Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[wogoga]

Wogoga-
To be perfectly frank, I used to believe in a lot of this stuff during my pre-college days...

I was a very religious child until the age of around 10. But already at the age of 13, I had reached a scientific and atheistic world view, which remained essentially the same until the age of 25. Both religiousness in childhood and critical thinking in adolescence had come primarily from within me.

concepts like "souls" and "psychic energy" carried an odd albeit comforting appeal for me,

Even if the world view of reductionist materialism were well-founded, the use of "soul" and "psychic energy" is still fully reasonable, except if one denies the obvious:

• an identity in the whole life of a person which can be called soul by trivial concept formation
• such subjective states, where people simply may say "I have no energy"

and it made me think that yes, there could be something "beyond" the material world that waited for us after death.

At least since the age of 13, I have never assumed that there is something "beyond" the physical world.

Death has always seemed to me something essentially positive, a final relief, because it can end any suffering. Yet I had to give up the belief in this relief when I realized that reincarnation is a fact.

By the way, some of the biggest crimes of our times consist in preventing people forcefully from dying, e.g. persons fully paralyzed or crippled.

... the sheer awe and beauty that I found in naturalistic explanations of the world ...

You confuse "naturalistic explanation" with "reductionist-materialist explanation".

As soon as you recognize that your premises

• enzymes can build plants and animals without some primitive form of perception and goal-directed movements
• around 10 megabyte of genetic information are enough to transform a cell in a human person
• chance events can create humans out of dead matter
• complex patterns of machines can develop an ego out of themselves

are untenable, you can no longer dismiss pandualism by means of Occam's razor.

Google hit counts are a poor indicator of things being real or not.

However, Google counts can be an indicator of whether concepts are widespread or not.

In the same way as for "physical energy", normally "energy" alone is used for "psychic energy". And there are 1,340,000 Google entries for the expression "I have no energy", versus 662,000 for "I have no appetite".

Checking a dictionary definition of the word "energy", as suggested, would probably be a lot more reliable.

The use of "energy" in the sense of "psychic energy" is so widespread and its meaning so obvious that we can ignore the authority of dictionary definition writers in this case.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

In many cases people recover from illnesses not because of, but despite medical treatments

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't doubt you can produce endless examples of people using "energy" as an antonym for lethargy or tiredness. But if you propose that they all intended the term "energy" to mean whatever precisely you mean by "psychic energy" then you're going to have to show evidence if you want to convince anyone.

 

[dafydd]

I was a very religious child until the age of around 10. But already at the age of 13, I had reached a scientific and atheistic world view, which remained essentially the same until the age of 25. Both religiousness in childhood and critical thinking in adolescence had come primarily from within me.



Even if the world view of reductionist materialism were well-founded, the use of "soul" and "psychic energy" is still fully reasonable, except if one denies the obvious:

• an identity in the whole life of a person which can be called soul by trivial concept formation
• such subjective states, where people simply may say "I have no energy"

At least since the age of 13, I have never assumed that there is something "beyond" the physical world.

Death has always seemed to me something essentially positive, a final relief, because it can end any suffering. Yet I had to give up the belief in this relief when I realized that reincarnation is a fact.

By the way, some of the biggest crimes of our times consist in preventing people forcefully from dying, e.g. persons fully paralyzed or crippled.

You confuse "naturalistic explanation" with "reductionist-materialist explanation".

As soon as you recognize that your premises

• enzymes can build plants and animals without some primitive form of perception and goal-directed movements
• around 10 megabyte of genetic information are enough to transform a cell in a human person
• chance events can create humans out of dead matter
• complex patterns of machines can develop an ego out of themselves

are untenable, you can no longer dismiss pandualism by means of Occam's razor.




However, Google counts can be an indicator of whether concepts are widespread or not.

In the same way as for "physical energy", normally "energy" alone is used for "psychic energy". And there are 1,340,000 Google entries for the expression "I have no energy", versus 662,000 for "I have no appetite".



