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[bruto]

As a local epidemic I consider in this context e.g. Ebola in opposition to influenza. Because pathogenic germs are animated by psychons and the number of such psychons is limited, the number of germs is also limited.

From this point of view, instead of killing all animals having come into contact with a pathogen, as it is regularly done in our days, in the long run it would make more sense to infect as many animals as possible, and to apply the efficient principle of natural selection. This leads on the one side to farm animals with stronger immunity and on the other side to less virulent viruses, because those viral strains tending not to kill their hosts can survive whereas those related strains killing their hosts perish together with their hosts.

Even after immunity, harmlessly small amounts of pathogens can survive. This has the advantage that also the corresponding antibodies do not become extinct in the host organism.

The immune systems, in the same way as many other properties of the animals of factory farming are degenerating. Over generations, serious negative effects can emerge.

In any case, we must take into consideration that pathogenic germs (in the same way as the many non-pathogenic germs) which use us or other living beings as hosts have emerged on earth and co-evolved with their hosts over millions of years.

The increase in world population has a positive effect on our health insofar as the numbers of all the germs using humans as hosts are limited by corresponding psychon numbers. So the more humans are alive at the same time, the lower are the proportions of such germs per human.

Big epidemics have always also been the result of weakened immunity due to bad living conditions, e.g. at the end of the first world war (the 1918 flu pandemic). In such cases, in which a virulent pathogen meets a weakened population, the rapid dying of the ones can lead to a further increase in the virus load of the others, because the virus psychons having lost their habitat in the deceased can become active in the infected surviving. Virus particles without corresponding psychons are as harmless as a destroyer without crew and energy.

In any case, it does not serve the interest of the germs that they sometimes kill their hosts. So instead of trying to exterminate such pathogens, we should rather try to transform them into harmless symbionts.

As long as there are enough birds and related species as hosts for the avian influenza virus, there is absolutely no risk that this virus suddenly could start using humans as hosts. Why should it? The corresponding psychons have co-evolved with birds and are optimally adapted to birds. Without necessity psychons do not like to change their environment, in a similar way as educated human souls do not like the change their world view.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Your explanation makes little sense when applied to HIV.

Well, of course it makes no sense applied to anything at all, but HIV does not seem even to come close to following the ideas you've laid out.

I suspect that whether or not the supply of psychons is limited, the supply of bogons is inexhaustible.

 

[zosima]

Your explanation makes little sense when applied to HIV.

Well, of course it makes no sense applied to anything at all, but HIV does not seem even to come close to following the ideas you've laid out.

I suspect that whether or not the supply of psychons is limited, the supply of bogons is inexhaustible.

I think we should stop feeding the troll. I've asked wogoha repeatedly to provide some sort of framework so that we can understand why (s)he uses different logic in different places and have received no response, or even acknowledgment. That seems to me to an be admission that there is none. So we can keep asking pointed questions and wogoga can keep making stuff up, switching the topic, and the logic. But it's not like we're talking about physics. Demographics and human population ecology is such a high level phenomenon that there is just too much room to shift, At least for someone who is unwilling to believe in even the most basic tenets of epidemiology.

Everyone has made very strong arguments, but as far as I can tell wogoga isn't even really reading them or at least understanding how they make her(his) argument implausible. The keywords from your previous post get incorporated into another long narrative about psychons, while the logic is completely ignored.

That is why I suggest we rest our case and let the troll starve.

 

[Space_Ed]

That could well be the case. Maybe the main reason of the spreading of deserts (e.g. Sahara) after the last ice age is primarily caused be a lack of enough bio-mass. If the vegetation spreads to regions near the poles, then a shortage of needed psychons can be the result in regions near the equator, where survival conditions have become more difficult. Only 18'000 years ago, the location I sit now (Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Europe) was covered by hundreds of meters of ice.

This is silly

 

[Space_Ed]

"Unlike the psychons of atoms and simple molecules, the more complex psychons of enzymes, cells and animals evolved over billions of years on earth. Because of the limits in space and other resources, only a limited number of every kind of psychons could evolve. This limitation is empirically relevant. Unlike the output of chemical production processes, the output of biotechnological production processes cannot always be increased just as one likes." (Empirical Relevance of Psychons)

I had a look at that link. There were lots of things that I knew to be wrong and I don't see the relevance anyway. Nebulae forming stars does obey the second law of thermodynamics. Despite the fact that is just wrong I see no relevance of the second law of thermodynamics to this theory whatsoever.

 

[Space_Ed]

Hi Wolfgang,

Don't be disheartened by the laughing hyenas and dogs¹, I'm with you all the way



Up until the word 'therefore'

Wherefore 'therefore'?

__________________________________

¹ Don't be disheartened by the laughing hyenas and dogs, they're only images. Be disheartened by the way that so many people, on a sceptics forum, have no qualms taking the piss out of your unsubstantiated woo

LOL

 

[Space_Ed]

It seems to me that these folks seem to have insanely complicated arguments, that I think they themselves, must not fully comprehend.

