Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

[Buddha]

No, you aren't. You just have thrown in the towel and are going to provide a façade.




Boring ruminations those of yours. You just provided evidence that you have personal reasons to believe reincarnation is true, and that you don't like other beliefs. And that's basically all that you really said in those paragraphs.

We already know you write about topics you don't know, that you argue based of books you didn't read. And we mainly know that your wishful thinking is on steroids making the term "epistemological hedonist" a very mild one to describe you. So there's enough reason to believe you didn't check if Natasha had learnt some Russian from other people in contact with her or whether she was a very smart kid language-wise and she could cold read you (I imagine you like Clever Hans' owner providing anxious hints of what you wanted to hear). The dialogues and "written texts" mentioned by Joe and Henrik are moooost probably the projection of your own wishes, hence they matched the languages you believed you knew (Your language profficiency is not rich as you claim it to be -maybe in Russian, your native language, it is-)

Apparently you are not familiar with familiar with the method that the philosophers and mathematicians often use to prove their propositions. The method is called ad adversum -- you start with assumption that the opposing propositions are true and then prove that they are not, which leads to your proposition. For example, in mathematics you can start with the assumption that there is a finite number of cardinal numbers and then prove that this proposition is false, which proves the opposing proposition stating that the number of cardinal numbers is infinite.

In philosophy you can use this method to prove that so called ideas of objects do not exist.

 

[Buddha]

Hello all.

I have a question for everyone concerned ...

Does anyone else recall that woman who in the mid to late 1970's claimed to channel some sort ancient hunter/warrior person?

Eventually, she was exposed as a fraud.

Anyway, reincarnation rather reminds me of this case because if someone says that certain words, phrases, etc. are the result of someone who died long dead in a far away land, then it can be quite difficult to actually disprove such a claim.

Such claim is easy to disprove if these phrases were said in a language that doesn't exist.

 

[Buddha]

Judy Zebra Knight, the cheater who claimed to channel Ramtha, a knight from 35,000 years ago, while spoke with an Indian-like accent? She's still out there making lots of money.

First of all, I do not believe in channeling. There was another cheater who fooled the Dalai Lama followers by pretending to be the incarnation of a tulku (a saint in their branch of Buddhism, and wrote a book about her past life. But this doesn't prove that reincarnation doesn't exist.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I assumed that you believe me that Joe exists. If you don't we are back to square one -- as I said before, I cannot prove that I am a sane person, which means that I cannot prove that I was writing about real persons.

As I said, what you provided in your OP serves as evidence that you believe reincarnation exists and adds up to myriads of testimonies pointing to reincarnation as a possible subject for research.

And you can't blame anyone here for distrusting you as in the end you only provided a well edited story in your OP and basically refused to provide further elements around that story as well as you basically ever since refused to answer the questions you were asked about the whole experience.

For people in a sceptic forum that looks extremely suspicious and as the thread progresses and it becomes more and more a stale one, you can't blame anyone for turning that suspicion into probable evidence of transitive self-deception (that you're an epistemological hedonist who deceived himself and now is trying make us to share the illusion)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I assumed that you believe me that Joe exists. If you don't we are back to square one -- as I said before, I cannot prove that I am a sane person, which means that I cannot prove that I was writing about real persons.

Then you agree that what you have provided is not empirical proof.

On the subject of empirical proof, can you provide as many details as you can about your previous life, please?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Apparently you are not familiar with familiar with the method that the philosophers and mathematicians often use to prove their propositions. The method is called ad adversum -- you start with assumption that the opposing propositions are true and then prove that they are not, which leads to your proposition. For example, in mathematics you can start with the assumption that there is a finite number of cardinal numbers and then prove that this proposition is false, which proves the opposing proposition stating that the number of cardinal numbers is infinite.

In philosophy you can use this method to prove that so called ideas of objects do not exist.

Thank you for appending my post with your utterly unrelated notions. Now, why don't you go back a reply to what I really wrote in that post?

 

[Buddha]

I received an automated message saying that this thread was closed, and found it in the "hopeless section". Then I found it here. I am still knew to this website and I do not know all its rules. I think I have to find it what is going on here. Anyway, I was planning to make the last post here in a couple of days; I might as well do it now.

I appreciate all responses. This time my goal was to find out the reasons why Buddhism didn't receive as much attention as it deserves in the West. One of the reasons of its lack of progress is extremely bad translations of the Buddhist scriptures into western languages. For example, I spent two months trying to figure out what the phrase "statements that support themselves" means. In its original form the phrase looks gibberish to me. Finally I figured out that the right translation would be "axioms". There are other reasons for the lack of success, so I am trying to figure them out.

I am planning to start another thread in a near future, it is about telekinesis and teleportation. The telekinesis part is based on the research done at the Princeton Univ, you can find the pertinent articles at their website. I will post this thread at the science section because this research was done by the scientists.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Apparently you are not familiar with familiar with the method that the philosophers and mathematicians often use to prove their propositions. The method is called ad adversum -- you start with assumption that the opposing propositions are true and then prove that they are not, which leads to your proposition.

