What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?

[Marduk]

As a brief off-topic aside, it would be interesting to know why Kelvin thought heavier than air flight was impossible.

Because he was misquoted
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/interview_aeronautics_and_wireless.html

"On what ground do you think that the airship is impracticable?"

"Because no motive power can drive a balloon through the air."

"Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?"

"No; no more than the other."

"Then we cannot navigate the air at all in a commercial way?"

"No; I think it cannot be done. No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."

I expect he based this on the fact that up until this point every attempt to fly an aeroplane had either met with failure or death.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Can't you people read? Why do you come into this thread and throw out general statements about reincarnation when it's not a thread about whether reincarnation is real or not? Who is it for?

Illiadus, a word of warning. You are in the process of falling in a common pitfall for newbies; you are assuming this thread belongs to you, and that every poster posting in it is addressing you, personally. That is not the case. Starting a thread does not mean you will lead the discussion - just that you decided the topic. As long as people keep to that topic, or close enough, they have the full right to post their opinions, even if they don't directly answer your questions or help you in other ways. If you feel a post doesn't contain any useful content, just don't reply to it. It's not impolite; in fact it's preferable to getting mad at people.

In other words, chill. Threads always get sidetracked. You don't have to follow each track.

As for the actual topic, then. I'm not exactly sure why you're still not satisfied. What was wrong with my post and the subsequent ones presenting similar views? I don't think 'verifiably displaying knowledge of the past life one could not have acquired via mundane means' is an unreasonable thing to demand as evidence. Yet you seem to think you can't demand this of a reincarnation believer. Why?

 

[Marduk]

Marduk, I apologize for being rude and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Let me say right away that I'm very sorry about the things you have been put through. It makes me angry, but mostly very downhearted.

Its not your fault, don't worry about it. Garnering sympathy wasn't my intent.

I have read what you said carefully and I promise I'll give it some good thought the next couple of days, to begin with.

It would be an original approach if someone rather than setting out from the get go to debunk something they have no personal experience with, decided instead to try to explain it in terms that everyone could understand. Uusually believers don't look deeply enough and debunkers don't understand psychology enough to dent their belief. Its like throwing rocks at a fundementalist, you'll just invoke angry responses, now if you offered support and understanding people would open up a lot about their experiences more for your analysis.

The first question that springs to my mind when someone says "I'm different", is "why do you think youre different", not "oh no you aren't" (though obviously I might arrive at that conclusion later when I know more)

 

[Pup]

The purpose is to find a common ground, the smallest common denominator, if you will, of what is to be considered objective repeatable evidence in the field of reincarnation research, which is a rapidly growing enterprise.

These criteria, summed up, could then be used to debunk past life research, which, like UFOs and Bigfoots, presumably fall outside of the $1M challenge.

To go back to the original post... I don't think any criteria can be used to debunk past life research, because there's no agreed-upon definition of what reincarnation is. If I demanded evidence of memories of a past life, all someone has to say is that reincarnation exists, but by definition, no one has memories of their past life. If I demanded evidence of physical resemblance, all someone has to say is that reincarnation exists, but by definition, a new body has no resemblance to the old body. And so forth.

So I'd say that one first needs to get a person who has a hypothesis about reincarnation to state that hypothesis, and then one could come up with ideas how to falsify it. But then there will be another person with a different hypothesis, and so on.

 

[Marduk]

So I'd say that one first needs to get a person who has a hypothesis about reincarnation to state that hypothesis, and then one could come up with ideas how to falsify it. But then there will be another person with a different hypothesis, and so on.

I've thought long and hard about that question, the only proof I could come up with is if the claimant could display an advanced level of knowledge that could not be discovered by other mundane means

e.g. if someone claiming to be an ancient egyptian were to say that Akhenaten was murdered with an axe and then eventually when his body is discovered it has an axe in it.

+ hundreds of other equally accurate examples

 

[Illiadus]

My purpose here being to establish criteria for past life research, this new post is a compilation of quotes from the thread designed to show you the dilemma I’m facing.