The use of "energy" in the sense of "psychic energy" is so widespread and its meaning so obvious that we can ignore the authority of dictionary definition writers in this case.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

In many cases people recover from illnesses not because of, but despite medical treatments

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

 

[wogoga]

Whose reincarnation is James Randi?

After having asked in a post for hypotheses on Randi's previous lives, I have dealt myself with the question. I actually got very surprised to see how simple it is to find a very obvious hypothesis: Randi (Aug. 7, 1928) as the reincarnation of Houdini (Mar. 24, 1874 – Oct. 31, 1926), and of Robert-Houdin (Dec. 7, 1805 – June 13, 1871).

Because of the many agreements in characteristics such as talents, the Houdini-Randi transition seems especially convincing to me. In the "Houdin"-Houdini case, the following quote^WP might be relevant:

"American magician and escape artist Harry Houdini (born Ehrich Weiss) was so impressed by Robert-Houdin that after reading his autobiography in 1890, Ehrich adopted the stage name of "Houdini" in honor of Robert-Houdin. He incorrectly believed that "i" on the end of a name meant "like" in French. But Houdini, his own career and reputation established by that time, later lost his youthful respect for Robert-Houdin, believing that he took undue credit for other magicians's innovations, and wrote The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin in 1908."​

In the meantime I've ordered Houdini's The Unmasking of Robert-Houdin and three of Randi's books. In any case, I must admit that until now I've underestimated James Randi.

Except if in the end it should turn out that Randi isn't Houdini's reincarnation, I think I merit The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. And wouldn't it be an irony of destiny, if the James Randi anti-supernatural prize were gained for the only seemingly supernatural, but otherwise fully natural and trivial fact that Houdini was Randi's previous incarnation?
Any comments (no spam)?

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Except if in the end it should turn out that Randi isn't Houdini's reincarnation, I think I merit The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Any comments (no spam)?

Since nobody has ever demonstrated that reincarnation even exists, how do you propose to prove to anyone else's satisfaction whether you are right or wrong about Randi being the reincarnation of Houdini?

 

[wogoga]

Today I've received HOUDINI, HIS LIFE AND ART. A short reading was enough to increase my personal rating of the Houdini-Randi-transition probability from around 90% to around 99% percent. Here the quotes (written by Randi) which convinced me the most:

"His actual deeds and the stories that have been fabricated about him are almost indistinguishable this half-century since his death, and I am sure that no one could enjoy that situation more than Houdini himself." (p.11)

"I am personally very satisfied to have been called in to coauthor this book, for I have for many years wanted to be able to tell a modern audience what I feel Houdini went through in the moments when the chips were down and the wheel was spinning. …

The shadow of Harry Houdini hangs over me constantly, like a strange, burdensome cloud. …" (p. 12)

"In discussing the art of the man called Harry Houdini, I find it necessary to depend upon … parallels that might have occurred between his career and my own. …

It will be necessary from time to time for me to refer to actual events that have occurred to me, simply because they frequently bear a striking resemblance to events in Houdini's life. And before we begin, I must make it very clear that aside from a few early years of my somewhat unwise youth, there has not been a time when I have sought to borrow on the strength of Houdini's name. …

"But I feel that my analysis of the personality behind the name Houdini is quite possibly more accurate than other interpretations by psychiatrists, historians, and magicians, who have not been as deeply involved as I have been in the business of escape. I cannot help but believe that the thoughts that have passed through my mind in moments of stress and great challenge also passed through the mind of Harry Houdini. I think I may be forgiven for that presumption." (p. 158)​

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

 

[paximperium]

Today I've received HOUDINI, HIS LIFE AND ART. A short reading was enough to increase my personal rating of the Houdini-Randi-transition probability from around 90% to around 99% percent. Here the quotes (written by Randi) which convinced me the most:

"His actual deeds and the stories that have been fabricated about him are almost indistinguishable this half-century since his death, and I am sure that no one could enjoy that situation more than Houdini himself." (p.11)

"I am personally very satisfied to have been called in to coauthor this book, for I have for many years wanted to be able to tell a modern audience what I feel Houdini went through in the moments when the chips were down and the wheel was spinning. …