That's a start. Can you please detail the steps you undertook to rule out explanations other than reincarnation?

 

[aleCcowaN]

First of all, I do not believe in channeling. There was another cheater who fooled the Dalai Lama followers by pretending to be the incarnation of a tulku (a saint in their branch of Buddhism, and wrote a book about her past life. But this doesn't prove that reincarnation doesn't exist.

The things you believe aren't really the subject of this thread, but they are evidence of how badly you gathered your """""evidence""""" (with "" tending to infinite) by accepting what matched your worldview and rejecting what didn't. You're a book example of epistemological hedonism [and don't try Wikipedia in English, as it deals with a different notion also called epistemological hedonism]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This time my goal was to find out the reasons why Buddhism didn't receive as much attention as it deserves in the West.

I hope your take-away has been "because of the lack of empirical evidence supporting it". That is, at least, what this thread has shown, although it has little, if anything, to do with the larger population.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Must every thread here be some weird meta-debate about what constitutes proof/evidence?

We go back to ground and explain grade school levels of how "Supporting a claim" works a little too often round these parts.

 

[aleCcowaN]

... I was planning to make the last post here in a couple of days; I might as well do it now.

Please, do. You've already proved you have nothing to contribute to your own threads.

I am planning to start another thread in a near future, it is about telekinesis and teleportation. The telekinesis part is based on the research done at the Princeton Univ, you can find the pertinent articles at their website. I will post this thread at the science section because this research was done by the scientists.

There is no crap you are not after, isn't there?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I am planning to start another thread in a near future, it is about telekinesis and teleportation. The telekinesis part is based on the research done at the Princeton Univ, you can find the pertinent articles at their website. I will post this thread at the science section because this research was done by the scientists.

Translation: None of you guys took the bait in my threads on reincarnation or God, so I'm just going to ignore all the valid criticism, reset, start again, and pretend nothing happened. Criticism will be deflected with stories about how busy and talented and smart I am, how difficult the forum is to navigate, and how you all think I'm insane so I won't need to argue with you anyway.
After the same thing happens in the telekinesis thread, I'll start ignoring that, and start a thread on remote viewing or astral projection, or near death experiences, to continue feeding my ego...

 

[JayUtah]

I assumed that you believe me that Joe exists. If you don't we are back to square one...

No, you're back to Square One. If your "empirical" proof is going to be just a bunch of implausible, unverifiable stories then it is neither empirical nor proof.

Apparently you are not familiar with familiar with the method that the philosophers and mathematicians often use...

No, you need to come up with better arguments than calling your critics stupid and ignorant, especially since you yourself can't demonstrate proficiency in most of the things you try to pontificate about. Case in point: this method you seem to think is so noteworthy is the hypothetico-deductive method I outlined in a previous post. You make a hypothesis, and there immediately arises an associated null hypothesis that you must falsify according to observations you deduce must follow. I described it in some detail and explained how your proof explicitly failed to accomplish that by failing to control for other possible causes. You waved away all that with some vague reference to Karl Popper.

So no, you're the one who doesn't really don't know what you're talking about. Apparently you're not familiar with the method scientists use to conclude things about the physical world. And that was the kind of proof you promised us, but obviously cannot deliver. So, as usual, you told an irrelevant story aimed at trying to make you look good.

Such claim is easy to disprove if these phrases were said in a language that doesn't exist.

And all you'd have to do is prove the language doesn't exist and never existed. Good luck with that, Mister Empiricist.

You said Joe spoke in some language that you identified as some kind of Turkic language. But since you can't provide us the data and won't tell us what exact language, we have to rely upon your biased interpretation that his gibberish was some kind of language. And you haven't explained how, if this was some language he spoke in a past life, why he was able somehow to recall the syllables but not the meaning.

First of all, I do not believe in channeling.

Irrelevant. You somehow think you get to eliminate potential causes just because you don't believe in them.

None of us here believes in reincarnation. I personally think reincarnation is just as plausible an explanation a prioir as demon possession. That is, I consider them both approximately equally unlikely. You telling me it "must" be reincarnation that explains all these things, but can't be demon possession and can't be channeling is simply your obvious bias at work. And the fact that you won't consider that your "subjects" saw you as a gullible type who could be easily fooled for their amusement means you're simply a poor scientist. You don't know what "empirical" means at all. You just seem to think that skeptics will be impressed if you apply that label to the standard pseudo-proof for reincarnation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Translation: None of you guys took the bait in my threads on reincarnation or God, so I'm just going to ignore all the valid criticism, reset, start again, and pretend nothing happened. Criticism will be deflected with stories about how busy and talented and smart I am, how difficult the forum is to navigate, and how you all think I'm insane so I won't need to argue with you anyway.

