ESP and Reincarnation

[BobG]

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?



Not.

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!

It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

Well here is what I said:

Bob, Bob, Bob;

What on Earth are you claiming?

What would you say about the "fact" the World was created last Tuesday complete with all our memories about our past life? It is amusing speculation but that's it.

How is any of the "thinking" you have presented about reincarnation any different?

In the case of ESP: there is no unequivocal evidence of it's existence and there is no known mechanism.

Respectfully,

Gord

You have been speculating and using your "beliefs" to justify your conclusions. Your "thoughts" are not new or original. How about some show of intelligence on your part?

Go ahead and insult me if you wish. This is part of the Internet. I've been here for years.

 

[Pup]

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!

It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

Vision was an analogy. Sentience is an ability, like seeing or hearing, and of course a lack of sentience can also be induced in a living person, such as in unconsciousness, for example. If none of the genetic or learned properties connected to that ability transfer to another person, what stays the same enough that one could say that a person's individual sentience was reincarned into another?

Ah, wait. Is this the problem? To try to figure out what you meant, I looked at "sentience" in Wikipedia.

I'm using it in the first sense mentioned: "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively."

Are you using it the other way they mentioned? "In science fiction, sentience is 'personhood': the essential quality that separates humankind from machines or lower animals." I still can't figure out the answer, but it seems that would allow a fuzzier new-agey definition of an individual's sentience, more like an essence or soul.

 

[Denver]

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!

Not if you have tinnitus.

It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

A better example might be when you are asleep and not dreaming. Why do you wake up when someone calls your name? Are you sentient when you are unconscious?

 

[shuttlt]

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

Oh! For God's sake..... a sense of wonder I've got, a sense of the infinite mystery of the universe ditto... what I don't have is infinite patience for discussing whether or not, by means unknown, consciousness might, very rarely, have been reincarnated in a way that cannot be detected. People can believe in this, invisible unicorns, or whatever if they want I'm just done listening to it.

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

 

[BobG]

Well here is what I said:


You have been speculating and using your "beliefs" to justify your conclusions. Your "thoughts" are not new or original. How about some show of intelligence on your part?

Go ahead and insult me if you wish. This is part of the Internet. I've been here for years.

I haven't said anything to justify my conclusions/beliefs/theories etc. I'm just stating what they are. I haven't tried to convince anybody of the veracity of these beliefs.

Secondly, I am not trying to be new or original. If you have heard this before, that's ok by me.

It only shows that there is at least one other person in this world who agrees with me.

Please realize that I'm a bit sensitive to what I say in these forums because some assh*** just kicked me out of one with no option available to return. I also enjoyed that forum.

Thankfully I found another on the same subject which is just as good. In fact, many of the posters are the same and a couple of the guys could not understand how I got kicked out without a warning or being put on probation.

Bob

Bob Guercio

 

[BobG]

Ah, wait. Is this the problem? To try to figure out what you meant, I looked at "sentience" in Wikipedia.

To me, to be sentient means to be conscious, nothing more!

I am sentient, you are sentient, my dog is sentient and quite smart I may add.

Bob

 

[BobG]

Not if you have tinnitus.

True. But you know what I meant!

A better example might be when you are asleep and not dreaming. Why do you wake up when someone calls your name? Are you sentient when you are unconscious?

No!

 

[BobG]

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

How could I be a troll? A troll stays anonymous.

I'm one of the few people in these forums that uses his real name.

If I wanted to hide, I would use a "user name" but why do that?

You are probably using your real name and I like that. That's the way it should be.

By the way, this whole thread started because I wanted to say something about myself as a new member of this forum because I think it's a good idea to know where we are coming from. I started this line of thinking in the welcome forum and it was suggested that I take it to the appropriate forum. So here I am.

Bob

 

[Hokulele]

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

http://commonsensequantum.blogspot.com/2009/06/feynman-and-what-comes-next.html

 

[Marduk]

Oh! For God's sake..... a sense of wonder I've got, a sense of the infinite mystery of the universe ditto... what I don't have is infinite patience for discussing whether or not, by means unknown, consciousness might, very rarely, have been reincarnated in a way that cannot be detected. People can believe in this, invisible unicorns, or whatever if they want I'm just done listening to it.