This is the problem: While a few skeptics by their own admission can’t accept reincarnation regardless of what evidence is presented to them (see Impossible To Prove), most agree that some form of anomalous information access should be considered evidence. Great as that sounds, the quotes in the Anomalous Information section reveal that a reconciliation of the far ends of the spectrum is painfully remote.

Judge for yourselves, if you will.


IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE:

“It's not a belief. It's established fact. Reincarnation is impossible.”

“What questions would reincarnation answer? None that I can think of that aren't silly to begin with.”

“Nah, there's just no way...”

“People who believe in reincarnation believe in something that is not true. They will never find solid evidence to support their belief because their belief is not true. We can define what would be acceptible evidence. We have done that. They will never find it. That's not our fault.”

“The first thing that you need is evidence for the existence of a soul.”

“The whole idea of spirits is a dead paradigm, better explained by consciousness arising out of brains.”

“Before we can study it, it would have to be proven at the most basic premise: that a human conciousness can be transfered, perhaps many years later, from one body to another. That is a tall order.”

“We really do need a hint of some sort of mechanism by which this could have happen. Unfortunately nothing we know about the world gives us a sniff that such a thing could exist but rather deny such a thing.”

“The first thing you need to consider is that reincarnation is impossible. That sets the bar for evidence rather high.”


ANOMALOUS INFORMATION:

“Reincarnation can be accepted as a phenomenon if it can predict events with more accuracy than the accepted theories [which] predict that a human will not display accurate information if he has never acquired that information - in this life. If this prediction can be shown to be false, then we can talk about reincarnation.”

“Possession of information which could not have been learned in this lifetime, yet can be verified as accurate (which of course makes it tricky to find, as one condition usually precludes the other).”

“You'd need a huge number of cases where the evidence is completely documented and untainted and reincarnation is the simplest explanation. So the physical similarities stuff is a complete non-starter. Some people look like other people. It happens. Get over it. That leaves memories. You have to establish that these memories are accurate, that the reporting of the memories is accurate, and that there is no plausible mechanism for the subject to have acquired the information. Telling us where the money (or the body) is buried, for example. And even that needs to be weight statistically, because sometimes that will happen.”

“Verifiably displaying knowledge of the past life one could not have acquired via mundane means.”

“People coming up with information that tells us things about the world that we don't already know. The research would also be carried out in a much more rigorous and honest manner than anything I have seen so far.”

“Good evidence would have to be repeated and extraordinary. People being able to help archaeologists with specific information that led to or was backed by physical evidence like artifacts or settlements would be nice. If there was such promise you might then consider giving terminally ill patients information and instructions about how to confirm their rebirth should it occur.”

“One would need to have a very very early kid already speaking long before kid normally speak, when it is physically possible (is that possible from birth or do the throat / tongue and so on ened to develop past a certain stage ?). Or heck even writing long long before kids normally do. Making compelte sentence with for example cubes with the alphabet on it at a few day or week.”

“What would i accept as proof of reincarnation? Well a 4 day old child speaking would be a pretty good indication they had memories of a previous life. And while we are at it, why is that never the case? Why can they seem to remember the details of a plane they were in , but such a simple skill as speaking only comes about when the child has learned to speak? Seriously, if people are being reincarnated the evidence would be obvious. Children within weeks of birth showing such things as the ability to speak, the ability to put together electronics ( if they were someone who could do this. ) or the ability to paint at or above an adult level. Why is it that the proof of reincarnation only comes when it would be possible to teach a kid knowledge, if there is knowledge being passed, it should be obvious from hour one of the kid being born. To boil it all down, my statement on reincarnation is the following " proof for me of reincarnation would be time based. If a child were to show adult level aptitude in within a day or two of being born this would be very solid evidence for reincarnation. Unfortunately after the child is at a reasonable age to process thoughts and communicate, the child is open to manipulation thereby tainting the data. It seems very suspect to me that only when a child already would be able to process data, and receive instruction do signs of reincarnation show."

“A three-year old, say, who could do taxes and calculus, and talk about politics and pop culture across the decades with the experience of somebody who'd truly been there.”

“A hynotized three-year old [that] could have an extended conversation, and answer questions from a variety of people about a wide variety of topics. It can't be a rehearsed speech or a conversation limited to a few talking points which the child could have been forced to memorize.”

