Reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis

[Slimething]

Souls are considered physically real entities and 'evolutionary relatedness' is considered a key property of evolution. ...

The bolding is mine. If souls are physical in nature, they would be detectable. However, no soul has ever been detected. Please explain.

...(The Psychon Theory Hypothesis )

Fixed it for you. A guess is a hypothesis until it is supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. You have no evidence that the Psychon thingie is anything more than fantasy.

 

[steenkh]

Let me see if I can get this right: The Chinese who aborts female foetuses causes the Chinese women to live longer because they cannot be reborn?

Would that mean that if we imposed mandatory contraception and abortion on every living human, nobody could die anymore

 

[Jekyll]

Let me see if I can get this right: The Chinese who aborts female foetuses causes the Chinese women to live longer because they cannot be reborn?

Would that mean that if we imposed mandatory contraception and abortion on every living human, nobody could die anymore

I Like the corollary that Chinese people don't share souls with anyone else.

Mmh, implicit racism and woo in one packet.

 

[Cuddles]

I Like the corollary that Chinese people don't share souls with anyone else.

Mmh, implicit racism and woo in one packet.

Which also rasies the question of what happens with genocide. If you wipe out the majority of a race, colonise their continent and breed lots more of your own race, do the souls decide to swap over their allegience? Or were there lots of white souls hanging around waiting for us to go to America and there are now lots of American Indian souls hanging around waiting for them all to leave again?

 

[Ladewig]

The souls of mammals and birds are the souls of extinct species such as saurian.

I am a bit afraid to ask, but what are saurians?


. . . . . . . .
Also, I am still waiting for an answer here

It seems quite probable to me that Jörg Haider (an Austrian politician) is Hitler's reincarnation. In future it will be more problematic to escape one's responsibility by committing suicide.

So, do you believe it is just and fair to punish the person animated by the reincarnated soul of someone as heinous as Hitler?

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

I am a bit afraid to ask, but what are saurians?

I believe that would be the dinosaurs. But that would still limit things, as there were far more animals alive other than dinosaurs 65 million or even further back. The early mammals were around, among others. Did we get huge saurian souls, or teeny tiny mammal souls?

Or is that 6,000 years ago?

 

[BlackKat]

I am a bit afraid to ask, but what are saurians?

I believe that would be the dinosaurs. But that would still limit things, as there were far more animals alive other than dinosaurs 65 million or even further back. The early mammals were around, among others. Did we get huge saurian souls, or teeny tiny mammal souls?

Or is that 6,000 years ago?

So you're telling me I was a dinosaur and not one of these guys?
http://www.wku.edu/~davy.stone/customs/customary/dioramas/pics/saurian1.jpg

 

[Ladewig]

I believe that would be the dinosaurs.

That is one interpretation of the word. However, a quick googling of "saurians denver airport," produces a large number of websites that claim that Saurians are lizard-men who are intent on taking over the world from their semi-secret base under the fourth busiest airport in the U.S. (no, I am not making this up).

That's why I always ask when newcomers to the JREF boards mention saurians.

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

So you're telling me I was a dinosaur and not one of these guys?

Yes. That's the future you. Stardate 2525.3 (or thereabouts).

That is one interpretation of the word. However, a quick googling of "saurians denver airport," produces a large number of websites that claim that Saurians are lizard-men who are intent on taking over the world from their semi-secret base under the fourth busiest airport in the U.S. (no, I am not making this up).

That's why I always ask when newcomers to the JREF boards mention saurians.

Ah, of course. How could I miss the denver airport part.

I haven't flown into Denver since Stapleton was open. I obviously should be relieved about that. They must be using the lost luggage for their nefarious plot.

 

[ben m]

So if we assume that instinctive behaviour is stored primarily in the soul and not in the genetic make-up, then it stands to reason to assume that the dead of both groups must have had a higher probability to be reborn in the same group. Otherwise the situation would be rather inefficient and chaotic. And that nature has a tendency toward order, is a fundamental premise of the theory I'm advocating.

