Can you believe in certain things without being religious?

[inyourface]

More specifically reincarnation, does it have to be synonymous with religion and believing in God? I ask because of a question I posed on another forum where I got told I couldnt believe in RC because I also claimed I was an atheist.

I happen to consider the two matters seperate and wondered what the general consensus was on 2p2?

[madnak]

They're absolutely separate. Not only can you be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, but there are even religions that don't believe in gods but do believe in reincarnation (some sects of Buddhism are like this).

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
More specifically reincarnation, does it have to be synonymous with religion and believing in God? I ask because of a question I posed on another forum where I got told I couldnt believe in RC because I also claimed I was an atheist.

I happen to consider the two matters seperate and wondered what the general consensus was on 2p2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two different things. Those telling you otherwise were not atheists.

[Splendour]

If you go to wikipedia there's a huge list of variations on reincarnation. Down at the bottom is the scientific research then tons of article links in the footnotes.

[vhawk01]

I guess the better question would be why?

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the better question would be why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't he want to research as many angles as possible on this. He trying to find something that's not all that common. To locate it might take more indepth research and searching as many avenues as possible. Did you think SMP has the only authoritative answer on this question?

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
If you go to wikipedia there's a huge list of variations on reincarnation. Down at the bottom is the scientific research then tons of article links in the footnotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

scientific research?

[ZeeJustin]

They are separate, but it just so happens most atheists are too smart and/or rational to believe in reincarnation. By the same token, atheists generally don't believe in ghosts, zodiac predictions, or superstitious beliefs either, but none of those are religious things (generally speaking).

[tame_deuces]

Religion can be a lot of things, it doesn't have to mean believing in a god or some such. Believing in reincarnation can certainly qualify in the eyes of some people.

And if you look at atheism as only the lack of belief in god or divine beings, you could even say there are atheistic religions.

They are just words, and they can mean different things.

[Lestat]

That poster assumed you were an atheist based on intelligent rational thought.

[JammyDodga]

Sure you can believe in reincarnation if you are an athiest, it just makes you a [censored] retarded one.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can believe in reincarnation if you are an athiest, it just makes you a [censored] retarded one.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
More specifically reincarnation, does it have to be synonymous with religion and believing in God? I ask because of a question I posed on another forum where I got told I couldnt believe in RC because I also claimed I was an atheist.

I happen to consider the two matters seperate and wondered what the general consensus was on 2p2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they're both superstitious nonsense but that doesn't make them connected. So no, you don't have to believe one to believe the other. That being said, the logic and reasoning behind atheism generally leads to not believing other nonsense.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
If you go to wikipedia there's a huge list of variations on reincarnation. Down at the bottom is the scientific research then tons of article links in the footnotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually by the very definition of "science" I can tell you that you are incorrect without even bothering to click the link.

This is because science must be testable and it is impossible to test is somebody has been re-incarnated without them giving us something like an object which has not yet been discovered or which has been locked in an unopened safe for many hundreds of years (and with proof that it has been unopened). This is the only kind of test which could be used for verification and the logistics of setting it up under controlled conditions are --- well, very difficult.

I have heard of only one account of a supernatural/metaphyscial thing from a rational person that was not entirely subjective or just plain stupid. That was in Michael Crichton's "Travels" and even there, there are many alternative explanations.

[inyourface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can believe in reincarnation if you are an athiest, it just makes you a [censored] retarded one.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, and for the first time in 2p2 history I thought we would get a douchebag free thread.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the better question would be why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't he want to research as many angles as possible on this. He trying to find something that's not all that common. To locate it might take more indepth research and searching as many avenues as possible. Did you think SMP has the only authoritative answer on this question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Research != believe knowwhatimsayin?

[GaSSPaNiCC]

*sigh* i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson and is now contuining to be investigated by Dr. Jim Tucker. And concerning atheism, it is a belief ststem, one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural realm using the current scientific methodology. I think it is important to remain agnostic and in the true spirit of science, not let our beliefs blind us from what might be the truth. Whether it means God exists or He doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

[FortunaMaximus]

Human memory is fraught with detail. Is it not possible that racial memory would be just as detailed instead of considering reincarnation as an option?