“A three-year old in a sweet little lispy voice providing the Swiss bank account number in which we find the trillion dollars he stole in his previous life time.”

“Babies being born with the full knowledge and memories of a deceased adult. They come out of the womb talking and walking and able to explain who they were and how they died, with all the detail you would expect from an adult.”

“If we had newborns popping out speaking German and insisting on finishing their symphonies - or French and seeking a larger margin for their theorems - then that would be fairly convincing, yes.”

“You could hypothetically set up a blinded experiment, but it would take a fearfully long time. You would need a large number of volunteers who agreed that, when they were dying, they would make a deathbed random selection (pick five Zener cards in random order, maybe) show nobody, memorize it and seal it in an envelope. If you had witnesses to attest that they told nobody what they chose, then you have verifiable information which nobody but the dead person ever knew. It would be a preposterous experiment, of course. Expecting a dying person to memorise some cards is unlikely enough without then expecting witnesses to watch over them until they died. Then you'd have to decide who to test to see if they were the reincarnation of that person and you'd have to repeat it a huge number of times to demonstrate a greater than guesswork effect. After all, it's not remotely usual for people to remember where grandma hid the share certificates etc, so you are chasing after an infinitessimal effect if it even existed at all.”

“People actually getting better. Assuming that the point of reincarnation is to learn life's lessons shouldn't we see some who have done this?”

 

[Pup]

My purpose here being to establish criteria for past life research, this new post is a compilation of quotes from the thread designed to show you the dilemma I’m facing.

This is the problem: While a few skeptics by their own admission can’t accept reincarnation regardless of what evidence is presented to them (see Impossible To Prove), most agree that some form of anomalous information access should be considered evidence.

It seems no surprise that anomalous information is the evidence that people would first suggest when asked about reincarnation, since there are so many serious and casual reincarnation investigators who use that approach. It's the classic paranormal test for reincarnation; it's a sociological phenomenon, like trying to collect evidence about whether crop circles are made by aliens or ouija boards contact the dead. How come people aren't claiming the dead make crop circles and aliens contact us through ouija boards? Because that's not part of the sociological phenomenon; that's not how the game is played.

But in actuality, I can't see that anomalous information would necessarily be evidence for reincarnation, other than the fact that that's how the game is played. It could just as easily be evidence of mediumship (a dead person talking through the child), mind reading (the child reading the mind of elderly adults who remember a dead person), remote viewing (child sees pictures in books he's never opened, hidden items no one has access to or locations he's never been to), or any number of paranormal things. On the other hand, if reincarnation never leaves detailed memories, it could be real yet never produce that kind of evidence.

Out of curiosity, why are you trying to establish criteria for past life research? To do your own research? To influence how others do the research? Because I'd suggest that the person doing the research would be the best one to define what evidence would prove his or her particular hypothesis about reincarnation.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later." See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111147

And yet birds flew then just as they do now.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, Sadhatter, I believe that the existing so called "evidence" for reincarnation that we've all heard of -- hypnosis, the pilot boy, Stevenson, et c -- that none of it is conclusive/worth ****, but a lot of people take it as being scientifically valid.

However, if me or anyone is going to convince said people that they're wrong, I need to be able to say: "This would convince a skeptic, not what you have now."

If I tell them, and yes I talk to woos, that the skeptical community requires talking babies composing operas in the womb, or that it can't be proven at all, then the dialog is over. Do you understand? It's not about convincing anyone here about anything! Do you understand that I don't believe in reincarnation? Am I getting through at all?

So what is the number of the Swiss bank account? Where is the box of coins in the garden? Where are the photographs hidden behind the wall? What colour were granddad's shorts?

 

[Aepervius]

And yet birds flew then just as they do now.

They were (Lord kelvin and the other) speaking of controlled powered flight. They over estimated the engineering problem. Usually woo people quote them out of context and make them"say" that all flight is impossible, but it is clear that scientist KNEW heavier than air flight was possible, due to balloon, birds, etc... What they thought impossible is that a controlled powered one would be possible. Turn out they were wrong. But that does not invalidate the scientific method, as many woo like to use that example for , it booosts it. As the brother wright did not stuff up and use magic, they used scientific and engineering advance of the time to come up with controlled powered flight.

