What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?

[laca]

I'm not going to "report" your posts because I understand the "lively" part now, but that's enough abuse for me. I'm clearly too sensitive for this ****.

Thank you and goodbye.

Maybe in your next life then?

But seriously, why not address the points I made? I'm not yanking your chain, I genuinely feel you still believe in reincarnation. And it's not just a hunch either, I tried to explain why. Oh, and you can add this post of yours to the list as well as another nudge towards woo-woo land.

 

[Dancing David]

Sideroxylon, I hesitate to mention this, because I'm not a believer in reincarnation and I'm certainly not defending the existing evidence, on the contrary, but a man named Arthur Flowerdew, who claimed a past life in the ancient city of Petra, actually went to Jordan with an archeological expert who claimed that Flowerdew "filled in details... consistent with known archeological and historical facts" and supposedly identified the locations of many landmarks that had yet to be excavated.

So, obviously, that type of evidence is not going to convince the world of reincarnation. Judging by this and your first post, I can't help but wonder if you're really familiar with the accumulated evidence that's generally held up by believers in reincarnation?

Either way, thank you for your contribution and I hope I didn't offend you.

That depends upon the level and details of information. Not the anecdote of it.

Sorry, who was this alleged archaeological expert?
What level of details did he provide?
What other explanations exist for the data AF allegedly knew.

these are crucial, and I am sorry, my father is a highly respected mezoamerican anthropologist/archaeologist, there are plenty of loons, whackos , weak sisters and art historians who will present them selves as archaeologists, and they have very low standards.

here is what I would want ideally:

For the person to describe some unknown archaeological details taht is not readily apparent from surface features, details on the time period and usage of that feature.

Then for that site to be dug and materials that support that detail.

NOT: people lived here.
NOT: a great king walked by.

BUT:

Something like :

they made glass/metal objects here, it was made with sand from x-spot, it was mined at this place, they processed it with the following detailed methods, the tools were placed exactly so, the lay out of thw workshop was exactly so, the time period was exactly this.

Then you could use trace mineral analysis for the source (harder with galss as it was often recycled), and determine if the layout, tools and operation actually matched the data.

the statement of AF's that he never learnt of Petra is not enough, a description of how the place was chiseled or made and the like would be better, it is NOT his claim that is the issue it is the level of data that can be shown to have crossed lives.

And I am sorry I doubt that Sogyal Rinpoche really made any attempt to vette or investigate the story.

 

[SusanB-M1]

In the interests of research, I have just sat through two - well one-and-a-half really; I couldn't stomach the whole of the second one! - videos which are supposed to prove that reincarnation is true. Apart from the sickly spooky music and flashy photography and hjust about inaudible, apparent audio tape clips of what happened in the regression under hypnosis, the actual content was just a few minutes.

One thinks he is the reincarnation of an artist, whose picture of a hunch-backed woman is in a museum in New Orlans, so of course he couldn't ever have seen it.*sigh* he then has to believe that throughout the whole of his life (he appears to be 50s/60s) it is impossible for him ever to have seen, or heard of such a picture or such an artist. This of course is first thing that collapses the house of cards built around the idea. And yet these are recommended by those who accept reincarnation.

I could give you the video links, but I really don't want to spoil everyone's day!!

 

[stanfr]

Things that don't exist cannot cease.

Depends on your definition of "exist"; on a sub-Planckian scale existence is a tricky subject.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

I'm not going to "report" your posts because I understand the "lively" part now, but that's enough abuse for me. I'm clearly too sensitive for this ****.

Thank you and goodbye.

Which is a clear sign that you are in the wrong forum.
Ciao and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[Cainkane1]

If a college professor died and came back via reincarnation the child would have to know everything he knew in his previous. For instance if Albert Einstein came back as a child the child would have to know the theory of relativity.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry about not providing the link. Also, I'm going to direct this to a new thread. I should have done that some time back, I know, but I really didn't want to start another one. But I will, since that's the only way to stop this one, apparently.