The shadow of Harry Houdini hangs over me constantly, like a strange, burdensome cloud. …" (p. 12)

"In discussing the art of the man called Harry Houdini, I find it necessary to depend upon … parallels that might have occurred between his career and my own. …

It will be necessary from time to time for me to refer to actual events that have occurred to me, simply because they frequently bear a striking resemblance to events in Houdini's life. And before we begin, I must make it very clear that aside from a few early years of my somewhat unwise youth, there has not been a time when I have sought to borrow on the strength of Houdini's name. …

"But I feel that my analysis of the personality behind the name Houdini is quite possibly more accurate than other interpretations by psychiatrists, historians, and magicians, who have not been as deeply involved as I have been in the business of escape. I cannot help but believe that the thoughts that have passed through my mind in moments of stress and great challenge also passed through the mind of Harry Houdini. I think I may be forgiven for that presumption." (p. 158)​

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

Sorry. Your incoherent random delusional spam is not worth reading.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's hilarious. You were 90% convinced by your pet theory that the similarities between Randi's and Houdini's careers "prove" Randi is the literal reincarnation of Houdini. Now merely because you've read a book by Randi which remarks on those same similarities, your conviction has risen to 99%.

Keep reading. Maybe there's another book which mentions the same similarities between the two men. Then you can be 99.9% sure.

Please make a falsifiable prediction based on your theory.

 

[wogoga]

That's hilarious. You were 90% convinced by your pet theory that the similarities between Randi's and Houdini's careers "prove" Randi is the literal reincarnation of Houdini. Now merely because you've read a book by Randi which remarks on those same similarities, your conviction has risen to 99%.

Isn't it obvious that what Randi writes on Houdini adds a new dimension to the question whether Randi is Houdini's reincarnation, different from what others write on them?

In my evaluation of the Houdini-Randi-transition probability, also Randi's assessments of persons close to Houdini are important, such as his assessment of Houdini's wife (p. 160):

"One thing is very evident – his love, admiration, and devotion for little Beatrice Rahner, who made a momentous decision that was to both thrill and grieve her over the years: she married young Ehrlich Weiss. As Houdini himself was to declare many times during their years together, nothing better ever happened to him in his life. That was probably quite true."​

Randi on Houdini's brother (p. 160):

"Even after Houdini’s death in 1926, his shadow still fell far enough to compel Hardeen to advertise himself as 'the brother of Houdini.' To be born into near fame is a dreadful fate indeed."​

On both (p. 161):

"I've singled out Bess and Hardeen because I believe them to be very much the victims of his bright star."​

Sorry. Your incoherent random delusional spam is not worth reading.

The post you responded to consists primarily of quotes written by James Randi. Do you consider Randi's writings on Houdini as spam, or only my quotes? Let us deal with a new quote (p. 184):

"I was born two years after Houdini departed this world, but I feel very much as if we have shared it together."​

This statement can be interpreted as a vacuous truism, because we all share this world together. Yet I don't think that such an interpretation really makes sense.

Interesting are also the last three sentences of HOUDINI, HIS LIFE AND ART:

"For me, Harry Houdini is very much alive. And I am sure that if you could ask him if that is so, he would agree heartily and give you a huge wink. And in that wink is everything."​

Cheers, Wolfgang

The biggest conspiracy crimes have regularly been committed by the most powerful establishments. Many of these conspiracies could not have been accomplished, if it were not so easy to discredit the debunkers (together with the fake debunkers participating in the conspiracies) as "conspiracy nuts" in the eyes of the majority.

 

[Pup]

Isn't it obvious that what Randi writes on Houdini adds a new dimension to the question whether Randi is Houdini's reincarnation, different from what others write on them?

It seems to me more like a tautology. It illustrates the feelings which people have, which might lead some to believe that they're another person reincarnated, if they were inclined to think along those lines.

The fact that those kinds of feelings exist isn't in question. If they didn't exist, no one would bring up the issue of whether reincarnation is real, because no one would even wonder about it.