Basically when somebody use lord kelvin "no flight is possible" that usually means they lost the debate .

 

[Marduk]

They were (Lord kelvin and the other) speaking of controlled powered flight. They over estimated the engineering problem. Usually woo people quote them out of context and make them"say" that all flight is impossible, but it is clear that scientist KNEW heavier than air flight was possible, due to balloon, birds, etc... What they thought impossible is that a controlled powered one would be possible. Turn out they were wrong. But that does not invalidate the scientific method, as many woo like to use that example for , it booosts it. As the brother wright did not stuff up and use magic, they used scientific and engineering advance of the time to come up with controlled powered flight.

Basically when somebody use lord kelvin "no flight is possible" that usually means they lost the debate .

You will find your factual reporting greatly improved if you go up the page and read the first post at the top

 

[Paulhoff]

This is the problem: While a few skeptics by their own admission can’t accept reincarnation regardless of what evidence......

Would you please not call them skeptics then, just call them dogmatist.

Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, Sadhatter, I believe that the existing so called "evidence" for reincarnation that we've all heard of -- hypnosis, the pilot boy, Stevenson, et c -- that none of it is conclusive/worth ****, but a lot of people take it as being scientifically valid.

Because they have no idea what scientifically valid means.

However, if me or anyone is going to convince said people that they're wrong, I need to be able to say: "This would convince a skeptic, not what you have now."

We've already told you that.

If I tell them, and yes I talk to woos, that the skeptical community requires talking babies composing operas in the womb

Which is a perfectly logical consequence of reincarnation.

or that it can't be proven at all

No-one said that.

then the dialog is over.

So?

They believe in something that isn't true. Because it's not true, they have no actual evidence. Therefore they cannot supply any evidence. Therefore, when we ask for evidence, the conversation ends.

That's their problem. Not ours. We're right. They're wrong.

Do you understand? It's not about convincing anyone here about anything! Do you understand that I don't believe in reincarnation? Am I getting through at all?

We understand you just fine. You don't seem to be listening to us, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

To go back to the original post... I don't think any criteria can be used to debunk past life research, because there's no agreed-upon definition of what reincarnation is. If I demanded evidence of memories of a past life, all someone has to say is that reincarnation exists, but by definition, no one has memories of their past life. If I demanded evidence of physical resemblance, all someone has to say is that reincarnation exists, but by definition, a new body has no resemblance to the old body. And so forth.

Yep, the old Retreat to Unfalsifiability. It's found everywhere that woos are, except when they are total crackpots.

 

[PixyMisa]

My purpose here being to establish criteria for past life research, this new post is a compilation of quotes from the thread designed to show you the dilemma I’m facing.

This is the problem: While a few skeptics by their own admission can’t accept reincarnation regardless of what evidence is presented to them (see Impossible To Prove)

WRONG.

IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE:

Bzzt! Wrong. I award you no points, and may the non-existent God have mercy on your non-existent soul.

Reincarnation cannot be shown to happen, not because we are being unreasonable, but because it does not happen.

If it did happen, we would have evidence, powerful evidence. Instead, we have no evidence whatsoever.

“It's not a belief. It's established fact. Reincarnation is impossible.”

Reincarnation is impossible. That's an established fact. Just the same as the world is not flat.

That means that the evidence presented for reincarnation would have to be powerful enough to overturn the laws of physics and the entire field of neuroscience.

How would you go about proving that the world was flat? I mean, it's not, but that's exactly the position that believers in reincarnation have placed themselves in. That's entirely their problem.

“What questions would reincarnation answer? None that I can think of that aren't silly to begin with.”

The questions are only silly because reincarnation does not happen. If it did, the world would be different and the questions would make sense.

“People who believe in reincarnation believe in something that is not true. They will never find solid evidence to support their belief because their belief is not true. We can define what would be acceptible evidence. We have done that. They will never find it. That's not our fault.”

Exactly as I said. We have defined what evidence would be required to promote reincarnation from utter foolishness to a plausible hypothesis. No such evidence is available, not because our demands are unreasonable, but because reincarnation does not happen.

“The first thing that you need is evidence for the existence of a soul.”

