Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot

[CFLarsen]

It was much more than that ........ you also compared paranormal claims to a milk fairy, santa, etc. claiming there was equal evidence for these ...... dismissing a great deal of parapsychology and psychical research to the contrary which to falsify requires debunkers to invent so many elaborate, incongruous, unproven fraud/conspiracy theories and imagining scientists and magicians losing the most basic of competence..... . ever thought about applying Occam's Razor to skeptic revisionism?

But there is no better evidence of psychic abilities than there is evidence of Santa.

 

[SezMe]

Richard, no-one is claiming this particular case is good evidence for reincarnation. And the fact that he visited the "WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started" is perfectly compatible with the reincarnation hypothesis.

And the fact that he visited the "WWII air museum <strike>before</strike> after any of the other WWII related issues started" is perfectly compatible with the reincarnation hypothesis.

IOW, the reincarnation hypothesis is irrelevant here.

 

[RayG]

I just wish to know why the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered to be unlikely.

I've yet to see a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Seeing the planes might have easily jogged his memories.

One could also say, seeing the planes might have easily caused his memories.

And why on earth is reincarnation an extraordinary claim?

Because reincarnationists have yet to give a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

I think the opposite if anything i.e it would be extraordinary if we are not reincarnated.

What you think or believe has little bearing on whether it's true or not.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Could you be more explicit and tell me precisely what's wrong with the reincarnation hypothesis??

Because it uses additional unproven phenomenon to try and explain an unproven phenomenon.

The question is why the self should not be able to operate though another body.

No, the question is, why should it? Can you explain by what process the consciousness is able to transfer to the other body?

Are you or anyone else able to explain why it cannot?

I've yet to see an adequate explaination that it can.

RayG

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is seriously a retarded comment. I have a birthmark at the base of my skull that has been there since the day I was born. It didn't shift at all as my skin "stretched" from my growing.

I think it's you that's the serious retard if you imagine that a birthmark there will move relative to the rest of your body or if you imagine that this was what I was saying.

If a birthmark there moves, or if it were, say, on the tip of your nose, and it moved to beside your nose, then that would mean those birthmarks cannot support the reincarnation hypothesis. I mean obviously.

On the other hand if, for example, a birthmark is on a arm located say 6 inches below the shoulder on a new born baby, then you would not expect it to remain 6 inches below the shoulder as an adult!

If you want to maintain birthmarks do not support reincarnation you have to maintain that these birthmarks which Ian Stevenson thinks support reincarnation are located in the former type of locations. Provide the data please.

So the number of posts you have has something to do with what other people know? You have never taken one minute to listen to anyone on this message board.

Yup, because the vast majority are incredibly stupid like you.

It sounds like you are saying that you are smart and shemp is stupid. How gentlemanly.

He's certainly stupid in his irrational dislike of me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Because reincarnationists have yet to give a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

[/B]

It is very possible your words mean nothing. It might well be like asking what's the explanation or method whereby electrons repel one another? Or what's the method or explanation whereby an object continues in a state of uniform motion in a straight line in the absence of any forces.

As I keep saying to people on here.

Go and study some damn philosophy of science before asking asinine questions.

 

[Archon1]

Go and study some damn philosophy of science before asking asinine questions.

Ian, I think the problem you have in these forums, and the reason many people can't stand you, is that this is not a philosophy forum. People come here to discuss paranormal subjects, not weather or not something is philisophically possible, but if it is actually real. That's the way I see it anyway. Then again I am stupid.

 

[Archon1]

If you want to maintain birthmarks do not support reincarnation you have to maintain that these birthmarks which Ian Stevenson thinks support reincarnation are located in the former type of locations. Provide the data please.

Wait a minute, why in the hell would birthmarks be reincarnated along with the soul or consciousness or whatever? I guess birthmarks must be alot more important than I thought.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Wait a minute, why in the hell would birthmarks be reincarnated along with the soul or consciousness or whatever? I guess birthmarks must be alot more important than I thought.

Birthmarks do not pass on from life to life. The birthmarks correspond to the injuries that cause death in the previous incarnation. Thus if one gets shot through the head one might find 2 birthmarks -- one corresponding to the entry of the bullet and one corresponding to its exit. In the case of bullets the birthmark representing where the bullet exited tends to be bigger.

If you have a birthmark on the base of your skull then maybe you were executed by being beheaded in your last life?

 

[Beancounter]

Birthmarks do not pass on from life to life. The birthmarks correspond to the injuries that cause death in the previous incarnation. Thus if one gets shot through the head one might find 2 birthmarks -- one corresponding to the entry of the bullet and one corresponding to its exit. In the case of bullets the birthmark representing where the bullet exited tends to be bigger.

If you have a birthmark on the base of your skull then maybe you were executed by being beheaded in your last life?

Jeepers, I had a mate at school who had a birthmark on his todger. Poor sod must have got it bad in his previous life.

(Yes it was a boys' boarding school, but we had communal showers and he was quite proud of it. True but name withheld to avoid legal problems)

Ian, this seems a bit far fetched. What if you have a small birthmark on your little toe? Scratch that went septic, I suppose?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Jeepers, I had a mate at school who had a birthmark on his todger. Poor sod must have got it bad in his previous life.