You've been told once but since it may have slipped your mind in the hurly-burly I'll remind you:

YOU DO NOT OWN THIS THREAD AND ITS FUTURE IS NOT YOURS TO DECIDE.

About your posts, you seem to be a jester who likes to add jokes, that's all. I'm sorry, but that's how it appeared to me. You're not, then. Okay.

This is relevant to the thread topic how?

What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?

Any.

It's often pointed out here that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. You appear not to have received the memo.

 

[stanfr]

But seriously, why not address the points I made? I'm not yanking your chain, I genuinely feel you still believe in reincarnation. And it's not just a hunch either, I tried to explain why. Oh, and you can add this post of yours to the list as well as another nudge towards woo-woo land.

Sounds like your yanking his chains to me. Why does it matter whether he's being "dishonest" or not. Who cares. If you don't want to answer his original question, then don't. If you want answer by saying "reincarnation is impossible" , then do so and be done with it. If you feel its impossible to answer without a specific definition, then state so. Why must every thread on JREF degenerate to personal attacks? (and ironically, the attackers then claim the poster is using "ad-hominem" arguments--their favorite term). Sheeesh.

 

[tsig]

I'm not going to "report" your posts because I understand the "lively" part now, but that's enough abuse for me. I'm clearly too sensitive for this ****.

Thank you and goodbye.

Bye and may your next forum be a softer and warmer place.

 

[stanfr]

If a college professor died and came back via reincarnation the child would have to know everything he knew in his previous. For instance if Albert Einstein came back as a child the child would have to know the theory of relativity.

Knowing, and accessing, are obviously two different things. You probably "know" most if not all of the things that have happened in your lifetime--but how much can you recite, right now?

 

[stanfr]

YOU DO NOT OWN THIS THREAD AND ITS FUTURE IS NOT YOURS TO DECIDE.

That's why, despite being a huge fan of Randi, and a long-time skeptic, i rarely participate here. In any of the civil forums i participate in, that sort of behavior is known as "hi-jacking a post". Here, at JREF, its considered standard procedure. I dont like it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sounds like your yanking his chains to me. Why does it matter whether he's being "dishonest" or not. Who cares. If you don't want to answer his original question, then don't. If you want answer by saying "reincarnation is impossible" , then do so and be done with it. If you feel its impossible to answer without a specific definition, then state so. Why must every thread on JREF degenerate to personal attacks? (and ironically, the attackers then claim the poster is using "ad-hominem" arguments--their favorite term). Sheeesh.

Et tu, stanfr?

 

[tsig]

Sounds like your yanking his chains to me. Why does it matter whether he's being "dishonest" or not. Who cares. If you don't want to answer his original question, then don't. If you want answer by saying "reincarnation is impossible" , then do so and be done with it. If you feel its impossible to answer without a specific definition, then state so. Why must every thread on JREF degenerate to personal attacks? (and ironically, the attackers then claim the poster is using "ad-hominem" arguments--their favorite term). Sheeesh.

Most people wish to know whether or not the person they are talking to is honest or not. It lets them know how much credibility to give their statements.

His original question was answered many times in many different ways but rather than acknowledge any of that he chose to continue questioning. That is the mark of woo and by defending it you also are marked.

 

[stanfr]

Must be a difference in interpretation, Tsig, I read the whole thread and while every person who responded was "acknowleged", I didn't notice him "continue questioning", I just noticed a need for him to respond to a barrage of attacks. I'm not "defending woo" (but if it makes you feel better, believe what you want), Im defending common courtesy, which is absent in this post and often the forum in general. I'm not sure Illiad's "credibility" is an issue here, as you claim. He merely asked a question. If you dont want to respond, then dont. Period.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If a college professor died and came back via reincarnation the child would have to know everything he knew in his previous.

Not just college professors - everyone. If we were reincarnated with the memories of our previous life, we would each know what our predecessor knew, which would include what their predecessor knew, and so on back through countless generations.

That doesn't happen. The vast majority of us have no such memories. The small number who claim they do either cannot prove their "memory" is factual, or cannot prove they didn't come by the information in a conventional manner.

