Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

[Interesting Ian]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion concerning reincarnation started in this thread. The reincarnation debate is off topic in that thread.

All of this, of course, presupposes that we ‘don’t die when we die’, which, in turn, presupposes the possibility of the mind existing independently of the body. That, in itself, is in sharp contradiction with what we know not only about the biological evolution of the body and the brain, but pretty much everything we know about biology and many other branches of science, and can actually demonstrate and predict using a broad range of well-established scientific theories.

People keep saying this on here, but yet never supply any details. You would think that skeptics would jump at the chance to convince a believer . .but they don't

I know of course about the correlations and I've explained how they are consistent with the notion of a substantial self. So what other reasons?

If it were indeed possible to ‘store’ a person’s experiences independently of the brain, nature would surely not have ‘wasted’ its evolutionary efforts, material and energy on such a grand scale as it has on the development of the brain from a few sensory cells to the magnificent organ it is today,

I've also explained why we need brains many times in the past on this board.

and on the extensive, tough, dangerous (in survival terms) learning process from infant to corpse – also, just think of the extent to which we associate ourselves with our bodies and sensory inputs,

I don't at all. I consider my body and sensory input are absolutely distinct from my self. Even the qualia I experience are. Qualia actually constitute the external world, they do not constitute the self.

We also lack any semblance of an explanatory model for how sensory experiences and thoughts could be transmitted from the brain and body to a, so far, completely undetectable storage medium, using, a so far completely undetectable method of information transfer, and how this stored experience and body of thoughts and memories would, so far completely undetected, be transmitted back to a fetus’ brain, which is not yet fully developed but doing so on the basis on its own sensory input and experiences.

This is all just vacuous meaningless gibberish. How could experiences and thoughts be transmitted from the brain?? Experiences and thoughts don't come from the brain. Moreover they are not physical so the word "transmitted" seems to be inappropriate.

"Storage medium"?? What storage medium?? You're just not getting it. You're thinking about the whole notion of a disembodiued self in mechanistic material terms which of course presupposes your worldview. Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. There is no storage midium for consciousness. Consciousness is *NOT* information. It has *NO* location. It is *NOT* physical.



Information transfer?? What information. Information is what the physical is. neither minds, consciousnesses, or selves are information. That is the materialist error and you cannot presume the correctness of materialism when arguing against a "life after death" or reincarnation.

Completely undetected?? Consciousness or selves cannot be directly physically detected, otherwise they would be physical.

It seems you are after some sort of mechanism i.e explanation akin to that which we utilise in physics. But this is totally inappropriate.

Considering the poor quality of evidence in support of ‘life after death’, ‘reincarnation’ (which are necessarily two sides of the same coin) and ‘mediumship’ (the third side of the same coin)

You've read all the references I've provided in the other thread have you?? You're going to have to produce a hell of a lot of compelling arguments in order to persuade me that it's all poor evidence.

in the light of accumulated human knowledge and the existence of perfectly mundane explanations for these alleged phenomena,

I'm afraid you'll have a great deal of difficulty in producing mundane explanations for apparent reincarnation memories, NDEs, deathbed visions and apparently genuine mediumship.

parsimony and simply common sense seem to favour the concept of “just one life”.

On the contrary, parsimony and simple common sense seem to favour the survival hypothesis.

There is simply too much unsupported speculation and too little substance involved in 'life after death' scenarios.

What unsupported speculation have I uttered?

I apologize for the derail – and agree with Ian that we should defer this to an independent thread.

Ah yes, better start a new thread with this post.

 

[Odin]

So the self is external from the body?

How does the self react with the body?

and how does reincarnation work?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, let's start there. According to you, II:

Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories.

If, as you also say,

This is all just vacuous meaningless gibberish. How could experiences and thoughts be transmitted from the brain?? Experiences and thoughts don't come from the brain. Moreover they are not physical so the word "transmitted" seems to be inappropriate.

Then how does the interaction between the physical brain and thoughts happen? How does the brain manage to limit those non-physical thoughts?

Hans

 

[Traveller]

Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. There is no storage midium for consciousness. Consciousness is *NOT* information. It has *NO* location. It is *NOT* physical.


Information transfer?? What information. Information is what the physical is. neither minds, consciousnesses, or selves are information. That is the materialist error and you cannot presume the correctness of materialism when arguing against a "life after death" or reincarnation.

