Empirical Proofs of reincarnation.

[SOdhner]

The joke is that they have, if it is a fact and not an opinion, stated a fact.
It is a real, objective fact in the really real reality/world that I am weird.
Now it seems that there is more. Something should follow from that fact:

I am weird, therefore...

But I can't get them to explain more. So I guess it is an opinion after all.

1. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained what 'fact' and 'opinion' mean, and how they are used in casual conversation. I did this several times. The fact that you're still doing this means you're not even trying to communicate effectively and so there's no point in trying to have a conversation with you.

2. Take this back over to the other thread, these two train wrecks aren't improved by combining them.

 

[Buddha]

A six month old speaking fluently in any language at all...
Specialist, yet undefined, meditation techniques, that are expertly adjusted on the fly by our OP in order to make them much more efficient.
A dismissive skeptic who gladly spends 10 hours doing guided meditation.
Nearly all OP's subjects turn out to have spoken one of the three languages OP kind of knows in a past life...

It all seems like confabulation.

Please see my new post. You could run the original procedure on yourself, so this is not a guided meditation.

 

[SOdhner]

anyone who has an open mind could use the past lives recall procedure to see that, most likely, he/she had a past life, although this may not necessarily be the case –according to Buddha, some people do not have past lives.

So we have two built-in excuses:
1. If it doesn't work for you, you must not have an open mind (it's your fault)
2. If it doesn't work for you, you must not have had past lives (it's not my fault)

Cool! Are you going to address the huge problems in your method and the fact that this doesn't count as Empirical evidence by any reasonable definition?

You could run the original procedure on yourself, so this is not a guided meditation.

As described by you, what you were doing was a form of guided meditation.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

1. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained what 'fact' and 'opinion' mean, and how they are used in casual conversation. I did this several times. The fact that you're still doing this means you're not even trying to communicate effectively and so there's no point in trying to have a conversation with you.

2. Take this back over to the other thread, these two train wrecks aren't improved by combining them.

Okay, and then answer me.

 

[JayUtah]

I am going to reply to several posts at once. Several opponents criticized my usage of the phrase “open mind”.

The criticism was to your co-opting of the phrase to mean cajoling your critics to lower their standards so that your argument clears it. You didn't address that. Nor did you answer the question whether you are open-minded enough to accept that you might be wrong.

Well, anyone who has an open mind could use the past lives recall procedure to see that, most likely, he/she had a past life...

Not until you demonstrate empirically that the procedure actually recalls past lives. Since you're unwilling to do that, your proof fails right there.

 

[Buddha]

No, you didn't. You just shifted the burden of proof for others to provide and falsify alternatives. You're the claimed empiricist. That's your job, and you didn't do it. You don't seem to realize that for people who don't already believe in reincarnation, the leap from your "evidence" to that conclusion is just as ludicrous as the other options S0dhner mentioned that you dismiss.

The burden of proof is the procedure itself. You can run the procedure on yourself without an outside help. The original procedure worked for me, I was able to recall my past life along with two Sanskrit phrases. It might as well work for you. If you're successful, would you accept your own experience as burden of proof?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The burden of proof is the procedure itself.

This is the most nonsensical phrase your penmanship has yet offered here.

 

[Buddha]

You found it relevant enough to mention. You're padding your story to make it look more favorable. And in so doing, you've added implausible details that tend to discredit your story.



Or so you suppose. And you further suppose that it's because she was reincarnated from a Russian. You didn't nothing empirically to test this.



Irrelevant. Your inability or mine to discover an ulterior motive doesn't negate the fact that you did nothing to discover and test alternative explanations, regardless of motive. "I can't see that they had a reason to lie," is not empiricism. Your conclusion is not at all empirical. It's purely suppositional.



It disappoints science. You promised an empirical proof and you failed to deliver it.



Then your proof is not even remotely empirical. You promised an empirical proof, but you failed to apply even the most rudimentary empirical controls. Therefore your proof fails.



Nobody mentioned Karl Popper. Don't change the subject.

