Reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis

[Cuddles]

I can't help noticing the lack of a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Ladewig]

For a person to be born, what is required is a human soul which has evolved by reincarnation.

Do identical twins have one soul or two?
At what point does the soul become required: conception, birth, or somewhere in between?
Do cloned humans get their own soul or not?

Human souls are reborn with increased probability in a similar environment. This ENVIRONMENT CONTINUITY can easily be verified empirically (e.g. by examining persons with pronounced rare characteristics).

Can you give some examples of this empirically verifiable assertion?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: I suspect that everyone here would love for you to answer the questions in the order given. Please don't skip any sincere questions.

Do you believe that reincarnated souls should be held responsible for actions in their previous lives? E.g. if we could find Hitler's reincarnated soul in someone, would it be just to imprison that person?

 

[Normal Dude]

Prospects' (mostly banned from Google), published on the net in June 2007 with these chapters

A poster has already stated that the paper is readily available on Google. Why would they ban it, and why lie about them banning it?

And the Chinese population knows that there are not enough girls, and this knowledge alone makes the birth of a girl valuable.

Evidence for this? Simply conjecture?

"For a person to be born, what is required is a human soul which has evolved by reincarnation. Human souls are reborn with increased probability in a similar environment. This ENVIRONMENT CONTINUITY can easily be verified empirically (e.g. by examining persons with pronounced rare characteristics). A manifestation of this principle is that persons are often in contact with persons they have also been in contact with in former lives. Environment continuity is also valid for animal souls. It is essential when a species splits into subspecies. It stands to reason that environment continuity is valid not only for human and animal souls but for all psychons."

More conjecture.

"Essential human properties or their predispositions such as character, social behaviour, intelligence, talents, likings, aversions and phobias are given by the soul. It is not astonishing that somebody who died in his last life in an overcrowded cattle wagon after long suffering gets claustrophobia e.g. in an overcrowed cable railway."

Yet more baseless conjecture.

Neodarwinism however seems to me a rather absurd creation theory, because it assumes that the universe was hyper-designed and super-created by a big bang...

Huh? Do you know what neodarwinism is?

... in such a complex way that blind downhill processes (increasing entropy) can design and create whole ecosystems.

I suggest you look up the difference between a closed and open system.

 

[athon]

Do identical twins have one soul or two?

One soul, but it is shared. This is why twins have such psychic connections. It is rejoined one death which is why twins tend to die relatively close to one another in time.

At what point does the soul become required: conception, birth, or somewhere in between?

Souls are attained when the brain is developed enough to be able to hold onto it.

Do cloned humans get their own soul or not?

No. This is why we can't clone humans - we can't make the souls stick to them.

Can you give some examples of this empirically verifiable assertion?

Sure. Roman Empire or British? There are reincarnations from both.

Do you believe that reincarnated souls should be held responsible for actions in their previous lives? E.g. if we could find Hitler's reincarnated soul in someone, would it be just to imprison that person?

No. They are all forgiven in Heaven, which is why they can return as humans. Otherwise they'd come back as lawn grubs.

Athon

(How'd I do?)

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

No. This is why we can't clone humans - we can't make the souls stick to them.

Agree. When I was losing my religion my soul kept wandering off. I tried duct tape, Krazy glue and velcro, all unsuccessfully. It finally wandered off, never to be seen again. Well, until I'm reincarnated I suppose.

I'm still waiting to hear an answer to my question about how humans descended from themselves. I'd like to see that proof.

 

[Ladewig]

Athon

(How'd I do?)

Politeness dictates that I refrain from answering your question until the OPer either addresses the issues or makes it clear that he will not address the issues.

 

[wogoga]

>> Is this Psychon Theory the same as your Demographic Saturation Theory? <<

Demographic saturation is a logical consequence of the psychon theory.

>> The psychon theory doesn't make sense to me because when you are born, you do not live your life with the memories/experiences/knowledge from any previous life. <<

It is obvious that the psychon theory does not agree with the premise that past lives cannot have any influence on a personality. But do we remember what happend to us in our first two years after birth?

>> 1. 'The Psychon Theory' is proof of reincarnation? <<

Are Kepler's laws a proof of heliocentrism? In the same way as Kepler's laws imply heliocentrism, the psychon theory implies reincarnation.

>> 2. Souls exist for humans and animals? <<

Yes. See for instance my text: "McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats"

>> 3. Humans (homo sapiens) descended from themselves? <<

The abstract of the theory: "The psychon theory is a panpsychist evolution theory based on a continuity from elementary particles to human souls. Elementary particles are like very primitive and basic organisms and we all (our souls) were elementary particles billions of years ago. During evolution our psychons (souls) have been responsible for the behaviour of atoms, molecules, enzymes, living cells, primitive neurons, primitive animals, ... , monkeys and of our ancestors. The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."