I read the wiki. Interesting. But to rely on hypnotic methods and similarity of birthmarks is dubious at best, if only because the reliability of those methods aren't ironclad.

Now, if you had concrete physical proof instead of hearsay from individuals without relying on hypnotic regression... Maybe there would be merit to the idea.

Human memory is a strange and wonderful thing, and may just be more complex than we can think it to be. I'm more willing to think that our racial memory is quite complex and capable of retaining more than the ability to find food.

[Fulcanelli]

-As an atheist, I could believe in "numbers", "infinite straight lines", "points" in "space", or that "for any given line and point not on the line, there is one parallel line through the point not intersecting the line"

-I could also, just not believe that last proposition: Intro on Lobachevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Ivanovich_Lobachevsky)

-Or go even further: "It is well known that geometry presupposes not only the concept of space but also the first fundamental notions for constructions in space as given in advance. It only gives nominal definitions for them, while the essential means of determining them appear in the form of axioms. The relationship of these presumptions is left in the dark; one sees neither whether and in how far their connection is necessary, nor a priori whether it is possible. From Euclid to Legendre, to name the most renowned of modern writers on geometry, this darkness has been lifted neither by the mathematicians nor the philosophers who have laboured upon it."
On the hypotheses which lie at the foundation of geometry (1854), by Bernhard Riemann (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Riemann.html)



-I could believe that the planet Venus has a mass, and an acceleration (moves faster/slower towards or away from, say, "me"). In that case I could believe Venus has a Force F; it's entirely up to me to believe if that Force F is the way it's been described by the ancients, and whether or not there's a relation with constellations further away, like Lion. Maybe I'm a Lionheart too, like that medieval king.

-Then again, since we're speaking about larger distances, I may want to switch to general relativity. Because after all, that's what I've been told to do in these situations. In that case, Venus would have an Energy E equal to it's mass times c^2. Whether that Energy E is exactly..."rinse and repeat".



-I could believe in the validity of causal logic/deductive reasoning...But then I'd have to believe in certain axioms (a troll might call them superstitious beliefs or "dogma"): among others, there's "reflexivity", "transitivity", "monotonicity"... and "Ex falso quodlibet". The last one means that I can deduct anything I want from a contradiction (P&~P, "this sentence is a lie",...).

-I don't know about you, but "anything I want" is a whole lot; reincarnation, god and/or gods, Alice in Wonderland, a "Salvador Dali"-type reality where time is an illusion,... Even "Jesus is god's son and he called his audience brothers and sisters, therefore I'm god's son too".

-To put it in biblical terms: "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." (John 1,1). When I study the word (that's logos, in Greek, hence: "logic"), I study... These are some of the things I could believe in, as an atheist. But I don't.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson

[/ QUOTE ]

have you actually read his 'research'? It's easier to read it as a parody on Saturday Night Live than being presented as a scientific study.
Really. A dog would drill a hole in the floor if he were as circular in the pursuit of his tail.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

I just imagined a dog with a Black and Decker drill.

Thanks for that. It was a dull afternoon.

People tend to take wiki as gospel these days, it seems. They shouldn't. The U of Virginia has a Division of Perceptual Studies, that much you can glean from the page.

Rather odd that academics has become so broad that anything and everything gets included.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson

[/ QUOTE ]

have you actually read his 'research'? It's easier to read it as a parody on Saturday Night Live than being presented as a scientific study.
Really. A dog would drill a hole in the floor if he were as circular in the pursuit of his tail.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to answer your own question sir.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson

[/ QUOTE ]

have you actually read his 'research'? It's easier to read it as a parody on Saturday Night Live than being presented as a scientific study.
Really. A dog would drill a hole in the floor if he were as circular in the pursuit of his tail.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to answer your own question sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're new here. Before I spend a lot of time discussing research with you I want to know if you have read his work and consider it qualifies as representative of the scientific method. ( I've gone through his 'Children Remember ...' book).
iow, the question was more about you, not him, you may be Splendors tutor for all I know.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

I'm not an expert on his research by any means, but i have have read articles and watch some videos on the basic premise of it. Stevenson himself was extremely skeptical of his own work, he never once concluded it proved reincarnation as scientific fact. But what he did mention was reincarnation is a phenonemna which needs to be taken more seriously.