So I suppose? I supposed nothing. Her mother was standing next to me, she confirmed that Natasha answered my questions correctly.
What empirical control you are talking about? To me ability to reproduced foreign language that a person didn't learn in this life is a proof of reincarnation.

 

[JayUtah]

The burden of proof is the procedure itself.

That's not what I meant. You're trying to force your critics to come up with, and prove, alternatives to your imagination and supposition. That's your job as an empiricist.

You can run the procedure on yourself without an outside help. The original procedure worked for me...

Prove that to an acceptable standard of empirical validity.

It might as well work for you.

Why not?

If you're successful, would you accept your own experience as burden of proof?

I won't accept any procedure as part of an empirical proof that has not been empirically verified. Since you can't show that what you imagine in this state of mind is anything other than your imagination, it has no validity whatsoever.

What do you think "empirical" means?

 

[Buddha]

You have been given many of them.


And how come you are so confused that you drop phrases like "Is this kind of explanation that you would accept?". It's very stupid as there are explanations and there is evidence.

This was not my question. I didn't ask for additional explanations. I asked you and the others a pointed question -- what kind of explanation would you ACCEPT? Would you accept any explanation, or would you prefer to leave the facts unexplained?

 

[aleCcowaN]

You can run the procedure on yourself without an outside help. The original procedure worked for me, I was able to recall my past life along with two Sanskrit phrases. It might as well work for you.

Just looking at your verbosity, you're talking exactly like a drug addict who pretends other people to share with him the benefits of his habit.

 

[JayUtah]

So I suppose? I supposed nothing.

You supposed Natasha understood Russian because she was a Russian-speaker in a past life. That's pure speculation.

What empirical control you are talking about? To me ability to reproduced foreign language that a person didn't learn in this life is a proof of reincarnation.

And that's why you don't succeed as a scholar. You have a very poor grasp of logic and a non-existent knowledge of empiricism. What observations did you collect to confirm Natasha hadn't been exposed to Russian during the three years you didn't know her? What observations did you collect to attempt to falsify your reincarnation hypothesis? None -- you simply jumped to the desired conclusion.

The notion of a control in empiricism is a central, elementary concept. If I have to explain to you what "empirical controls" mean, then clearly you're wasting everyone's time. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

what kind of explanation would you ACCEPT?

I told you. You responded with an irrelevant reference to your favorite philosopher.

Would you accept any explanation, or would you prefer to leave the facts unexplained?

I'm happy leaving the facts unexplained if no explanation is supported by sufficient evidence. I would certainly not resolve the problem of a lack of evidence by jumping to a conclusion I had predetermined.

 

[Buddha]

You wrote a long post, so I will repeat myself for you -- the original procedure does not require presence of a "guide" or whatever you call that person. You can run the procedure on yourself. The procedure is described in the book Buddhist Scriptures by Conze.

The question of a mechanism is an interesting one. I do not believe in demons and in psychic powers, so I do not have to analyze these possibilities. The way I see it, there is no mechanism at all. The situation is similar to decomposition of Uranium -- alpha particles are emitted at random times until it decomposes into lead. There is no mechanism causing emission of a particle,

 

[Dave Rogers]

The burden of proof is the procedure itself. You can run the procedure on yourself without an outside help. The original procedure worked for me, I was able to recall my past life along with two Sanskrit phrases. It might as well work for you. If you're successful, would you accept your own experience as burden of proof?

No, because false memories are a well-known phenomenon. I, for example, recall clearly that Matchbox produced a 1/72 scale kit of a Fairey IIIF in the 1980's, despite no such kit having existed; I can even clearly recall the box art. The explanation, I suspect, is that it's an aircraft I'd particularly like to have a well-engineered model of, so I've somehow convinced myself that such a thing exists. In the same way, anyone who particularly wants to have been reincarnated can easily convince themself that they have some memories of a past life. It's even relatively simple for them, when researching their initial memories, to confabulate the results of their research with the earlier memories, and hence manufacture even more accurate, though no less spurious, evidence of their own reincarnation. A good example would be believing one has recalled Sanskrit phrases, finding ones close enough in sound, and then adjusting the memory to match the newly-learned phrase.