Not so! Nature has a tendency towards, uh, the number 1.
1) When you die, your soul looks at your name, then advances 1 letter forward (mod 26) in the alphabet.
2) If you have a personal name, this is used. Proof: one of the most popular names in 1880 was Anna. In 1960---around the time the Annas were dying---there was a spike in Barbaras.
3) If you don't have a personal name, the genus or species name is relevant. Where did you think that the invasive Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) came from in the 1990s? They got their souls from, let's see, the medflies (Ceratitis capitata) which had just been killed in large numbers in California. It all works.
4) Ask me any other soul-related questions you like. I can answer 'em all. Athon can probably answer them better than I can, in fact.

Do you disagree, wogoga? My standards of evidence are just as solid as yours, so my theory must be just as good. Prove me wrong.

 

[athon]

Nice theory Ben. I'm sold. Where do I sign up?

Athon (to be called Ben when I come back )

 

[EHLO]

Wolfgang - fascinating. You've been thinking about this for nearly 20 years?

It's a lovely hypothesis, when do you intend to tackle the 'scientific' bit?

 

[-Fran-]

A few years back an Internet friend of mine decided to start to write a fantasy book. She created a magical system for the fantasy world she had thought up, and then she asked me to read her description of the magical system and critique it.

What she wanted me to do was to find as many gaps, inconsistencies and logical errors as I could, within the context of the fictional system. She would then make up answers as we went, to fill in the gaps, making the made-up, totally fictional fantasy system better for the totally made-up, fictional fantasy story.

It was a fun exercise actually.

 

[wogoga]

Missing genetic information refutes neo-Darwinism

I'm a consistent exponent of evolution. I do not only believe that our ancestors were apes, but I'm convinced that we ourselves were the monkeys we descend from.

It's a lovely hypothesis, when do you intend to tackle the 'scientific' bit?

Actually I'm not sure whether you are serious or not. In any case, I do not understand what you mean by 'scientific'. I've presented my ideas in detail on the internet (search for "psychon theory"). If you consider as 'scientific' only peer-reviewed articles, then most of the scientific progress of the past was 'unscientific'. If you consider as 'scientific' only what is accepted by the officially dominating scientists, then fundamental 'scientific' progress would have been impossible.

It has always been a pleasure for me to defend my theories from counterarguments, for it is easy to defend something as correct as pandualism and difficult for the other side to defend something as inconsistent and absurd as pure materialism. (In principle I know that the best way to force others to continue with their erroneous believes is to call these believes 'absurd', 'grotesque' and so on.)

The critics of the psychon concept essentially react in the same as the critics of Kepler's new astronomy 400 years ago: "As long as you cannot show the gravitational forces between objects in a visible way, your theory as just an unfounded hypothesis". Modern reductionism is simply a more sophisticated variant of naive realism: souls cannot exist, because we cannot see them.

It is a fact that the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness.

There are two approaches to this problem:

1) The dogmatic approach either ignores (i.e. psychologically suppresses) the argument or assumes a miraculous (logically impossible) information increase during ontogensis.

2) The logically consistent (i.e. scientific) approach leads to the simple conclusion, that apart from the material information another kind of information must exist.

Nowadays, most personal computers have a primary storage (RAM) of around 1 gigabyte. I don't know what the information of the used parts of the human genome is, but I suppose that this information can be compressed to less than 0.1 gigabyte, or maybe even to less than 0.01 gigabyte. Does somebody know better figures?

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

First sentence from http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html:

The reductionist scientific world view as many religious world views is based on the premise that we humans are outside nature.

What the hell? Could you explain this before I bother reading any further?

~~ Paul

 

[Normal Dude]

Actually I'm not sure whether you are serious or not. In any case, I do not understand what you mean by 'scientific'. I've presented my ideas in detail on the internet (search for "psychon theory").

I can pull any idea I want out of my hindquarters and post it on teh interwebs. That doesn't give them any legitimacy. Do you have scientifically gathered proof of your ideas?

If you consider as 'scientific' only peer-reviewed articles, then most of the scientific progress of the past was 'unscientific'. If you consider as 'scientific' only what is accepted by the officially dominating scientists, then fundamental 'scientific' progress would have been impossible.