[madnak]

Incidentally, is there any sort of peer review process in place for paranormal research?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an expert on his research by any means, but i have have read articles and watch some videos on the basic premise of it. Stevenson himself was extremely skeptical of his own work, he never once concluded it proved reincarnation as scientific fact. But what he did mention was reincarnation is a phenonemna which needs to be taken more seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I'm the one that can now say,

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson

[/ QUOTE ]

read even that one book, come back with comments on the merit of the science in it. Then use him as a reference to bolster your point..
no?

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Um the point you have made is completely irrelevant. You have not stated as into why this research is not scientific, or why it should be disregarded. Just because i haven't read a book, does NOT mean i am not familiar with his research, therfore your argument has no merit . And if your looking for some kind of literature on the subject then by all means go to...

[url=https://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/case_types.cfm#CORT]

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation01.html

I don't know how scientific one can get using a poker forum...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Um the point you have made is completely irrelevant. You have not stated as into why this research is not scientific, or why it should be disregarded. Just because i haven't read a book, does NOT mean i am not familiar with his research, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wiping the jelly off the hammer...
Do YOU think the methods he used in his research meet an acceptable level of scientific rigor?
You don't have to prove to me it does, I just want your verdict on it.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

I think he did the best science he possibly could, considering it is such a controversial subject.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he did the best science he possibly could, considering it is such a controversial subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the controversy should affect your scientific methods how? By taking care to be extra rigorous in your methods or getting sloppy?
What's your opinion on where he ended up on the continuum?....wipe.
( I've never considered that the amount of rigor that science demands is dependent on the controversy involved, but they are human. "lots of people are going to attack this so I'll ..." could be an influence I suppose)

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

What do you mean getting sloppy? If you could point me to a source where this mentioned, i would love to hear it, or maybe elaborate a bit further. Look just because this is controversial, it does not mean the research is invalid which is what i think your suggesting...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, is there any sort of peer review process in place for paranormal research?

[/ QUOTE ]

...Anyone?

Or tell me in what journals the results are published?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean getting sloppy? If you could point me to a source where this mentioned, i would love to hear it, or maybe elaborate a bit further. Look just because this is controversial, it does not mean the research is invalid which is what i think your suggesting...

[/ QUOTE ]

4th attempt -
What is GaSSPaNiCC's evaluation of the quality of the science done in the work in question?
A - top notch. No finer research has ever been done in any field.
B - excellent with minor quibbles on ....
C - ok, some rough edges.
D - definitely flaws in the ...
E - shoddy in a lot of areas.
F - gawdawful.

There, it's down to one letter for you. ( mine was F).
If you're not going to on the forum much it doesn't matter, but I like to know whose links and references are worth reading and whose aren't. ( it's related to the thread on 'respecting opinions'.)

luckyme

[willie24]

for a person to qualify as "reincarnated," must he have memory of prior lives? if so, then what we know about the body/brain would seem to be inconsistent with the idea.

however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.

"what is the nature of conciousness?" is a question that no one here can put to rest. neither can anyone tell you (accurately) that your answer is wrong.

science is fallible, because it is based on human perception. it does a tremendous job of describing/explaining the mechanisms that seem to make up the world we percieve, but it does not prove reality (because the perception it is based on could be flawed)- unless it is taken as given that what we percieve IS reality. well, if that is true, then what about when different people percieve different things? can there be different realities?

there are many different logical paths you can consider, as falcanelli posted earlier.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson and is now contuining to be investigated by Dr. Jim Tucker. And concerning atheism, it is a belief ststem, one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural realm using the current scientific methodology. I think it is important to remain agnostic and in the true spirit of science, not let our beliefs blind us from what might be the truth. Whether it means God exists or He doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

[/ QUOTE ]

Step 1: Use words with scary connotations like "belief system" or "dogma"
Step 2: Assert atheism is such.
Step 3: Victory!