Correct. Why do you have a problem with that? Apart from the fact that souls are known not to exist?

“The whole idea of spirits is a dead paradigm, better explained by consciousness arising out of brains.”

Again, this is entirely correct. To establish reincarnation as being at all plausible, you have to throw out all of physics and neuroscience. And we know that physics and neuroscience are correct, because they actually work.

“Before we can study it, it would have to be proven at the most basic premise: that a human conciousness can be transfered, perhaps many years later, from one body to another. That is a tall order.”

Again, same thing. Nowhere does this say that it is impossible to prove reincarnation. It says that to prove reincarnation, you would first have to establish this - something known to be impossible.

“We really do need a hint of some sort of mechanism by which this could have happen. Unfortunately nothing we know about the world gives us a sniff that such a thing could exist but rather deny such a thing.”

Same thing. Reincarnation is in trouble because it contradicts reality. Tough bickies to the reincarnationists.

“The first thing you need to consider is that reincarnation is impossible. That sets the bar for evidence rather high.”

Same again. Don't talk the talk if you can't evident the evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

Would you please not call them skeptics then, just call them dogmatist.

These people - per the quotes he provided - exist only in his incomprehension, so let's just call them figments.

 

[Bikewer]

Rodney: I find Roach's books to be rather humorous; I don't expect them to be rigorous scientific reporting. (Her book on sex research, "Bonk", is particularly funny)
Rather, the fact that the Indian researcher, who IS a serious scientist, could not find any evidence to support the notion...I found that relevant.

As to evidence that I might accept regarding reincarnation... As someone said very early on; evidence of the existence of some sort of "soul". Of some model that might show that a "non-physical entity" could in some way support memory and consciousness, and might be interchangeable between bodies.
As to how this might be proved is beyond me... Attempts to prove say, ghosts have run into the same problems we have with reincarnation. Either proven fraud, or misaprehension of phenomenon later proved to be something else.
If a ghost were to materialize in front of a number of witnesses, manifesting on recording equipment, and give reliable testimony as to his life prior to the point at which the party had certifiably died... That would be pretty good.

 

[laca]

• existence of something that "survives" death, like "soul" or something
• that "something" needs to be able to carry on most if not all memories (this could mean to prove that it's not the brain that stores information, or at least, not the only one - like a RAID setup )
• 2 kinds of life: virgin (i.e. non-reincarnated) and reincarnated
• mechanism for reincarnation
• ...

Nah, there's just no way...

My purpose here being to establish criteria for past life research, this new post is a compilation of quotes from the thread designed to show you the dilemma I’m facing.

OK...

This is the problem: While a few skeptics by their own admission can’t accept reincarnation regardless of what evidence is presented to them (see Impossible To Prove), most agree that some form of anomalous information access should be considered evidence. Great as that sounds, the quotes in the Anomalous Information section reveal that a reconciliation of the far ends of the spectrum is painfully remote.

Judge for yourselves, if you will.


IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE:
<SNIP>

“Nah, there's just no way...”

I rule: quote mining attempt and gross mis-categorization of my post.

I don't know why, but I can't get rid of the feeling you're not being entirely honest why you're here and what you're after.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The problem with the "having knowledge they shouldn't have" angle is that any knowledge possessed by the dead person can be learned by a living person. In order to prove that the living person COULDN'T have learned it, you have to show that it is so impossible for them to be exposed to that information that a supernatural explanation becomes more reasonable.

Since there are endless ways to obtain information, and NO evidence for anything supernatural, I seriously doubt a supernatural explanation could ever be considered more reasonable.

So what does that leave?

Well, first, you have to demonstrate the existence of a soul.
Then, you have to demonstrate that this soul is, in fact, the seat of a person's identity.
Then, you have to develop a method for identifying a specific soul as a unique entity.
Then, you have to show that a soul that has been identified from a specific person who has died now inhabits the body of a living person.

Do that, and I will believe in reincarnation.

ETA: Oh, and there's that little problem of this eternal soul being somehow permanently altered by organic injury to the brain. How does that happen?

 

[PixyMisa]

In other words, to establish the truth of reincarnation, you would first need to establish that the world is other than it is.