So, no, subjective memories that may be false are not empirical proof.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

The procedure is described in the book Buddhist Scriptures by Conze.

Does this book contain empirical verification that the procedure actually recalls past lives?

I do not believe in demons and in psychic powers, so I do not have to analyze these possibilities.

That's a pretty anti-empirical sentiment. I don't believe in reincarnation, so does that mean I get to categorically eliminate it from consideration in your anecdotes? Or should I base my conclusion on observation regardless of what I believed at first?

What you're telling me is that you're not open-minded enough to consider possibilities you don't already believe in. That's the opposite of empiricism.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This was not my question. I didn't ask for additional explanations. I asked you and the others a pointed question -- what kind of explanation would you ACCEPT? Would you accept any explanation, or would you prefer to leave the facts unexplained?

It still doesn't makes any sense. Explain away whatever you want. I can spot what's evidence and what's not. And look I'm being very generous and tolerant with you, as I didn't ask -like others- how do you define "reincarnation".

Your candidness is noticed: Buddha said there are "new souls". Duh! as the human population continues to grow from the 100 millions in Buddha's time to the current +7 billions. Siddhārtha Gautama thought to have lived in a closed system. I have some news: it isn't.

You recognized Sanskrit? How posh of you! Why didn't you recognize Alanic or Guarani? Did your previous transits through this world follow the path of the history books?

And how old a soul do you reckon to be, since you recognized Sanskrit? If so, what did you do that shows so little personal progress? Knock yourself off with your technique and come back with an explanation for that. To me you don't look like an "old soul" in the Indian sense at all.

For me there's an easier explanation that can be proved if you participate sincerely: the big strokes of your narcissism are all over the threads you are in, so that's a given. I suppose you're childless. Then my explanation is that your reproduction instinct is twisted into fantasizing you will come again into life once and again because your ego is somewhat conserved. You're basically cloning yourself indefinitely through this old cultural thingy called "reincarnation" because for a childless narcissistic ego being reduced to an old crappy person and then dying for ever and falling into nothingness and oblivion is completely unacceptable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose you're childless. Then my explanation is that your reproduction instinct is twisted into fantasizing you will come again into life once and again because your ego is somewhat conserved. You're basically cloning yourself indefinitely through this old cultural thingy called "reincarnation" because for a childless narcissistic ego being reduced to an old crappy person and then dying for ever and falling into nothingness and oblivion is completely unacceptable.

That explains a lot. I've got four kids, and I'm gonna die some day.

Dave

 

[Crossbow]

So I suppose? I supposed nothing. Her mother was standing next to me, she confirmed that Natasha answered my questions correctly.
What empirical control you are talking about? To me ability to reproduced foreign language that a person didn't learn in this life is a proof of reincarnation.

I think what you are experiencing is actually something called "confirmation bias".

In this case, you want your ideas to be confirmed so badly that you will readily distort whatever data you have in front of you in order to have it confirm your ideas.

As far as I can tell in the few details that you have provided, there has been very limited speaking of these foreign languages; and yet you use this small amount of unverified interaction to claim that it is actual proof of reincarnation.

Confirmation bias has often been at the root of all sorts of weird claims over the years. For example, some years ago there were some people who claimed to hear devil worship when certain songs were played backwards. Or that Jesus would return to the Earth on 01 JAN 2000. Or that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

And so on.

 

[Myriad]

So I suppose? I supposed nothing. Her mother was standing next to me, she confirmed that Natasha answered my questions correctly.

Okay, then we know Natasha's mother must know Russian!

Natasha was a spirited 3-year-old. I started talking to her in Russian, she was responding in English. I asked her what is her name, how old she is, what she is doing here, what is her mother’s name, etc,. In total I asked her about 30 questions and she gave correct answers to all of them, as Nicole confirmed. In the end I pointed at Natasha’s finger and said in English, “How do you call this?” She replied with “palets” which means “finger” in Russian.

And a three-year-old whose mother knows Russian understanding some questions in Russian and knowing one word of Russian is remarkable, how?