You are seriously trying to relate population issues with some finite amount of "soul juice" somewhere? Where is it when there is a surplus? Why can we not detect it? Why is it required and how can you prove that it exists ( aside from postdictive population related theories )?

LOL. And seriously, rate of population increase is decreasing due to sociological factors such as Chinas one baby policy. Psychons have a limit of 7 billion? Why not 8 billion? Why not 10? Stupid.

 

[Space_Ed]

"Nobody can decide by metaphysical claims (e.g. about the soul) whether something is scientific or not." - from one of woogoga's links Evidence Against Darwin

Is it me or does that not make sense?

 

[Space_Ed]

They are borne in the Psychoⁿ nebula and ride in the slipstream of Occam's razor as it cuts a swathe through the Panpsychistic belt, dropping the Trousertron field shielding Uranus

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Space_Ed]

fertilty rate fell to 0.41 children per woman in the Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city in China, which is only 20% of the generation-replacement fertilty of 2.1! However, I suppose that the number of births is not far away from the number of deaths and that the population in this district remains rather constant (without migration).

Ok... like I mentioned above, the one child policy. Unbelievable- someone sees statistics about Chinas population shift and then they assume its about imaginary things called psychons which have a limited number. No its got nothing to do with the fact that unlike the previous generation, this generation is only allowed one child. Talk about silly.

 

[Space_Ed]

If reductionist materialism is such a self-evident fact, as you assume, please provide a falsifiable prediction.

The predictive power of The Psychon Theory is much stronger than the predictive power of Darwinism. The reason is simple: the number of psychons having evolved on earth is limited. And isn't it obvious that the claim that only around 7 or 7.5 billion human souls have evolved is a falsifiable prediction? If the current demographic projections of UN come true, then my theory is simply wrong.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Even if you're right about your prediction of the population- that in no way proves this psychon theory.

 

[Space_Ed]

From where in your psychon hypothesis does the 7-7.5 billion number come from? It sure looks like you simply pulled a number out of the air that was a little bigger than the current world population. As such, that does not qualify as a falsifiable prediction of your psychon hypothesis.

That wasn't even supposed to be funny but it still made me laugh.

 

[Space_Ed]

That's what I was going to say. Wogoga, you'd be doing yourself a big favour if you stopped all the waffle and long words. It doesn't make your ideas any more valid and it doesn't make you look clever, it just looks like you think you can fool people into taking you seriously by using long words. Everything you have said is nonsense, and will remain that way unless you provide actual evidence, rather than more waffle.

A round of applause.

 

[Space_Ed]

testing

 

[Space_Ed]

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

"Tryon has bred rats selectively according to their ability on the
California automatic maze, and, in a very carefully controlled experiment,
has shown clearly that the offspring of 'bright' parents contain more
'brights' than 'dulls', and that the offspring of 'dulls' more 'dulls' than
'brights'. The interesting point here in connection with Lamarckian
inheritance, however, is that both strains, 'dulls' as well as 'brights',
became progressively better at learning this maze." (Nature, Feb. 4, 1939,
Vol. 143, p.190)

The point has been totally missed here. The dim rats were just still able to learn and adapt. It doesn't mean that they wern't actually thick.

 

[Space_Ed]

I got onto the end of the second page. I have observed a sufficient number of different species crap spew out of woogogo for me to put him in the muppet pile. There are too many logical inconsistencies and factual errors for me to give this any possible credibility. It might be right.... but its not. Pile of BS.

 

[wollery]

I got onto the end of the second page. I have observed a sufficient number of different species crap spew out of woogogo for me to put him in the muppet pile. There are too many logical inconsistencies and factual errors for me to give this any possible credibility. It might be right.... but its not. Pile of BS.

It took you 2 pages??

 

[wogoga]

...

Space_Ed, when I first saw your thread Reincarnation Is A FACT I soon supposed that your ultimate goal could be to fight me. I cannot prevent you from doing that. I must admit that you have quoted some good examples, but please do not spam this thread, which has reached a high proportion of arguments and counterarguments with actual content.

By the way, either reincarnation is valid for all men and animals or for nobody, at least if we accept a naturalistic explanation of the world. And if we assume reincarnation, then, due to the fact of biological evolution, it is a quite obvious logical consequence that only a limited number of souls can have evolved on earth.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) showed by careful measurements that a growing plant did not derive its increased mass principally from the soil, but rather from the air. Nicholas of Cusa also recognized that plants do not grow from dead matter but are built by invisibly small animated entities. Advocating the equivalence of all movements and considering stars as distant suns, Cusa was far ahead of him time. The panpsychism my views are based on can be traced back to Cusa‘s panpsychism (Kepler and Spinoza had similar views). So panpsychism is a fully legitimate and fruitful scientific hypothesis.

When confronted with the thesis that we ourselves were the monkeys we descend from, many persons react in a similar way as those in the past who were confronted with the thesis that our ancestors were apes.

Cheers, Wolfgang