>> 4. All phobias come from occurences in previous lives? <<

Many phobias come also from past occurences of the current life.

>> After you prove the soul, I'll read more. <<

That's an excellent strategy to defend one's world view: "Only after you convinced me I start listening." It is impossible to prove the soul or similar concepts outside a theoretical framework. The only way to prove a physical reality of souls consists in giving concrete facts which suggest the existence of souls.

>> It's hard to start a scientific enterprise with wholly unscientific premises. <<

Nobody can decide by metaphysical claims (e.g. about the soul) whether something is scientific or not. The only method which has always been scientific is an unbiased analysis of facts and theories. This analysis can lead to verifiable hypotheses which can be in contradiction with well-established theories.

Helicentrism seemed once as unscientific that Osiander appended an anonymous preface to the work of Copernicus which maintained that the hypotheses of Copernicus made no pretense to truth?

"Ironically, Osiander's 'letter' made it possible for the book to be read as a new method of calculation, rather than a work of natural philosophy, and in so doing may even have aided in its initially positive reception." (Source: crystalinks)

>> As others have suggested, addressing reincarnation requires first some evidence for dualism. <<

That's true. The form of dualism my theory is based on has been called panpsychism or pantheism in the past (e.g. Cusanus, Bruno, Kepler, Leibniz). Pandualism or simply dualism is probably a better name.

>> If reincarnation were real, how do you explain population growth? <<

Let us assume that 7.5 billion human souls have evolved on earth. In this case the world population cannot exceed 7.5 billion (corresponding to a saturation value of 100%). However saturation values below 100% percent are possible.

"Before the onset of demographic transition, the saturation values of populations are generally much lower than 100%. The more difficult survival is and the higher mortality risks are, the lower are saturation values." (Critical Analysis)

>> Do identical twins have one soul or two? <<

I've addressed this question in my article: "The End of Reductionism". Here an extract: "A most impressive refutation of reductionism represents a thought experiment. We assume a machine capable of producing copies of everything which do not differ physically and chemically from the original. According to consequent reductionism such a copy of you would be capable of surviving, and more importantly, it would not be distinguishable from you at all. The copy would have all your memories and properties and would believe like you that it is you. Not even the question whether you are the original or the copy would make any sense."

>> At what point does the soul become required: conception, birth, or somewhere in between? <<

"After death and before incarnation, souls exist only potentially and cannot be located in space. There is some evidence suggesting that the soul of a still living person can start a new incarnation. Then the development of the embryo and (in rare cases) baby is paralleled by a disappearing vitality of the person animated by the same soul, and it seems plausible that preventing a dying person forcefully from dying can lead to the death of a baby animated by the same soul." (The Psychon Theory)

>> Do you believe that reincarnated souls should be held responsible for actions in their previous lives? E.g. if we could find Hitler's reincarnated soul in someone, would it be just to imprison that person? <<

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.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[malbui]

Agree. When I was losing my religion my soul kept wandering off. I tried duct tape, Krazy glue and velcro, all unsuccessfully. It finally wandered off, never to be seen again. Well, until I'm reincarnated I suppose.

In Peter Pan, didn't Wendy sew Peter's shadow to the bottom of his feet? Do you think that would work with souls as well?

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

In Peter Pan, didn't Wendy sew Peter's shadow to the bottom of his feet? Do you think that would work with souls as well?

Ouch! I think Peter was wearing shoes at the time.

Interesting thought, though. But then the soul would be attached to my feet, when it's most likely to be in my heart or brain, I think? Plus the likely problem of the soul and shadow occupying to same place at the same time. That can't be good, right?

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

>> 2. Souls exist for humans and animals? <<

Yes. See for instance my text: "McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats"

>> 3. Humans (homo sapiens) descended from themselves? <<

The abstract of the theory: "The psychon theory is a panpsychist evolution theory based on a continuity from elementary particles to human souls. Elementary particles are like very primitive and basic organisms and we all (our souls) were elementary particles billions of years ago. During evolution our psychons (souls) have been responsible for the behaviour of atoms, molecules, enzymes, living cells, primitive neurons, primitive animals, ... , monkeys and of our ancestors. The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."

Oh.

So humans only have 7 billion souls to share, but rats get many billions?

 

[Tricky]

What happened to the leftover dinosaur souls?

