Merged Defend/Debate Reincarnation / Child Reincarnation Stories

[Garrette]

Here's a case I think makes cryptomnesia an unlikely explanation, at least for this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZbyaGvlzPE

Given my earlier post was ignored, I am not hopeful of a response to this one, but allow me:

Is this the strongest case of which you know? If not, please post the strongest case. I have dealt with such things too many times (both reincarnation claims and myriad other supernatural claims) to fall for the trap again in which the first example is shown weak or invalid only to be followed by an unending chain of "yeah, but what about this one?" I refuse to play that game.

I will, however, investigate the case of this boy if you verify that it is the strongest case of which you are aware and that you will accept the general proposition falls short if this one is shown to fall short.

To do that, please state that this case (or another one of your choosing), is positively the strongest case of which you are aware, and provide not only the primary link to a summary but information to the other sources you checked in determining that this is as close to proof as it gets.

 

[Butter!]

Something I've truly never understood - even if reincarnation or something like it WERE real, what makes proponents think people would be able to "remember" these past lives? Isn't one's "memory" fairly contingent upon the condition of one's physical, neural networks? Is it the brain or the soul that's reincarnating? Even if I am somehow the same entity as Mary Queen of Scots' chambermaid, why would isissxn's current physical brain retain any memories of that former incarnation's life and activities?

It just has never made any sense to me. Is this a standard FAQ item in reincarnation? If so, would someone mind enlightening me?

 

[Myriad]

Something I've truly never understood - even if reincarnation or something like it WERE real, what makes proponents think people would be able to "remember" these past lives? Isn't one's "memory" fairly contingent upon the condition of one's physical, neural networks? Is it the brain or the soul that's reincarnating? Even if I am somehow the same entity as Mary Queen of Scots' chambermaid, why would isissxn's current physical brain retain any memories of that former incarnation's life and activities?

It just has never made any sense to me. Is this a standard FAQ item in reincarnation? If so, would someone mind enlightening me?

And along similar lines, what difference does reincarnation make, if you don't remember previous lives?

Or even if you do remember the kinds of fragments that oft-referenced cases of past-life memories suggest. So what? Those are less than one would learn from reading the most cursory of biographies (such as those in obituaries).

Suppose I told you my name, where I grew up, my mother's name, my father's occupation, and a few brief stories of my childhood and earlier adult life. You'd then know more about me, and otherwise have the same (non) relationship to me, as you do for any of your own supposed past lives. So by telling you that, have I reincarnated myself in you?

Consider the implications, if the answer to that last question is yes. But if not, what is the difference?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I'm sorry, I didn't know. The video is about a boy named Ryan who was ten years old at the time who claims to have memories of being a 1930's Hollywood extra named Marty.

Marty Martyn (Real name Morris Kolinsky ) became a well known talent agent for actors like Glen Ford.

Why doesn't the boy speak Ukrainian, like Morris?

 

[steenkh]

Something I've truly never understood - even if reincarnation or something like it WERE real, what makes proponents think people would be able to "remember" these past lives? Isn't one's "memory" fairly contingent upon the condition of one's physical, neural networks? Is it the brain or the soul that's reincarnating? Even if I am somehow the same entity as Mary Queen of Scots' chambermaid, why would isissxn's current physical brain retain any memories of that former incarnation's life and activities?

It just has never made any sense to me. Is this a standard FAQ item in reincarnation? If so, would someone mind enlightening me?

People who believe in reincarnation implicitly also believe in dualism, i.e. that there is a soul that is distinct from the physical body, and that it is the soul that retains the memories.

 

[turingtest]

Marty Martyn (Real name Morris Kolinsky ) became a well known talent agent for actors like Glen Ford.

Why doesn't the boy speak Ukrainian, like Morris?

For that matter, why didn't the boy remember his (previous life's) real or assumed name?

I don't like videos for this sort of thing, they're sort of an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) Gish Gallop for claims that need challenging. The best I can find otherwise, with a cursory google search, is this article from NBC News, a bit over two years old. It's not much more informative, but does contain an excerpt from the book by Dr. Jim Tucker, which says (to me) a lot about the methodology behind the "science," and has this bit-

We were able to piece together a picture of Marty Martyn’s life, and we could compare it to Ryan’s statements. In most of our cases, people have tried to see if a deceased person could be identified whose life matched the statements the child had made. Here, there was only one guy that Ryan could have been talking about, because he had pointed to him in a picture. We weren’t trying to see if there was anyone whose life matched Ryan’s statements; we were looking to see if Marty Martyn’s did.

Ok, fair enough; but, after admitting that "Ryan was off on some of the details," Dr Tucker then goes on to list the matches he believes supports the boy's claims. It's hard to tell from the wording whether the claims as set forth by Dr Tucker are what the boy (Ryan) actually said or Tucker's interpretations, but, either way, they're still not all that impressive. In fact, to me, they sound pretty much like what you could expect of someone active in the Hollywood scene of the time- being a dancer first on Broadway before going to Hollywood was probably not an unusual career path, people changing their names was certainly common, and, gosh, sunbathing and taking girlfriends to the beach? I bet Martyn was the only one who ever did that in LA.