(Yes it was a boys' boarding school, but we had communal showers and he was quite proud of it. True but name withheld to avoid legal problems)

Ian, this seems a bit far fetched. What if you have a small birthmark on your little toe? Scratch that went septic, I suppose?

It's not being claimed that all birthmarks have their origin in a previous life. But if a child claims to remember a previous life, and what he says about that previous person turns out to be true or largely true (and it would be difficult to obtain that knowledge by normal means), and if s/he claimed for example to have died by being shot in the head, and his/her birthmarks roughly correspond to the points of entry and exit of the bullet, then all this evidence does seem to be at least suggestive of reincarnation.

Todger? What's that? A willy?

 

[Beancounter]

Todger? What's that? A willy?

Yep. Must be a southern expression, I thought you would have heard of it, coming from Blighty.

Re. the birthmarks.

Are we not just moving into the realms of coincidence? If only some birthmarks are indicative of events in an earlier life then to select only those where somebody has a recollection with a connection to their birthmark as evidence of reincarnation seems a bit unscientific.

Also, I would have thought that flights of fancy may play a role here. With the exception of unsightly birthmarks such as the "wine stains" (I think that is the term for them but I may well be wrong) that cover half of peoples' faces etc from my youth I recall kids often coming up with stories as to how they arose. "Being shot" seems like an excellent reason for a birthmark to me.

 

[Open Mind]

But there is no better evidence of psychic abilities than there is evidence of Santa.

Oh I forgot you are called Claus.

I reckon you have been reading too many Prometheus comic books and are probably over inlfuenced by the a-priori confidence of revisionist csicopmedians who don't conduct proper trials ...... or perhaps you have faith in 2 brief preliminary stunt trials per year by JREF?

It seems to me you are never going to trust anyone making a PSI claim (nor am I saying you should!) ...... but you would trust yourself surely not to commit fraud or deceive yourself or make imaginary errors in method?

So what fair research have you done? Due to the often claimed sheep/goat effect and experimenter effects your research requires (a) You entered the research with a belief it may be possible, not to disprove it or show it doesn't exist (b) You did not involve cynical disbelievers in trials and do not inform any of them prior to or during trials (c) You look for weak anomalous effects in a sincere manner over a period of several years....... etc.

 

[Kaydens]

I'm probably going to regret this when I have brick dust on my forehead but what the hell.

It's all very well to point that out, but to actually argue for it might be a tad more difficult.

You can of course define Occam's razor to be inapplicable here, but if you do this then clearly one cannot appeal to Occam's razer to dismiss paranormal phenomena. Which begs the question why people are therefore doing precisely that??

I'd try and use words of only one syllable but, "paranormal" and "reincarnation" don't really reduce down that easily. We are saying that Occam's Razor points to a more likely explanation to this young boy's nightmares than reincarnation.

On the other hand, I was saying that Occam's Razor should not be applied to cases of "This happened, that happened or something else" since "or something else" covers far too many possibilities. But back to the main argument:

I just wish to know why the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered to be unlikely

Richard, no-one is claiming this particular case is good evidence for reincarnation.

This strikes me as a little silly as an argument especially given the fact that these were 2 consecutive posts. First one way, then the other. Do you simply disagree with people just to be contrary?

However, despite your little contradiction, I shall be magnanimous and grant your wish. The reason that the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered unlikely is this: There is no compelling evidence that it happens.

Kaydens.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you simply disagree with people just to be contrary?

BINGO!

 

[roger]

Sigh. Another perfectly good thread taken over by minute analysis and arguing over every one of Ian's utterances.


Anyhoo, I say if they believe the boy, they should stick him in a Cessena by himself, and let the boy fly the plane, solo. Or ask him to recite the pre-flight checklist of the plane he flew. Should be easy peasy.

 

[bruto]

Sigh. Another perfectly good thread taken over by minute analysis and arguing over every one of Ian's utterances.


Anyhoo, I say if they believe the boy, they should stick him in a Cessena by himself, and let the boy fly the plane, solo. Or ask him to recite the pre-flight checklist of the plane he flew. Should be easy peasy.

Possibly, but if he fails at the former task, they will always have some kind of out - unfamiliar plane, out of practice, etc., and if he's a really obsessive sort of kid, he might just be able to recite that checklist.

Anyway, I suspect that if they believe the boy on the basis of what they have seen so far, they will find an excuse for any failed test, because they've already demonstrated a level of credulity which is immune to reason.

 

[RayG]

It is very possible your words mean nothing. It might well be like asking what's the explanation or method whereby electrons repel one another? Or what's the method or explanation whereby an object continues in a state of uniform motion in a straight line in the absence of any forces.

I asked a simple question pertaining to reincarnation. Can you explain by what process the consciousness is able to transfer from one body to another?

If you are unable to explain, just say so.

psst...it's simple, you just say... I don't know.

RayG

 

[Nucular]

Re: Occam's Razor.

Boy goes to aviation museum; boy subsequently suffers nightmares involving aeroplanes.

Explanation #1: Boy's nightmares were caused by things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Explanation #2: Boy's nightmares were caused by his memories of a past life as a fighter pilot, triggered by the things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Open Mind, Ian, whoever: what does Occam have to say about which is the more likely explanation?