 

[Ladewig]

>> Do you believe that reincarnated souls should be held responsible for actions in their previous lives? E.g. if we could find Hitler's reincarnated soul in someone, would it be just to imprison that person? <<

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?

 

[Slimething]

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

If so, that would be this guy:

Edited by Miss Anthrope: 

Zee cat haz bin removed

Lolcatmod is not amused. Please see Darat's Q&A on the new membership agreement, specifically, on the use of kitten bombs and recipes in the public sections.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[Soapy Sam]

If a clairvoyant is hypnotised, does he regress to past lives or progress to future lives?
If what is reincarnated is consciousness, presumably there must be an earliest example. Any reincarnated Cro-Magnons out there?
Has there ever existed a soul that Shirley Maclaine wasn't?

 

[MortFurd]

Ouch! I think Peter was wearing shoes at the time.
Interesting thought, though. But then the soul would be attached to my feet, when it's most likely to be in my heart or brain, I think? Plus the likely problem of the soul and shadow occupying to same place at the same time. That can't be good, right?

Nope. I distinctly remember Wendy telling Peter to hold still as couldn't hurt THAT much.

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

Nope. I distinctly remember Wendy telling Peter to hold still as couldn't hurt THAT much.

Interesting. Possibly it's only attached to the most outer layers of skin. Maybe Wendy was really skilled. Or she used those really thin accupunture needles.

Or worse:

Shadow On - Apply Directly to the Feet
Shadow On - Apply Directly to the Feet
...

 

[Antranik1]

>> 2. Souls exist for humans and animals? <<

Yes. See for instance my text: "McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats"

I actually read this and it's difficult to read for me so maybe the answer to my next question is in there and I just didn't understand it. The entire time I was reading the study, I was wondering how or why you can make the assumption that a lab-rats soul will reincarnate in its future offspring? You're trying to differentiate between genetic and reincarnation so you're using all the same bunch of rats in one lab, but why wouldn't a soul of a rat reincarnate on a completely different continent, let alone the same lab? That's like assuming that my great great grandfather (or some other ancestor) would have to actually be a previous incarnation of me.

Wolfgang, it seems like you have spent many, many years researching this and trying to tackle it scientifically. That's great and all and I'm all for it but when you present your information, realize that not everyone knows what you're talking about so you must explain everything in detail and start from the most basic ideas (don't jump around like in the original post).

 

[plumjam]

If reincarnation were real, how do you explain population growth?

you are assuming that there should be a particular allowable number of souls in the universe

 

[wogoga]

Article: 'McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats'

I actually read this and it's difficult to read for me so maybe the answer to my next question is in there and I just didn't understand it. The entire time I was reading the study, I was wondering how or why you can make the assumption that a lab-rats soul will reincarnate in its future offspring? You're trying to differentiate between genetic and reincarnation so you're using all the same bunch of rats in one lab, but why wouldn't a soul of a rat reincarnate on a completely different continent, let alone the same lab?

It is because of 'environment continuity' mentioned in the opening post. Souls are considered physically real entities and 'evolutionary relatedness' is considered a key property of evolution. The relatedness of your soul to the souls of your family is bigger than its relatedness to the souls of foreign cultures. So the probability that you will be reborn in your family is higher than that you reincarnate among persons you haven't been in contact with in former lives.

Or take the case of mammoths which separated from Asian elephants some million years ago. Let us assume that their common ancestors lived in a moderate climate and that the ancestors of the mammoths migrated to colder regions whereas the ancestors of the Asian elephants migrated to warmer regions. Both species adapted behaviour and instincts to the regions they lived in. 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.

"Both the potentialities of gene technology and its dangers are vastly overestimated. The possibility of reviving, by means of DNA, animals which became extinct a long time ago exists not even theoretically. The pychons which built up and animated these animals very probably evolved further and all together they are certainly not available any more. If a species becomes extinct, the souls can be born within related species. The more distant the new species is from the old, the more lives are needed to reach fertile age." (The Psychon Theory)

Thus a mammoth soul reborn as an elephant cannot have the same instincts as an elephant having lived for generations in this environment. The probability to survive in the new environment to fertile age is therefore smaller in the case of the mammoth soul.

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

Search also for "rats" in the text 'Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments'.

That's like assuming that my great great grandfather (or some other ancestor) would have to actually be a previous incarnation of me.

Charles Darwin is quite probably the reincarnation of his grandfather Erasmus.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[plumjam]

interesting stuff Wolfgang

one of the few posts i've seen on this forum that is actually offering something positive, fresh, and genuinely thought-provoking

good on yer