ESP and Reincarnation

[BobG]

How scientific of you.

This gentleman may be very scientific as I am.

I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter?

I have an appreciation for history. Is that scientically based? Of course not!

Bob Guercio

 

[Soapy Sam]

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!

Neither do I.
This (sadly) does not make me as smart as Feynman.

By the way- you are under no obligation to continue a debate , even if you started it.
If it's interesting though, other people may carry it on.
It's common for posters not to read the entire thread- they may see something you said in post 1 and add a post 367 demanding further data, despite not reading posts 2- 366. You're under no obligation to reply.

 

[Akhenaten]

This gentleman may be very scientific as I am.

I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter?

I have an appreciation for history. Is that scientically based? Of course not!

Bob Guercio

my bolding


Not at all Bob. Your thoughts are your own and I have no problem with that. The poster I was addressing has claimed to be a scientist though, which creates different issues.


Yes, history is scientifically based. An unscientific approach to history is where religion and politics come from. YMMV


Cheers,

Dave

 

[BobG]

By the way- you are under no obligation to continue a debate , even if you started it.
If it's interesting though, other people may carry it on.
It's common for posters not to read the entire thread- they may see something you said in post 1 and add a post 367 demanding further data, despite not reading posts 2- 366. You're under no obligation to reply.

I realize this but I am fascinated with the way this discussion has gone.

I do realize that this debate has been conducted in a very gentlemenly fashion but a couple of posters have expressed some hostility. This I don't understand!

Bob

 

[BobG]

my bolding


The poster I was addressing has claimed to be a scientist though, which creates different issues.

There is a problem with claiming to be a scientist if the claim is made to justify the correctness of your opinion.

I presume that this was the case?

Bob

 

[BobG]

my bolding




Yes, history is scientifically based. An unscientific approach to history is where religion and politics come from. YMMV


Cheers,

Dave

I didn't mean to imply that history was not scientifically based. I meant to imply that my appreciation of history was not scientifically based.

Although not scientifically based, my appreciation for history still exists!

Thus, I can have ideas, opinions and beliefs about ESP and reincarnation which are not scientically based.

Bob

 

[shuttlt]

Let me interject a little bit of trivia here.

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!

This does not surprise me because I don't believe that it is possible for humans to understand Quantum Mechanics. We accept it and work out the mathematics of it but a true understanding such as the concept of velocity (mph) is way beyond us.

Bob Guercio

Which is fine, so long as you don't take it to mean that Quantum Mechanics can/might say anything you choose. The practical implications and limitations of Quantum Mechanics are fairly well understood. It isn't at all obvious to me that quantum mechanics says anything remotely helpful to any of this, could you indicate more precisely how you think it does?

 

[BobG]

Which is fine, so long as you don't take it to mean that Quantum Mechanics can/might say anything you choose. The practical implications and limitations of Quantum Mechanics are fairly well understood. It isn't at all obvious to me that quantum mechanics says anything remotely helpful to any of this, could you indicate more precisely how you think it does?

I'm sorry!

It doesn't. I just thought that I would introduce some trivia into the conversation.

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.

 

[Pup]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot
Bob:

You believe that reincarnation is possible. In those situations where it does happen, exactly what is it that is being reincarnated?

Consciousness.

Well, we all have consciousness, so what does it mean to have the same consciousness as a person who lived before, if you don't remember that prior life? Like IXP said, what remains of you? Are you talking about a person's personality, their likes, dislikes, wants, etc.?

I can see this heading straight toward the nature-vs-nurture question, because if a person has no memory of prior experiences and starts a new life with a clean slate, nurture will change everything that isn't there by nature. It sounds like you're saying that the part which can't be changed by nurture would be the part that's reincarnated?

Actually, what intrigues me most is your belief that reincarnation is possible, but very rare, since most believers in reincarnation believe it's fairly common and only past-life memories are rare.

What do you think triggers reincarnation upon death in those rare people who have it happen?

(For what it's worth, I personally don't "believe in" reincarnation because it requires a soul or something similar to last after death, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence for that. If evidence came forth showing that a soul lasted after death, I'd consider reincarnation as a possibility, and of course if strong enough evidence of reincarnation itself came forth, I'd gladly accept it.)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm sorry!

It doesn't. I just thought that I would introduce some trivia into the conversation.

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.

I seem to be one of the naughty people here who you are not responding to because I do not take your amusing speculations seriously.

However, whether anyone understands QM or not, useful predictions can be made about the real world by using its mathematical equations. The Pope, however, seems to have a problem with reality.

 

[BobG]

I seem to be one of the naughty people here who you are not responding to because I do not take your amusing speculations seriously.

I'm not sure what you said in the post that you are referring to but if you made light of what I said, of course I wouldn't respond to it. What's the purpose?

