PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
This is neither true, nor does it follow from your previous statements.
Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact
- Thread starter wogoga
- Start date
Space_Ed
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 545
I'm sorry but thats completely illogical to me.
My ultimate goal is to seek the truth. If reincarnation is a fact, as implied by some of the studies that I was looking at, your theory does in no way explain it.
Space_Ed
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 545
He was right. Plants do not gain all their mass from the soil. They get it from carbon dioxide. The carbon is used to build hydrocarbons such as cellulose and starch. Water, potassium ions, sodium ions and phosphorus ions are the main things that are absorbed by the roots.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
No, it isn't.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Zero can be considered a "limited number".
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
I meant it isn't a logical conclusion, let alone an obvious one.
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
Space_ED
As much as I disagree with wogoga, as much as I think his logic is poor, and his tactics evasive. I have to agree with him on this point, please don't spam out the thread by putting each response into a separate post. It makes it very difficult to read the thread, especially when some of your posts have almost no content at all.
Ex:
"HAHHAHAHAHAHAH"
You really couldn't have put this inside one of your other posts?
Wogoga
As to the specifics of your claims. As I've said previously I don't see any reason to address them until you are willing to put forth some sort of explanation as to why you apply one line of reasoning or calculation in one place and a different one in another. In other words, if it doesn't have any sort of unifying framework, all you have is a good story, a narrative, a creation myth, etc... Not an explanatory theory.
If somebody is unable or unwilling to understand the demographic saturation theory and critical analysis of standard demography then this person is also unable or unwilling to understand "some sort of formal model" with the same content.
If you do not want to understand the simple example of Japan, where the population converged to 127.8 million (corresponding to a saturation value of 100%) or are unable to understand the premises and limitations of a statement like
- In a saturated population, a sex ratio at death of 120 man per 100 women leads to a sex rate at birth of around 120 boys per 100 girls.
If you are unable or unwilling to understand the fundamental concept of evolutionary relatedness, then why should you take seriously a formal system containing formal variables representing evolutionary relatedness?
By the way, a formalised system is rather an endpoint, a recapitulation or a summary of a field of knowledge. Only after hundreds of years of geometric insights and the creation of lots of concepts, a first so-called axiomatic foundation of geometry could be created. The situation with Newton's axioms is quite similar.
And in many cases, obscure formal systems only serve as an argument from authority. However, as an argument from authority a formal system only works, if it come from the right side. If e.g. a famous neo-Darwinian presented a formal model, you probably would accept it. However, if an outsider like me presented a more concise formal model with much more predictive power, you still would dismiss it, because you ultimately rely on the authority of official peer-reviewed science, don't you?
If you actually are interested in how a reincarnation theory can be used in order to predict demographic numbers and how it is possible to "independently verify" such results, then I'm glad to answer your questions. However, you should a first spend a few hours to read what I've written until now.
By examining the reasons/roots/premises of fundamental disagreements, one can learn a lot, even if the disagreements cannot be removed.
I ask with Albert Einstein:
"Why do the individual concepts that occur in a theory require any separate justification after all, if they are indispensable only within the framework of the logical structure of the theory, and if it is the theory as a whole that stands the test?"
Further quotes from Einstein:
"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is -- insofar as it is thinkable at all -- primitive and muddled."
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. … The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors."
"A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. … The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors."
"A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."
Cheers, Wolfgang
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
No, because your entire argument is ad hoc.
Japan's population converged on 127.8 million? There must be 127.8 million Japanese souls (just ignore the numbers of ethnic Japanese living in the rest of the world).
The Giant Panda is dying out? Their souls must be going to their nearest relative, the Red Panda. What? The Giant and Red Pandas aren't actually closely related? Well, there must be another reason for the decline in the Giant Panda population.
The wild rabbit population in Australia increases at an exponential rate? There must be billions of rabbit souls lying around spare.
China's reported population is levelling off? Must be reaching saturation level (ignore the one child policy and the consequent under-reporting of births).
The US population boomed after WW2? They obviously gained souls from the Europeans from whom most of them descended (ignore the fact that the population of Europe boomed at the same time).
Japan's population converged on 127.8 million? There must be 127.8 million Japanese souls (just ignore the numbers of ethnic Japanese living in the rest of the world).