So, all in all, even though Dr Tucker makes a point of saying he wasn't "trying to see if there was anyone whose life matched Ryan’s statements; we were looking to see if Marty Martyn’s did," all he did in the end was match Ryan's statements to a typical (even stereotypical) Hollywood life- he did indeed only match them to "anyone."

So...why couldn't Ryan speak Ukrainian or remember his own name from the previous life? I'd bet the answer to questions like this would be along the lines of "well, we don't know how reincarnation works exactly" (it works in mysterious ways, you know). When all is said and done, the methodology applied here appears to be to accept as criteria for matches what would identify a range of people, but not to demand a criteria specific enough to identify an actual person. I'm no scientist, but if your criteria is only strict enough to form a hypothesis, but too loose to ever test it, then it seems to me you're doing more faith than science.

 

[Darat]

For that matter, why didn't the boy remember his (previous life's) real or assumed name?

I don't like videos for this sort of thing, they're sort of an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) Gish Gallop for claims that need challenging. The best I can find otherwise, with a cursory google search, is this article from NBC News, a bit over two years old. It's not much more informative, but does contain an excerpt from the book by Dr. Jim Tucker, which says (to me) a lot about the methodology behind the "science," and has this bit-


Ok, fair enough; but, after admitting that "Ryan was off on some of the details," Dr Tucker then goes on to list the matches he believes supports the boy's claims. It's hard to tell from the wording whether the claims as set forth by Dr Tucker are what the boy (Ryan) actually said or Tucker's interpretations, but, either way, they're still not all that impressive. In fact, to me, they sound pretty much like what you could expect of someone active in the Hollywood scene of the time- being a dancer first on Broadway before going to Hollywood was probably not an unusual career path, people changing their names was certainly common, and, gosh, sunbathing and taking girlfriends to the beach? I bet Martyn was the only one who ever did that in LA.

So, all in all, even though Dr Tucker makes a point of saying he wasn't "trying to see if there was anyone whose life matched Ryan’s statements; we were looking to see if Marty Martyn’s did," all he did in the end was match Ryan's statements to a typical (even stereotypical) Hollywood life- he did indeed only match them to "anyone."

So...why couldn't Ryan speak Ukrainian or remember his own name from the previous life? I'd bet the answer to questions like this would be along the lines of "well, we don't know how reincarnation works exactly" (it works in mysterious ways, you know). When all is said and done, the methodology applied here appears to be to accept as criteria for matches what would identify a range of people, but not to demand a criteria specific enough to identify an actual person. I'm no scientist, but if your criteria is only strict enough to form a hypothesis, but too loose to ever test it, then it seems to me you're doing more faith than science.

One has to wonder how Ryan was shown a picture in which he could identify who he was meant to have been. The rest of the excerpt goes on with the typical vague statements infamously used by these sorts of claimants and shows how incorrect statements are still classed as "hits" or accurate. E.g.:

".... Ryan said he had driven around Hollywood in a green car and that his wife drove a nice black car. ....."

That is a pretty vague statement in itself but even though it was wrong it is presented as a "hit" by Tucker!

" ...Well, Marty’s wife didn’t actually do the driving, but they had a custom-made Rolls-Royce that was presumably a nice car....[/I]

The boy made a specific claim, it wasn't right but Tucker accepts it as right.

 

[turingtest]

One has to wonder how Ryan was shown a picture in which he could identify who he was meant to have been. The rest of the excerpt goes on with the typical vague statements infamously used by these sorts of claimants and shows how incorrect statements are still classed as "hits" or accurate. E.g.:

".... Ryan said he had driven around Hollywood in a green car and that his wife drove a nice black car. ....."

That is a pretty vague statement in itself but even though it was wrong it is presented as a "hit" by Tucker!

" ...Well, Marty’s wife didn’t actually do the driving, but they had a custom-made Rolls-Royce that was presumably a nice car....[/I]

The boy made a specific claim, it wasn't right but Tucker accepts it as right.

According to the video linked earlier, he and mom were looking through a book about old Hollywood, Ryan saw a picture from a scene in a Mae West movie, and pointed to an extra in the scene, and said "that's me." The video doesn't say when this happened, but it would be interesting to know if it came before or after all the claims to the "details" that supposedly match him to Martyn.

Another "hit" was Ryan's claim that, as Martyn, he lived on a street with a name containing the word "rock"- and ("sure enough") Martyn lived on Roxbury Street. Close enough for this sort of work, I guess- with Tucker's admission that "Ryan was off on some of the details," and these examples of misses and half-hits counting as hits that cancel where he was "off" (by how much, I wonder?), I imagine Tucker would be a cold-reader's dream come true.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The above is all, of course, good evidence for why the approach suggested in the OP is so sterile and pointless. We can argue till the cows come home about what objections to objections, objections to objections to objections, objections to objections to objections to objections and so on might be raised, in a fantasy world reductio ad infinitum, and it would all be futile unless we examined whether actual cases conform to any level of those objections. Ultimately, the only objection that counts at any level is that actual observations don't conform to the model you're using to describe them. However much you may choose to refine a model, it's worthless unless it passes that test.