If you questioned my thoughts in an intelligent manner, than I would respond.

If I made light of something that you said, I don't think you would respond to me!

Bob Guercio





Bob Guercio

 

[Akhenaten]

There is a problem with claiming to be a scientist if the claim is made to justify the correctness of your opinion.

I presume that this was the case?

Bob

Yes mate, but it's no biggie. It's the subject of another thread and is a bit OT here.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[BobG]

Well, we all have consciousness, so what does it mean to have the same consciousness as a person who lived before, if you don't remember that prior life? Like IXP said, what remains of you? Are you talking about a person's personality, their likes, dislikes, wants, etc.?

None of the above. Personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. could all be different from your first life.

I can see this heading straight toward the nature-vs-nurture question, because if a person has no memory of prior experiences and starts a new life with a clean slate, nurture will change everything that isn't there by nature. It sounds like you're saying that the part which can't be changed by nurture would be the part that's reincarnated?

No! You could be one hell of a nice guy in this life but in the next, you would have different genetic makeup which could make you a scoundrel. And genetic makeup is nature.

Actually, what intrigues me most is your belief that reincarnation is possible, but very rare, since most believers in reincarnation believe it's fairly common and only past-life memories are rare.

What can I say?

What do you think triggers reincarnation upon death in those rare people who have it happen?

I don't have a clue! I don't know what triggered this life but if I knew that, I would be able to answer your question.

(For what it's worth, I personally don't "believe in" reincarnation because it requires a soul or something similar to last after death, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence for that. If evidence came forth showing that a soul lasted after death, I'd consider reincarnation as a possibility, and of course if strong enough evidence of reincarnation itself came forth, I'd gladly accept it.)

OK

 

[Pup]

None of the above. Personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. could all be different from your first life.

...

No! You could be one hell of a nice guy in this life but in the next, you would have different genetic makeup which could make you a scoundrel. And genetic makeup is nature.

If it's not personality or genetics or memories, then what part of "you" remains when "you" are reincarnated? I can't think of anything else.

 

[shuttlt]

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.

I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff. .....He's mentioned quantum mechanics and God in the same post....

 

[Marduk]

Your belief sounds a lot like belieivng "I'm invisible, unless someone is looking at me."

who said that ?

 

[BobG]

If it's not personality or genetics or memories, then what part of "you" remains when "you" are reincarnated? I can't think of anything else.

I remember a good word that may helpful: sentient

sentient: 1. Having sense perception; conscious; 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Sentience is what is reincarnated and this exists in other living beings. For example, dogs and chimpanzees have it while worms, in my opinion, do not.

It takes a central nervous system which worms do not have.

Not all living beings are sentient since it takes a certain amount of brain power to achieve this. I cannot tell you where the dividing line is in the animal world. It's probably more of a gray area where those above the area are sentient and those below are not sentient. Those in the gray area are in some sort of a nebulous world between consciousness and unconsciosness.

As an example of an animal that I do not believe is sentient is a crab. Of course, anybody who has been bitten by a crab may disagree with me but I believe that what a crab does is all controlled by reflexes, just as a spider spinning a web is a reflexive action. This is known because spiders spin perfect webs and never make mistakes. If it were something that they were thinking about or if they had other thoughts on their mind as they were spinning this web, such as a person knitting, there would be mistakes.

Yes and I hope this doesn't upset you guys more than you already are, but, in my scheme of things, a human being can be reincarnated into a dog and a dog can be reincarnated into a human being. And of course, either sex is possible.

Bob

 

[BobG]

I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff.

If you believe that this is guff, you shouldn't be responding or you should not be responding seriously. If you presented to me what I perceived as "guff", I would not respond to you seriously. That is if I would even respond?

Please note that I would always respond to you in a courteous manner.

Bob

 

[Marduk]

I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff. .....He's mentioned quantum mechanics and God in the same post....

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness

 

[Pup]

I remember a good word that may helpful: sentient

sentient: 1. Having sense perception; conscious; 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Well, yes, we all have it. But it's like vision (I mean eyesight, not metaphorical vision). We all have it, but to say that one person's vision is reincarnated in another doesn't mean anything, if none of the genetic or learned properties transfer over. I'm just not getting it. What about a person's individual sensience stays the same when it's reincarnated?

Yes and I hope this doesn't upset you guys more than you already are, but, in my scheme of things, a human being can be reincarnated into a dog and a dog can be reincarnated into a human being. And of course, either sex is possible.

Not sure "upset" is the right word. If we discovered it was true, then folks might be upset, or not, to know that grandma could be the neighbor's dog now. But I can't see the point of being upset just because somebody claims that something is true, since that has no effect on whether or not it is true.