The Giant Panda is dying out? Their souls must be going to their nearest relative, the Red Panda. What? The Giant and Red Pandas aren't actually closely related? Well, there must be another reason for the decline in the Giant Panda population.
The wild rabbit population in Australia increases at an exponential rate? There must be billions of rabbit souls lying around spare.
China's reported population is levelling off? Must be reaching saturation level (ignore the one child policy and the consequent under-reporting of births).
The US population boomed after WW2? They obviously gained souls from the Europeans from whom most of them descended (ignore the fact that the population of Europe boomed at the same time).
Last edited:
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
Thats an excellent point.
How about this wogoga.
If evolutionary relatedness is what determines whether your claims about saturation apply to a given person, why don't fertility rates of Japanese Americans match those of Japanese.
I read your links, I don't always agree with them afterward, but I do read them. I don't think the problem is with me if your arguments are unpersuasive.wogoga said:
Also, I don't doubt that the population in industrialized nations is stabilizing. But why should I believe that it is because of a finite supply of psychons versus many more mundane explanations. If there was a formal model of psychons, then that would provide a reason. I want to know why you don't consider explanations like overcrowding, poor economy, placing careers before children, widespread use of birth control, and deciding to have women later to be sufficient? What do psychons add to the traditional explanation?
You can't create an entire theory from one data point. A formal model allows you to get precise about what you mean and improve it in the future. Think of it as building a widget factory rather than building a widget. With a correct formal model you would have as many data points as you needed.wogoga said:
I believe strongly in evolution and I think I'm not entirely closed to the idea of evolutionary relatedness. The beauty of a formal model is that even if I don't believe in it, the capacity of your theory to predict argues strongly that it is a worthwhile concept if not literally true.wogoga said:
wogoga said:
Newton was 500 years ago, now there are strong models that already explain the phenomena you claim to explain, but they do it formally, while you do it informally. Getting specific about what you mean is the only way you could ever hope to challenge those theories, both in online forums and in the scientific world. Otherwise what do you really expect to accomplish?
A formal argument is exactly the opposite of an argument from authority. A formal argument says "Here are my premises, here are my rules of deduction, here's my data, here's how I got these data,here's how these rules applied to these premises explain these data, here are my conclusions." Its like a recipe you can accept the premises or deny them , but they have been laid out explicitly, so nothing must be accepted on trust.wogoga said:
As for how I treat models personally...
If you have a model that explains the evidence I would look at it, as would an expert. There isn't any conspiracy here. The reason some theories aren't accepted by scientists is because some theories don't explain the evidence well.
wogoga said:
If it is theoretically possible for someone who is partial to your theory to independently verify your results then it should be equally easy for someone who is biased against. What I want to know is what instructions you would give to such a person. If someone has to tend to believe you to execute your instructions for verification then it stands to reason there is an inherent bias therein.
As to your writings, they are descriptive not predictive. Your writings tell a great story about how population growth rates are slowing and how psychons are responsible for this, but the story I might write for guatemala(as opposed to yours from japan) might still be about psychons but the data I use and the way I combine the data might be completely different. How do I know I've calculated the correct saturation value? Moreover how do I know that psychons are doing the limiting? Why isn't is the spaghetti monster?
Here's my explanation for slowing population growth:
Population growth rates are slowing because the spaghetti monster is hungry and he eats the fetuses of japanese pregnant women before they know they're pregnant.
wogoga said:
Fair enough, why psychons and not the spaghetti monster?
Plus I don't think it makes your theory look any better when you do all this equivocation; implying that if only I was ready you could share the logic of how you determine where a population will saturate. But if you don't have a consistent way of doing this, then you don't have a theory, you have a story. This sort of storytelling to explain natural phenomena instead of consistent rules to explain natural phenomena is what separates scientific reasoning from mystical reasoning.
"Japan's population converged on 127.8 million? There must be 127.8 million Japanese souls (just ignore the numbers of ethnic Japanese living in the rest of the world)."
Among all countries having reached a fully saturated population, Japan is the most homogenous with the lowest proportion of migration. Therefore Japan is an ideal case to test the predictions of demographic saturation. See also post #126.