Completely undetected?? Consciousness or selves cannot be directly physically detected, otherwise they would be physical.

It seems you are after some sort of mechanism i.e explanation akin to that which we utilise in physics. But this is totally inappropriate. [/B]

Ian, could you explain this a little further? I take your point that consciousness is not physical, although I am not sure about it having no location, but surely, just because it is immaterial does not mean that there can be no explanation for how it operates, accessess memories, interacts with the physical.

 

[bjornart]

I'm afraid you'll have a great deal of difficulty in producing mundane explanations for apparent reincarnation memories, NDEs, deathbed visions and apparently genuine mediumship.

Imagination, hallucination*2, fraud and delusion. Thank you, and goodnight.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

Imagination, hallucination*2, fraud and delusion. Thank you, and goodnight.

Don't forget the usual suspects for the topic of "apparently genuine mediumship": Hot reading, warm reading, cold reading, shoehorning, confirmation bias, confabulation, cryptomnesia (sp?), subjective validation, and probably dozens of others I missed.

 

[davidsmith73]

Mediumship, i.e. the ability to communicate with dead ancestors or other deceased individuals or groups, would be such a huge evolutionary advantage that this faculty would have evolved to the strength and functional level of such as the senses of smell, hearing and sight. In the earlier stages of evolution and for a very long time, it would have been such an enormous advantage to be able to gain prior information about the threats and dangers that killed your ancestors, about sources of mates, food (and later on, wealth), and about hereditary deficiencies. It could, of course, be argued that ‘mediumship’ is just an emerging faculty, but it must then be borne in mind that claims suggesting the existing of mediumship were not less prevalent prior to advances in science and rationality. Also, in times prior to the invention of written records, the ability to access the experience of generations of deceased ancestors would be comparable to the advantage of having internet access for an insulated jungle tribe – and knowing how to use it. In short, the genes favouring the ability to communicate with the dead, or merely the genes for learning such an ability, should dominate by now. They don’t – ‘mediums’ do not, and have never, dominated human intellectual or other human development. It is, I think, therefore, if not inconceivable, then certainly very unlikely and highly inconsistent with the otherwise extremely well-supported theory of evolution that such a survival advantage would not have come to the fore. I also find it very unlikely that the huge body of knowledge and experience of the departed generations would not have enabled development of a much more efficient method of communicating with descendants than “Do I hear a name starting with an M? An M, please? Michael or Michelle? “ - readily emulated by even the most mediocre of cold readers, not to mention warm and hot readers – even if the ‘departed’ all stayed isolated from one another.

I would just like to comment on this argument which I've heard many times. It's all very good but nobody mentions the possibility that if psi were real there might be factors that limit its expression and manifestations. The evolutionary argument assumes that telepathy, precognition or whatever is a genetically detemined trait and that there would be little to no environmental constraints on the level of its phenotypic expression. Since we don't know what psi is yet, its naive to assume those things.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

I would just like to comment on this argument which I've heard many times. It's all very good but nobody mentions the possibility that if psi were real there might be factors that limit its expression and manifestations. The evolutionary argument assumes that telepathy, precognition or whatever is a genetically detemined trait and that there would be little to no environmental constraints on the level of its phenotypic expression. Since we don't know what psi is yet, its naive to assume those things.

No, it just assumes that psi is connected to the physical world and is somehow dependent on physical traits. That is probably naive, but the naivité is that of the proponents. They are the ones claiming that this non-physical power is something certain people can wield better than others, and that it has an effect on the physical world. The skeptics are just pointing out the logical implications of this claim.

Hans

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

No, it just assumes that psi is connected to the physical world and is somehow dependent on physical traits.

You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions. Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions.

How big, exactly, can an animal be, before it is too big to fly?

Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is.

Emphasis on "might".

Don't you agree that having psi abilities would be an enormous evolutionary advantage?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions. Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is.

I do see birds with wings, and they work excellently. Nobody said anything about elephants. Sure we can postulate that it is limited, in fact we can postulate anything we will about it, but the present postulate is that it exists, and even the weakest, most limited effect would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, so just as we have evolved ears that can hear remarkably weak vibrations (even if our ears are dull instruments compared t othose of some animals), etc, we would have evolved out ability to sense those weak and possibly erratical signals to the outmost, if it could save us from that falling rock, that lurking lion, or could have enabled our caring ancestor to warn us of that fatal mistake.