But of course that only addresses one hypothetical version of reincarnation which proposes we would be reborn with our memories. There's no reason to assume that would be true, which is why it's a bit daft trying to think of what would "prove" reincarnation: Whatever phenomena you search for would be based on assumptions about how reincarnation would operate.

 

[Pup]

Aw, geez. He left.

I was going to shift directions a little and post my own hypothesis about reincarnation.

I hypothesize: There's some unusual activity that occurs in some people's brains, either due to nature or nurture or both, which makes them have strong feelings of familiarity with another person or time period.

This leads to fast learning due to motivation, creation of false memories, a bias toward interpreting evidence as a connection to this person or period, and so forth.

This brain anomalie shows up in the population often enough that it has produced the myth or meme of reincarnation. It may be weak or strong, and needless to say, in cultures where reincarnation is a common belief, even those with weak or no brain anomalie may go along, whereas in cultures where reincarnation is unknown or considered negative, a person may explain the feelings another way--reverence for the spirit of a particular ancestor or connection to a guardian spirit or whatever.

The reason I think that a hypothesis like this is necessary is that one really does need to explain a certain subset of human behavior. Why can we produce so many similar anecdotes of people who have an emotional reaction or connection to a person or location or era in the past? Not all related reactions might be explained by this--some parents may be coaching children in a phenomenon related to obsessive stage parents, for example.

But there may also be a mechanism similar to animals' "imprinting" left over in some children, who become obsessed with something they're exposed to at a certain time. Or there may be some brain function similar to what causes deja vu, only stronger and longer, that makes adults have memory-like reactions when exposed to certain things.

I don't think it's the kind of thing one could investigate without a cutting-edge knowledge of neurology and a lot of heavy-duty equipment, and I'm so far from that field it's not even funny. So I can't even begin to go further than what I've said above, but I'm picturing the investigation would produce papers something like this one on deja vu.

 

[stanfr]

A true skeptic would Never try to use an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Your kilt needs adjustment.

Well, Akhenaten, i have no idea what the first part means (just not smart enuff i guess), but i know the second part isnt a term of endearement. Show me where i said anything about you personally?

 

[laca]

Sounds like your yanking his chains to me. Why does it matter whether he's being "dishonest" or not. Who cares.

I do. You should too. Otherwise, why bother?

If you don't want to answer his original question, then don't. If you want answer by saying "reincarnation is impossible" , then do so and be done with it. If you feel its impossible to answer without a specific definition, then state so.

I have answered his question. I have corrected his misrepresentation. Any more questions?

Why must every thread on JREF degenerate to personal attacks? (and ironically, the attackers then claim the poster is using "ad-hominem" arguments--their favorite term). Sheeesh.

Please provide a reference. Thank you.

 

[stanfr]

Pup, I think that's an interesting hypothesis. Note that ancient (or even recent) cultures had a much greater connection to nature than modern society. Just look at how much of that is represented in Native American Spiritual beliefs for example. I think if you're out there living amongst all these other critters that could eat you at any moment, you develop a stronger connection to them and see all of nature being more unified, rather than people being completely divorced from other life. This is similar in the Hindu philosophies as well. Judeo-Christianity took a bit of a turn away from this in presuming that man is the one who should "control" nature. If you can see yourself as being more in harmony with other life forms, then it's not as great a stretch to imagine that the qualities or spiritual aspects between them cannot be transfered, either in present time or at some future (post-mortal!) time. I think that probably played a big role in those beliefs (although admittedly i dont know a lot about the subject).

 

[Akhenaten]

Never say Never if you are a true skeptic.

A true skeptic would Never try to use an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Your kilt needs adjustment.

Well, Akhenaten, i have no idea what the first part means (just not smart enuff i guess), but i know the second part isnt a term of endearement. Show me where i said anything about you personally?

No true Scotsman


Now, do you have anything to add to the topic, or do you prefer to continue derailing the thread with your investigations into various logical fallacies?