But the fact that such feelings exist does nothing to prove the actual existence of reincarnation. They're merely what opened the speculation about reincarnation in the first place.

 

[wogoga]

It seems to me more like a tautology. It illustrates the feelings which people have, which might lead some to believe that they're another person reincarnated, if they were inclined to think along those lines.

Very interesting remark. As far as I understand you, what you consider tautological is something like "feelings or other things suggesting reincarnation lead to the belief in reincarnation".

And such a tautology interpretation of my statements implies that the parallels between Randi and Houdini can only be evidence for the belief in reincarnation, but not for reincarnation as a fact. But why should we restrict ourselves to such a tautological interpretation?

The fact that those kinds of feelings exist isn't in question. If they didn't exist, no one would bring up the issue of whether reincarnation is real, because no one would even wonder about it.

But the fact that such feelings exist does nothing to prove the actual existence of reincarnation. They're merely what opened the speculation about reincarnation in the first place.

This reasoning could well be a main root of Aristotle' (384 BC – 322 BC) removal of reincarnation from Western philosophy/science. I assume that Aristotle's feelings with respect to Socrates (469 BC–399 BC) were similar to those of Randi with respect to Houdini. So for Aristotle there were two reasonable alternatives:

• Reincarnation does exist, and he was Socrates’ reincarnation
• Reincarnation does not exist

And the idea of actually being the reincarnation of the highly esteemed teacher of his own teacher Plato, seemed to Aristotle too unlikely and maybe also too presumptuous to be true.

I also assume that already Ludwig Feuerbach (1804/07/28 - 1872) would have proposed reincarnation at least as a hypothesis, if he had been born a few months later. In a way similar to Randi experiencing the shadow of Houdini, Feuerbach felt the shadow of Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804/02/12), having died when Feuerbach was a three four month old embryo. Feuerbach tried (in some respects) to be an Anti-Kant, in fact however he was Kant's direct reincarnation. But the idea that one and the same soul had animated himself as an embryo and the dying Kant, seemed too unlikely to be true.

One thing is obvious: if reincarnation is a main principle of biological evolution, and character and talents are stored in the soul, then such parallels as e.g. between Randi and Houdini occur much more frequently than in a purely materialist world. So the question whether reincarnation exists can be decided by statistical means.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Pup]

Very interesting remark. As far as I understand you, what you consider tautological is something like "feelings or other things suggesting reincarnation lead to the belief in reincarnation".

Yes, or to make it more widespread, "feelings or other things suggesting reincarnation have led to the belief that such a thing as reincarnation exists."

And such a tautology interpretation of my statements implies that the parallels between Randi and Houdini can only be evidence for the belief in reincarnation, but not for reincarnation as a fact. But why should we restrict ourselves to such a tautological interpretation?

Take another example: We know there's a biological condition called sleep paralysis that causes an inability to move when awakening. It's a common human condition and gave rise to the myth of the "old hag" as an explanation.

But one can't point to sleep paralysis as proof that an old hag exists, since people clearly invented the old hag because they experienced sleep paralysis and wanted an explanation.

The idea of reincarnation was surely developed because people had those feelings and wanted an explanation. It seems clear that a certain percentage of the population has those feelings, but whether it's due to actually being reincarnated or something else is impossible to say without further evidence.

I also assume that already Ludwig Feuerbach (1804/07/28 - 1872) would have proposed reincarnation at least as a hypothesis, if he had been born a few months later. In a way similar to Randi experiencing the shadow of Houdini, Feuerbach felt the shadow of Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804/02/12), having died when Feuerbach was a three four month old embryo. Feuerbach tried (in some respects) to be an Anti-Kant, in fact however he was Kant's direct reincarnation. But the idea that one and the same soul had animated himself as an embryo and the dying Kant, seemed too unlikely to be true.

And there's a good example showing that the feelings existed in a case where reincarnation (by the normal definition) would be impossible.

One would either need to reject the hypothesis of reincarnation as an explanation for the feeling, or, to keep the hypothesis alive, conclude that the Feuerbach-Kant link wasn't a real example of the feeling. Or alter the hypothesis to say that dying people can immediately reincarnate in already-living fetuses.