Ooops! Seems we are derailing II's thread to avoid derailing. Sorry! Back to the program, folks.

Hans

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

How big, exactly, can an animal be, before it is too big to fly?

I don't know. The point is that not everything is possible in the evolution of specific traits.

Don't you agree that having psi abilities would be an enormous evolutionary advantage?

Yes. But does it logically follow that it should have evolved to the strength and function of sight, hearing or smell? No, because we don't know what it is. The strength of the trait may be limited by physical factors we don't understand.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

I don't know. The point is that not everything is possible in the evolution of specific traits.

If you don't know, then your analogy is invalid.

Yes. But does it logically follow that it should have evolved to the strength and function of sight, hearing or smell? No, because we don't know what it is. The strength of the trait may be limited by physical factors we don't understand.

You say that a lot: "I don't know".

It would be very likely that e.g. the ability to Remote View where your enemies and prey are would substantially be stronger than the non-existing psi abilities we see today. That's how evolution works.

Do you see psi abilities as having a more negative than positive effect? What would those negative effects be?

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

I do see birds with wings, and they work excellently. Nobody said anything about elephants. Sure we can postulate that it is limited, in fact we can postulate anything we will about it, but the present postulate is that it exists, and even the weakest, most limited effect would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, so just as we have evolved ears that can hear remarkably weak vibrations (even if our ears are dull instruments compared t othose of some animals), etc, we would have evolved out ability to sense those weak and possibly erratical signals to the outmost, if it could save us from that falling rock, that lurking lion, or could have enabled our caring ancestor to warn us of that fatal mistake.

Again, you are assuming that the development and sensitivity of an organisms "psi detecting" equipment is not limited by any environmental constraints, even by whatever is responsible for psi itself. Thats a huge assumption to make considering we know very little about psi. The argument also makes the assumption that psi or any postulated "psi detection system" is an inheritable, genetically determined trait.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

Again, you are assuming that the development and sensitivity of an organisms "psi detecting" equipment is not limited by any environmental constraints, even by whatever is responsible for psi itself. Thats a huge assumption to make considering we know very little about psi. The argument also makes the assumption that psi or any postulated "psi detection system" is an inheritable, genetically determined trait.

Look, you are the one starting with the assumption that psi exists in the first place.

That's the biggest assumption altogether.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

If you don't know, then your analogy is invalid.

I don't expect you to just take my word for it. Here's a link

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6bConstraints.shtml

You say that a lot: "I don't know".

Hey, I'm a sceptic. I can't help it.

It would be very likely that e.g. the ability to Remote View where your enemies and prey are would substantially be stronger than the non-existing psi abilities we see today. That's how evolution works.

You are making the same assumptions about the hypothesised genetic expression of psi ability and the lack of contraints on this expression.

Do you see psi abilities as having a more negative than positive effect? What would those negative effects be?

I don't understand your question

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

Look, you are the one starting with the assumption that psi exists in the first place.

That's the biggest assumption altogether.

LOL!

I'm answering Anders W. Bonde and his argument about the consequences of the existence of psi on its evolutionary development. Call me old fashioned but I think I need to assume psi exists in order to counter his argument.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't expect you to just take my word for it. Here's a link

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6bConstraints.shtml

You need to read your own links. Elephants don't have wings because its phenotype doesn't have wings. It has nothing to do with size.

Hey, I'm a sceptic. I can't help it.

That's not what skepticism is about. Skepticism is not merely saying "I don't know".

You are making the same assumptions about the hypothesised genetic expression of psi ability and the lack of contraints on this expression.

No, I am referring to how evolution works. It is not an assumption that it works or how it works.

I don't understand your question

If a psi ability is more harmful than beneficial, then you would be right: Psi abilities would not be strong traits. So, can you think of psi abilities that are more harmful than beneficial?

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

LOL!

I'm answering Anders W. Bonde and his argument about the consequences of the existence of psi on its evolutionary development. Call me old fashioned but I think I need to assume psi exists in order to counter his argument.

As long as you assume and don't state that it does exist.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

As long as you assume and don't state that it does exist.

For the purposes of this argument, I don't need to state that it does exist.