"The Giant Panda is dying out? Their souls must be going to their nearest relative, the Red Panda. What? The Giant and Red Pandas aren't actually closely related? Well, there must be another reason for the decline in the Giant Panda population."
You haven't provided evidence that the Giant Panda population declined in the recent past. See post #202.
"The wild rabbit population in Australia increases at an exponential rate? There must be billions of rabbit souls lying around spare."
If you start with a low number then exponential growth is not astonishing at all. When the population of European rabbits increased in Australia, these animals seen as agricultural pests were losing more and more of their habitat in Europe. Yet with the spread of rabbit farming, the number of wild rabbits decreased. See post #194.
"China's reported population is levelling off? Must be reaching saturation level (ignore the one child policy and the consequent under-reporting of births)."
And what about a fertility as low as 0.41 in the Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city (Heilongjiang)? What about other East Asian counties having on average a lower fertility than China without a one-child policy? On the efficiency of the one child policy in general see post #104.
"The US population boomed after WW2? They obviously gained souls from the Europeans from whom most of them descended (ignore the fact that the population of Europe boomed at the same time)."
There simply were enough deaths and prevented births for baby booms in many regions of the world. See post #206.
You don't know that the fertility of immigrants in general correlates much more with the country of origin than with the country of destination? A recent example from Mideast fertility rates plunge:
"Demographers in France have already refuted some of the wilder predictions of high birth rates among Muslim immigrants leading to the cathedral of Notre Dame becoming a mosque by the end of this century. The birthrate of mothers of North African origin drops to the local norm within two generations. Now it seems that the birthrate of Muslim and Arab women who did not emigrate is plummeting in a similar fashion."
Cheers, Wolfgang
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
First off, this isn't specific to the claim about Japanese. It says nothing about Japanese Americans. But I am familiar with the process of Integration of immigrants into a new culture and don't doubt that this claim is true. The important point to note is that it say that the birthrate returns to the local norm within two generations. It doesn't say that those 3rd generation immigrants need to interbreed with non japanese americans. The only substantive variable is time, nothing about evolutionary relatedness. Thus the central claim of your only data point is disproven. Can you admit that you are wrong?
Also what about my spaghetti monster theory?(This is a serious question)
It actually explains this better. because the spaghetti monster is mostly full anyway by the time it gets to the US , it isn't able to eat as many of the unborn children of Japanese Americans, but it still can eat a couple of first and second generation immigrants because they taste more like its favorite morsel (the delectable mainland Japanese fetus).
Last edited:
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
I was wondering if you had me on 'ignore'
Alas, your response tells me nothing other than you are simply ignoring my questions
I, therefore, infer that you are incapable of describing, let alone providing evidence for, 'the soul'
Please, prove me wrong
Psychon-deficit diseases
I assume that the word population increased from 1830 (when "the first historical account of muscular dystrophy appeared") to today not by a factor of six, but rather by a factor of three, yet that's not relevant to your argument.
Your argument is correct under the premise, that the whole world population is dependent on the alleles (gene variants coding for enzymes with corresponding psychon-populations) involved in these first cases of muscular dystrophy. If that premise were true, then the human population of 1830 would actually somehow be relevant as an upper limit of people not suffering from MD.
Yet because "conditions are inherited, and the different muscular dystrophies follow various inheritance patterns", your argument only entails that the sub-population(s) with the genetic disposition(s) of the first cases could not have significantly increased since 1830.
To the genetic disposition of the first cases correspond alleles with limited numbers of psychons, and enzymes can only work if they are animated by psychons. Let us call the allele-psychons whose shortage caused the first muscular dystrophy cases first-MD-psychons. So we get this chronology:
The most widespread psychon-deficit disease obviously is type-2 diabetes. See e.g. First cases of type 2 diabetes found in white UK teenagers . A quote from Genetics of Type II Diabetes:
Because mankind is still increasing in number, the disease cases will increase, even if overweight and other life-style factors seen as causes of diabetes-2 should become less widespread. The faster a population increases, the higher is the probability of psychon-deficit diseases in the corresponding races or sub-populations, because a psychon species can increase in number only in the long run at the expense of other related psychon species.
In any case, if we humans want to remain healthy individuals in the long term, we must again increase our mortality in a reasonable way. Doesn't it make more sense for us to care for our fellow souls in the form of healthy little children than to care for the same souls in the form of sick old people?