 

[wogoga]

Take another example: We know there's a biological condition called sleep paralysis that causes an inability to move when awakening. It's a common human condition and gave rise to the myth of the "old hag" as an explanation.

But one can't point to sleep paralysis as proof that an old hag exists, since people clearly invented the old hag because they experienced sleep paralysis and wanted an explanation.

Around hundred years ago some may have argued in a similar way against the existence of photons:

We know that energy in electromagnetic waves can only be released in packets of energy. It's a common electromagnetic property and gave rise to the myth of "photons" as an explanation.

But one can't point to these energy packets as proof that photons exist, since people clearly invented the photons because they wanted an explanation for such energy packets.​

I remain convinced that souls (resp. psychons) are as real as photons are. (And photons I consider far more real than conceded by orthodox modern physics.)


Whose reincarnation was Harry Houdini?

But I must admit: It is not so easy to convincingly demonstrate that the hypothesis of Robert-Houdin (1805-1871) as the previous incarnation of Harry Houdini (1874-1926) makes sufficiently more sense than the hypotheses of Bartolomeo Bosco (1793-1863), Robin (1811-1874) or of John Henry Anderson (1814–1874), all of whom Houdini defends from Robert-Houdin's "gentle art of innuendo and belittling", wherein Houdini considers the latter a master.

In the case of Bosco, Houdini writes that he visited Bosco's grave in Germany, and then he continues: "The history of this clever conjurer, with all its lights and shadows, sweeps before me like a mental panorama." (The Unmasking, p. 307)

In the case of Anderson, Randi writes: "The site [where Anderson was buried] was visited by Harry Houdini, who ... had been born just thirty days after Anderson’s death." (Conjuring, p. 45)

Nevertheless I think there is a lot more evidence suggesting that Houdini was the reincarnation of the one whose successor he wanted to become as an adolescent, and of whom be became over-critical in later years.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[dafydd]

Around hundred years ago some may have argued in a similar way against the existence of photons:

We know that energy in electromagnetic waves can only be released in packets of energy. It's a common electromagnetic property and gave rise to the myth of "photons" as an explanation.

But one can't point to these energy packets as proof that photons exist, since people clearly invented the photons because they wanted an explanation for such energy packets.​

I remain convinced that souls (resp. psychons) are as real as photons are. (And photons I consider far more real than conceded by orthodox modern physics.)


Whose reincarnation was Harry Houdini?

But I must admit: It is not so easy to convincingly demonstrate that the hypothesis of Robert-Houdin (1805-1871) as the previous incarnation of Harry Houdini (1874-1926) makes sufficiently more sense than the hypotheses of Bartolomeo Bosco (1793-1863), Robin (1811-1874) or of John Henry Anderson (1814–1874), all of whom Houdini defends from Robert-Houdin's "gentle art of innuendo and belittling", wherein Houdini considers the latter a master.

In the case of Bosco, Houdini writes that he visited Bosco's grave in Germany, and then he continues: "The history of this clever conjurer, with all its lights and shadows, sweeps before me like a mental panorama." (The Unmasking, p. 307)

In the case of Anderson, Randi writes: "The site [where Anderson was buried] was visited by Harry Houdini, who ... had been born just thirty days after Anderson’s death." (Conjuring, p. 45)

Nevertheless I think there is a lot more evidence suggesting that Houdini was the reincarnation of the one whose successor he wanted to become as an adolescent, and of whom be became over-critical in later years.

Cheers, Wolfgang

You have an idiosyncratic interpretation of the word evidence.Look it up in a dictionary.

 

[wogoga]

From Evita Peron to Christina Kirchner?

You have an idiosyncratic interpretation of the word evidence.

My interpretation of evidence may seem eccentric or peculiar to you. De facto, it simply results from unprejudiced thinking.

Today I've read that the President of Argentina, Christina Fernández de Kirchner (b. Feb. 19, 1953) gave to Greece the advice to reject the IMF conditions. For the first time, I bothered to check the almost too obvious hypothesis of Christina being the reincarnation of Evita Peron (7 May 1919 – 26 July 1952).