A false definition. I really don't think you know what science or 'scientific' means. Please explain to me what you think it means.

The critics of the psychon concept essentially react in the same as the critics of Kepler's new astronomy 400 years ago: "As long as you cannot show the gravitational forces between objects in a visible way, your theory as just an unfounded hypothesis". Modern reductionism is simply a more sophisticated variant of naive realism: souls cannot exist, because we cannot see them.

+5 points for comparing yourself to Kepler, +5 for a straw man. Gravitational forces can be verified with mathematics and testable predictions . Therefore, we don't HAVE to see them to know they exist. Can you say the same of your ideas?

It is a fact that the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness.

Please explain the evidence you possess that proves this "fact". I think you just made this up, or are arguing from ignorance.

2) The logically consistent (i.e. scientific) approach leads to the simple conclusion, that apart from the material information another kind of information must exist.

Do you have anything concrete to back this up, or is this just your opinion? It is most likely already worthless, considering it is probably based on the erroneous assumptions above.

Nowadays, most personal computers have a primary storage (RAM) of around 1 gigabyte. I don't know what the information of the used parts of the human genome is, but I suppose that this information can be compressed to less than 0.1 gigabyte, or maybe even to less than 0.01 gigabyte. Does somebody know better figures?

The human genome is not RAM.

 

[Normal Dude]

BTW, you still haven't explained what you think neo-darwinism is.

 

[Slimething]

In any case, I do not understand what you mean by 'scientific'.

Google "scientific method". That should 'splain it.

If you consider as 'scientific' only peer-reviewed articles, then most of the scientific progress of the past was 'unscientific'.

Nope. Peer review was devised so that scientists wouldn't waste their time on nonsense and pay attention to worthy proposals. The lack of peer review does not negate anything as being true science. However, these days, we fairly well require it if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, no one would go through the ardor of publishing in respected journals. The web is NOT a respected journal, BTW.

It has always been a pleasure for me to defend my theories from counterarguments, for it is easy to defend something as correct as pandualism and difficult for the other side to defend something as inconsistent and absurd as pure materialism.

When are you going to begin your defense? Putting down the other side is not considered a valid defense of an hypothesis. First, it would be a good idea to define your terminology to avoid wasting time on interpretations. Then show your hypothesis and, in your case, supporting evidence from archaeological, biochemical (DNA) and paleological findings.

The critics of the psychon concept essentially react in the same as the critics of Kepler's new astronomy 400 years ago: "As long as you cannot show the gravitational forces between objects in a visible way, your theory as just an unfounded hypothesis". Modern reductionism is simply a more sophisticated variant of naive realism: souls cannot exist, because we cannot see them.

"They also laughed at ____!" is not a good ploy. It only makes you look crazier. Yes, even more people laughed at Bozo the Clown. So, extrapolation makes you resemble the latter, not the former.

Reductionism has nothing to do with theology in reality. However, pseudo-scientists who find reductionism inconvenient try to drag it into theology as theology has no rules of evidence or logic. It's fairly easy to lampoon any evidential system if you can simply pull another truism out of your butt as you need them.

It is a fact that the information of the genetic make-up of a human is a far cry from what is needed in order to transform a fertilized egg only into a human body, let alone into a person with intelligence and consciousness.

Show us your math that human DNA cannot carry the complete code for a human. The human genome project seems to directly contradict that assertion but I'll still give you a chance. I've been to your website and I'm amazed that none of the "Facts" upon which you base your arguments are backed by citation.

 

[Ladewig]

+5 points for comparing yourself to Kepler, +5 for a straw man.

You beat me to it.

I suspect we are going to end with a final score much higher than 10.

 

[Ladewig]

It seems quite probable to me that Jörg Haider (an Austrian politician) is Hitler's reincarnation. In future it will be more problematic to escape one's responsibility by committing suicide.

So, do you believe it is just and fair to punish the person animated by the reincarnated soul of someone as heinous as Hitler?