Cheers, Wolfgang
I assume that the word population increased from 1830 (when "the first historical account of muscular dystrophy appeared") to today not by a factor of six, but rather by a factor of three, yet that's not relevant to your argument.
Your argument is correct under the premise, that the whole world population is dependent on the alleles (gene variants coding for enzymes with corresponding psychon-populations) involved in these first cases of muscular dystrophy. If that premise were true, then the human population of 1830 would actually somehow be relevant as an upper limit of people not suffering from MD.
Yet because "conditions are inherited, and the different muscular dystrophies follow various inheritance patterns", your argument only entails that the sub-population(s) with the genetic disposition(s) of the first cases could not have significantly increased since 1830.
To the genetic disposition of the first cases correspond alleles with limited numbers of psychons, and enzymes can only work if they are animated by psychons. Let us call the allele-psychons whose shortage caused the first muscular dystrophy cases first-MD-psychons. So we get this chronology:
- Before 1830, first-MD-psychons had a saturation lower than 100%, and people with the corresponding genetic disposition did not suffer from MD.
- When the first-MD-psychons became saturated around 1830, the first MD cases appeared.
- Since then, the genetic disposition of the first MD cases has remained a risk factor and the corresponding population of (healthy) persons has not significantly increased.
The most widespread psychon-deficit disease obviously is type-2 diabetes. See e.g. First cases of type 2 diabetes found in white UK teenagers . A quote from Genetics of Type II Diabetes:
"Some ethnic groups, such as most Native Americans and Hispanics, have a definite genetic susceptibility to diabetes, while some groups, including Caucasians, Melanesians, and Eskimos, are at low risk. Since Type II diabetes essentially did not exist 100 years ago, it's obvious that a change in the environment has created the disease, but there is genetic susceptibility on top of that."
Because mankind is still increasing in number, the disease cases will increase, even if overweight and other life-style factors seen as causes of diabetes-2 should become less widespread. The faster a population increases, the higher is the probability of psychon-deficit diseases in the corresponding races or sub-populations, because a psychon species can increase in number only in the long run at the expense of other related psychon species.
In any case, if we humans want to remain healthy individuals in the long term, we must again increase our mortality in a reasonable way. Doesn't it make more sense for us to care for our fellow souls in the form of healthy little children than to care for the same souls in the form of sick old people?
Cheers, Wolfgang
Last edited:
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
The spaghetti monster likes the taste of muscular dystrophy babies. Yummy
One more go to try and tell. Not every body gets a soul. A soul can go into male or female body for life of that body. New souls are created and some are destroyed. All higher life reincarnates, dogs cats etc. All knowledge is available and memory is kept of previous life and back to earlier times is possible. Soul mates mean that a couple had a life together and usually stay together in the spirit world. We go around as many times as it takes to get it right. Life is to learn, a spirit having a human experience. Don't think it has any bearing on numbers. Cheers Old Bob.
It may not be relevant to his argument, but your bizzare need to ignore reality at every opportunity is rather relevant to yours. Why would you assume that the world's population has only increased by a factor of three? Why assume anything at all when you could have simply looked it up? I don't know the exact value in 1830, but in 1800 the population was about 0.98 billion and in 1850 it was about 1.2 billion. One billion seems close enough for 1830. The world population currently stands at about 6.6 billion. So, not a factor of three.
What is strange here is not the fact that you are wrong, it is that you seem to have made this statement for the sole purpose of being wrong. As you say, it is not relevant to any argument, yet you chose to get such a trivially simple fact completely wrong for no apparent reason. And you didn't just get it wrong, you did so in response to someone who had already told you the correct answer. It makes as much sense as if you had opened your post by claiming that 1 + 1 = 922.6. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation other than making you look stupid.
Last edited:
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
I'm confused as to why you add this. Are you saying the Wogoga has the wrong view of reincarnation? That seems a little silly. I would claim they both have equally little bearing on scientific matters and evaluating which one is more correct is not a question that is empirically decidable. That said, I respect your belief and your right to believe it. Who knows it might even be right. But I would claim there is no way to tell, until you die and find yourself in the spirit world or you don't