And the hypothesis actually turns out to be quite convincing:

For instance Christina Fernández "started her political career in the Peronist Youth movement of the Justicialist Party in the 1970s and her 'highly' combative speech style polarized Argentine politics, recalling the style of Eva Perón".

A interesting quote:

With her passionate public speeches, elaborate dressing and cosmopolitan glamour, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner evokes memories of Eva "Evita" Perón, who captured the world's attention more than half a century ago.

But although both played a considerable influence over their presidential husbands and enjoyed considerable support from Argentina's poor working communities, the comparisons are limited. Evita, an actress who entered politics shortly after marrying Juan Perón, died in her early 30s, only to be reincarnated by an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

Mrs Kirchner, though never far from her husband whom she met at law school in her youth, is seen by supporters as having built a career largely on her own merit.

"I don't want to inherit anything from Eva, or from [my husband] Kirchner. Everything I've got is a result of my own achievements, and my own defects too," she has said.​

Cheers, Wolfgang

By closing one's eyes one can make disappear evidence for oneself; but then one should not complain of absence of evidence

 

[jsfisher]

I may have missed a few posts, so pardon me for asking: Any evidence, yet? Just curious.

 

[dafydd]

My interpretation of evidence may seem eccentric or peculiar to you. De facto, it simply results from unprejudiced thinking.

I am unprejudiced.Show me the evidence for the existence of reincarnation and I will believe in it.Anecdotes are not evidence.You are the one with a prejudiced mind.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

There is a phenomenon in zymurgy known as "stuck fermentation". It can happen for many reasons, but one the more common is that the yeast produce certain byproducts during the fermentation process that can inhibit the yeast. There is a product called yeast ghosts that can be added to the must (or wort) to absorb some of these byproducts allowing the fermentation process to continue.

So, the yeast reach a saturation level, but you can add more yeast ghosts to keep the process going .

As an aside: I actually was hesitant to post this because I was worried that someone might actually try to use it as evidence for reincarnation.

 

[wogoga]

Quotes from the thread "Life or no-life after death - Is it an Objective reality?":

I could quote many famous scientists who had a belief in Angels...

Could you do that please?

Johannes Kepler.

Using the by far most (scientifically and philosophically) progressive man of his time as an example of a belief in angels seems quite absurd to me.

Can somebody back up this claim that Kepler believed in angels with quotes from Kepler himself (as an adult)? There has always been a lot of misrepresentation and disparagement of Kepler.

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was the reincarnation of Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464) and Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), and the previous incarnation of Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677).

Spinoza's pantheism remained quite similar to Cusanus' pantheism. (The panpsychism implied in pantheism must not be confused with animism or a belief in matter-less ghosts or angels.)

Further constants during these incarnations: The knowledge that the earth moves around a huge sun, and strong adherence to what is called Occam's razor.

On the other hand, the evolution of this soul from Cusanus to Kepler is a good example of emancipation from a dominating belief system (ideology, religion).

• Nicolaus Cusanus was a cardinal of the Catholic Church. (I assume that he must have passed through terrible experiences in his previous life in order to become obedient enough to reach such a high position within the hierarchy).
• Copernicus all his life lived and worked within the Catholic Church.
• Kepler, a Protestant (Lutheran), was despite being very religious quite critical towards religion and "was excluded from Eucharist by his Lutheran church over his theological scruples".
• Baruch Spinoza, a born Jew, was excommunicated by his religious community, and despite not renouncing his Judaism, this pantheist can be considered one of the first modern secularists and atheists (with respect to a personal god).

Cheers, Wolfgang

1. Define the problem as apocalyptic because apocalypse sells.
2. Present the apocalytic vision as mainstream view, and dissenters as crackpots or in the pay of evil giant corporations.
3. Build massive financial support.
4. Use that lobbying support to fight the dissenters and to expand the political, economical and scientific power of the new ideology.

(adapted from)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Any evidence of reincarnation yet? I see this thread has been going a good long while with no evidence supplied.