Dave

 

[Son of Inigo]

Something I've truly never understood - even if reincarnation or something like it WERE real, what makes proponents think people would be able to "remember" these past lives? Isn't one's "memory" fairly contingent upon the condition of one's physical, neural networks? Is it the brain or the soul that's reincarnating? Even if I am somehow the same entity as Mary Queen of Scots' chambermaid, why would isissxn's current physical brain retain any memories of that former incarnation's life and activities?

It just has never made any sense to me. Is this a standard FAQ item in reincarnation? If so, would someone mind enlightening me?

Betty? Betty McLaughlin? Is it really you? I was Ian McGregor, the castle's stable boy. You must remember me, you said "living in the stables was not the only thing I had in common with her majesty's stallions". Oh those delightful afternoons spent with you behind the barn awaiting her highness to return from her afternoon rides. Do you still have that cute little mole on your backside? How it jiggled so wonderfully! I have been searching all these long years and through all these tedious lives for my one true soulmate. How happy it would make me to be reunited with my dear Betty-boo.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

The above is all, of course, good evidence for why the approach suggested in the OP is so sterile and pointless. We can argue till the cows come home about what objections to objections, objections to objections to objections, objections to objections to objections to objections and so on might be raised, in a fantasy world reductio ad infinitum, and it would all be futile unless we examined whether actual cases conform to any level of those objections. Ultimately, the only objection that counts at any level is that actual observations don't conform to the model you're using to describe them. However much you may choose to refine a model, it's worthless unless it passes that test.

Dave

Yeah, it basically boils down to " I don't want to provide evidence for my point of view, I just want to be able to call all of you closed minded every other post, and then pretend we're discussing on equal footing."

 

[Donn]

Objection to objection: There are cases where a child remembers being someone so obscure that there is practically no way to come across information about them other than deliberately searching for it.

After this someone would object to that last objection and then the chain starts.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Donn]

We can argue till the cows come home about what objections to objections, objections to objections to objections, objections to objections to objections to objections…

The derivative of objectio ad infinitum is, "no."

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

That's a good one.

You "one monster always tells the truth, the other one always lies, and you can only ask one question"-ed him.

 

[The Norseman]

Well, I wonder if Wonder would willingly wander back soon...

 

[sackett]

Yes, I

Wonder
Wonder
Wonder
Wonder
Who
Who
Who wrote the book of love?

 

[Wonder234]

Defend/Debate Reincarnation

I am looking to defend reincarnation. I will start by objecting to various claims of skeptics;

- In cases of children who remember past lives where people claim the parents lie about it while getting their children to play along; Some people don't go public about their child's comments that indicate a probable past life and instead just tell friends and family members, which, I believe, removes the incentive for monetary gain and therefore of a reason to lie.

- In the case of the argument that the world population has grown from millions to billions and that there would be no new souls to occupy the new bodies, I argue that there could be a vast amount of souls, much more vast than is currently incarnate that are disincarnate.

- In the case of the claim that children who remember past lives simply got their memories from a mundane source rather than a supernatural one and simply forgot where it came from and interpreted it as a past life memory (part of a phenomenon called cryptomnesia) I argue that there are some cases where there is hardly any means to gain the memories (which are sometimes later verified) which they claim to be the memory of a past life due to the obscurity and remoteness in time and space in some cases of the people they claimed to be.

 

[arthwollipot]

Please demonstrate the existence of souls.

 

[Darat]

I am looking to defend reincarnation. I will start by objecting to various claims of skeptics;

- In cases of children who remember past lives where people claim the parents lie about it while getting their children to play along; Some people don't go public about their child's comments that indicate a probable past life and instead just tell friends and family members, which, I believe, removes the incentive for monetary gain and therefore of a reason to lie.

- In the case of the argument that the world population has grown from millions to billions and that there would be no new souls to occupy the new bodies, I argue that there could be a vast amount of souls, much more vast than is currently incarnate that are disincarnate.

- In the case of the claim that children who remember past lives simply got their memories from a mundane source rather than a supernatural one and simply forgot where it came from and interpreted it as a past life memory (part of a phenomenon called cryptomnesia) I argue that there are some cases where there is hardly any means to gain the memories (which are sometimes later verified) which they claim to be the memory of a past life due to the obscurity and remoteness in time and space in some cases of the people they claimed to be.

The skeptical argument against reincarnation is that there is no reliable evidence for it ever happening. The arguments you put forward are really nothing more than some idle thoughts.

Show the evidence, that is all that is needed to defend reincarnation.

 

[p0lka]

when I die, I will try my best to come back to this thread and offer an opinion. Lets hope the memories cross over.