And since Jabba's already written the "Finnegan's Wake" version of that story this is one is just going to the Straight to Streaming Asylum produced knock off version.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Must every thread here be some weird meta-debate about what constitutes proof/evidence?

We go back to ground and explain grade school levels of how "Supporting a claim" works a little too often round these parts.

As long there are re-runs of Perry Mason, Matlock and the gang, there will be a ceaseless stream of new users coming here to lump testimony and evidence in trial within the adversarial system of justice and then mistake them with evidence in science and philosophy.

 

[abaddon]

I received an automated message saying that this thread was closed,

This thread was never closed.

and found it in the "hopeless section".

This forum does not have a "hopeless section"

Then I found it here.

Wanna know why? Because it was always here.

I am still knew to this website and I do not know all its rules.

If you read them you would. Did you lie when you signed up to the forum?

<snip baloney>

Do you know what I think is going on here? I think that you are posting the same pile of rubbish on multiple sites and got confused which was which. Can I prove that? No, it's pure speculation, but it fits the facts as far as we know them.

Now, you can go right ahead and start a thread "proving" telekinesis or any other topic that takes your fancy, but bear in mind that you started this thread with the grandiose claim that you had empirical proof of reincarnation and you ended up with this...

I assumed that you believe me that Joe exists. If you don't we are back to square one -- as I said before, I cannot prove that I am a sane person, which means that I cannot prove that I was writing about real persons.

... plainly admitting that you can prove nothing.

 

[JayUtah]

I received an automated message saying that this thread was closed, and found it in the "hopeless section". Then I found it here. I am still knew to this website and I do not know all its rules.

One of the milder forms of enforcement here occurs when a moderator moves a post to a section where it can serve as examples of posts that break the rules. You should examine the post and re-read the rules in the member agreement and see if you can determine why your post was moved, In some cases it's because you quoted someone else's post that broke the rules, therefore all quotes of it must also be moved. The idea is not so much to castigate as to edit the thread to remove blatantly disallowed or irrelevant.

I appreciate all responses. This time my goal was to find out the reasons why Buddhism didn't receive as much attention as it deserves in the West. One of the reasons of its lack of progress is extremely bad translations of the Buddhist scriptures into western languages.

No. Blatantly no. None of this thread had the slightest to do with any of that. As you did in your proof for God, you're trying to redefine your purpose in a surprise ending in order to soothe your bruised ego. It's quite rude to your critics when you lie like this in a way that makes you look good at their expense.

Your purpose, stated in the title and expressed throughout, was to try to proof reincarnation exists by means of an empirical proof. Your critics quickly and accurately found its errors which you could not overcome with your usual tricks. Well, except for the last of your usual tricks, which is to pretend you were never tried to prove any point at all. Do you really think your critics are so very stupid as to watch you flail about in your proof for page after page and then suddenly believe your claim to have "really" been trying to do something else?

You could really have learned something here about how to go about setting up experiments to prove the things you believe in. You could have learned what makes people skeptical. You could have learned how to control the collection of observation, which is useful in more ways than just proving your own religious beliefs. Instead, your immunity to criticism has compelled you to take the way out that results in mo more good than simply stroking your ego once more and leaving your critics unappreciated for their efforts to correct you.

There are other reasons for the lack of success, so I am trying to figure them out.

The reason your proof failed is because it was mislabeled as an empirical proof and rose no higher than the standard fallacy people use to try prove supernatural or paranormal phenomenon. You deployed the standard scientia obscura proof, whined about it not being immediately taken as proof, then tried all your typocal social-engineering tricks.

 

[halleyscomet]

Translation: None of you guys took the bait in my threads on reincarnation or God, so I'm just going to ignore all the valid criticism, reset, start again, and pretend nothing happened. Criticism will be deflected with stories about how busy and talented and smart I am, how difficult the forum is to navigate, and how you all think I'm insane so I won't need to argue with you anyway.
After the same thing happens in the telekinesis thread, I'll start ignoring that, and start a thread on remote viewing or astral projection, or near death experiences, to continue feeding my ego...

In other words he's repeating his pattern from the "A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?" thread.

1. Create a thread and post drivel.
2. Ignore all the detailed criticisms of the drivel.
3. Declare victory.
4. Repeat with new drivel.

At least he adds some novelty by changing up the drivel he's posting.

 

[halleyscomet]

The reason your proof failed is because it was mislabeled as an empirical proof and rose no higher than the standard fallacy people use to try prove supernatural or paranormal phenomenon. You deployed the standard scientia obscura proof, whined about it not being immediately taken as proof, then tried all your typocal social-engineering tricks.

I don't think he can differentiate between his own opinion and verifiable fact. I say this not as a criticism of him or a personal attack, but as a qualifier we need to keep in mind when discussing things with him. The idea that he might be wrong is literally incomprehensible to him. He may pay occasional lip service to the notion that he could be wrong, but it's clear his heart isn't in honestly evaluating this possibility.