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

so Einsteins a troll now ?
hmmm transference I reckon

 

[shuttlt]

Bob,

I'm not sure having a plausible looking name is a good indication of whether you are a troll. I apologise if I've bitten your head of without cause. As I said, you are welcome to believe in whatever you want. When you're ready to start a topic and discuss something I promise to be polite and respectful.

 

[Marduk]

How could I be a troll? A troll stays anonymous.

he was responding to my post which was actually a quote from Einstein.
which proves the point I was making rather well
lol

 

[Fnord]

I haven't said anything to justify my conclusions/beliefs/theories etc. I'm just stating what they are. I haven't tried to convince anybody of the veracity of these beliefs.

.
That much is glaringly obvious, so I'll repeat the question I asked 4 pages ago, and which you have so far completely ignored.

Upon what evidence do you base your claims?

If all that you are doing is stating a belief or an opinion, then say so. Yet you seem to be claiming that reincarnation is real without providing any valid supporting evidence - subjective beliefs and opinions are not evidence. And just because dozens, hundred, or even millions of people can be found to share your belief or opinion, that does not make your belief or opinion any more valid.

Claims must be supported by valid evidence, and extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinarily valid evidence. Claiming that reincarnation is real is making an extraordinary claim - it defies any known law of science, and there has been no valid evidence to support the claim.

(Ordinary claims can be supported by known physical laws, or reasonable extrapolation therefrom, or a repeatably verifiable demonstration of the claim itself. Reincarnation does not fit the definition of an ordinary claim.)

 

[Xulld]

Critical thinking begins with asking yourself why you hold a belief, and if no rational reason exists, then it would be irrational to continue to hold such a belief, and thus to be a skeptical critical thinker one would abandon as many irrational thoughts as possible.

IMHO.

 

[shuttlt]

he was responding to my post which was actually a quote from Einstein.
which proves the point I was making rather well
lol

I was responding to both of you, the troll part was aimed at Bob... perhaps I could have been clearer. Anyway, I'll bite. What was the point you were making by your Einstein quote?

 

[BobG]

.
That much is glaringly obvious, so I'll repeat the question I asked 4 pages ago, and which you have so far completely ignored.

Upon what evidence do you base your claims?

If all that you are doing is stating a belief or an opinion, then say so.

It's a belief and an opinion. I'm not sure where you have been but I have been saying this throughout this thread!

Bob

 

[BobG]

Critical thinking begins with asking yourself why you hold a belief, and if no rational reason exists, then it would be irrational to continue to hold such a belief, and thus to be a skeptical critical thinker one would abandon as many irrational thoughts as possible.

IMHO.

I certainly don't agree with this logic.

Louis Pasteur had a belief in the germ theory of desease and it certainly wasn't logical and rational at the time. Imagine if he had abandoned this belief.

The annuls of history are chock full of people that have held on to a belief deemed by others to be illogical and irrational.

Copernicus comes to mind! Or should he have abandoned the theory that all planets, including the earth, revolved around the sun.

Bob Guercio

 

[BobG]

Hey! I just noticed. I am a scholar in this forum!

What did I do to be so worthy of such a title?

Bob

 

[Denver]

I certainly don't agree with this logic.

Louis Pasteur had a belief in the germ theory of desease and it certainly wasn't logical and rational at the time. Imagine if he had abandoned this belief.

The annuls of history are chock full of people that have held on to a belief deemed by others to be illogical and irrational.

Copernicus comes to mind! Or should he have abandoned the theory that all planets, including the earth, revolved around the sun.

Bob Guercio

And this brings us to the scientific method.

It is certainly fine and good to ask questions and propose theories. But how do you tell which ones are worth while, and which ones are fantasy?

One answer is, you don't care which are worth while and which ones are fantasy. In which case, there's not much to really discuss here.

The other is, you gather more evidence, propose and perform tests, and modify your theories and make new conclusions based on the results.

Pasteur and Copernicus took these paths. Even if what they proposed was further modified in the future, that is a continuance of the scientific method over time: new conclusions based on new evidence and results.