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Ok so since i'm the idiot and your the genius, WHY is it reincarnation research should be avoided? Of course some of the cases aren't perfect, and it's hard to draw a conclusions, but there is enough data there to suggest something is going on. It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that. So of course the only the way around it, is to berate the research that way it's easier to ignore. Which is essentially the case here, for some unstated reason i'm a crackpot because i support this research. Anyways i doubt i'm going to get an explanation, but if i do, i'll gladly admit i'm wrong, but of course it has to be valid one.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so since i'm the idiot and your the genius, WHY is it reincarnation research should be avoided? Of course some of the cases aren't perfect, and it's hard to draw a conclusions, but there is enough data there to suggest something is going on. It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that. So of course the only the way around it, is to berate the research that way it's easier to ignore. Which is essentially the case here, for some unstated reason i'm a crackpot because i support this research. Anyways i doubt i'm going to get an explanation, but if i do, i'll gladly admit i'm wrong, but of course it has to be valid one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't discomfort but disbelief. There's an university research department basically practicing pseudoscience trying to prove that people are reborn?

That's far out of the realm of practical science and the research is diverting funds that could go somewhere more valuable to medicine or science that has the potential to contribute to day to day life.

Even within the field, you could allocate the man-hours or funding to researching how memory works instead of reincarnation, which may be a dead end. And that would basically accomplish the same goals.

So it isn't that scientists are uncomfortable with the idea that this may be valid research, it's just that it is likely to yield any practical use.

If you want to challenge modern science, focus on how the process of memory works instead, and if reincarnation is valid, a more focused research approach would yield it as a matter of course anyway.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Why not try to objectively observe this phenonema to our greatest abililty? This is what stevenson did, and is still being pursued to this very day. I mean if these children are proclaiming to have recollection of a previous life, why not investigate it? It may seem unconvential, but that does not make it pseudoscience, and does not mean we cannot pursue the greatest objective truth of reality as we can. If it is objectively observable, i don't see any problem with resarch being conducted, especially if positive results are accumulated. Also research like this can sway the way in which most of us view the world, which i think is a most necessity at this point. You don't have to worry about it getting funding either, it doesn't get enough already as it is, which i think is absurd and is not being scientific. I understand that it is obviously hard to consider a mechanism for something like this, but i feel that this research serves a greater purpose then that.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that "philosophical" deals with desires or nice sounding things that border on reality but are not ever it then I'll disagree. "Philosophical" deals with truth or better yet "wisdom" and is not a carnival side show.As the word states it speaks to the "love of wisdom". This really comes to the individual and not some broad abstraction as "philosophy".

Reincarnation and Karma speaks to Morality.Man's destiny is a moral tone poem whose essence is Love.

When space, time and other scientific abstractions are treated as the "only real" then concepts such as "big bang" progressing to a death of "only heat" obfuscate the reality of the Moral. Without the Moral Man is a "fifth wheel" , watching the universal progression without being a part of the same.

We are "within nature" and if you consider yourself in any way involved with "morality" then a good logical conclusion is that "nature" is also involved with "morality". Around you is "nature" which is your karma. Your position and place on earth, your family, clan, nation and race, all karmic. Your very body is karmic and related to destiny.

Love frees one from earthly karma and in this Man becomes free, new and nobled. Karma is not a burden to be shunned but a great joy to be greeted and transformed, for in this comes the renewal of Man.

As an addition, yes, you planned your karma. What man can complain he is only a "atom of infinity" when he planned his house and now lives in it? Karma is Morality redeemed and is a boon to mankind.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a strange view of science. (as suspected earlier).

There isn't a scientist alive who wouldn't give their right testicle to prove Relavity, say, wrong. You could summarize science as 'the attempt to disprove what we think we know.' and not be far off.

Unlike religion, science isn't about maintaining the status quo but trying to get beyond it.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

No your missing the point, research like this is to act as a wake up call, suggesting we may not know as much about as reality as we think. It isn't to disprove any scientific fact, it's to broaden our perspective if anything on phenomena such as the nature of our cosnciousness. Your mixing this with religion, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. The scientist's conducting this research are skeptical, but want to seek the truth about reality without letting any presuppositions affect their judgement.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The scientist's conducting this research are skeptical, but want to seek the truth about reality without letting any presuppositions affect their judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, sticking to the presumptions is why we know nothing about relativity and evolution and anatomy and ...
you seem to confuse science and scientists with mechanics. Are they spending all the money on atom smashers because they think they already know and just need a job? or are they trying to test claims that may or may not be 'true'.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't to disprove any scientific fact

[/ QUOTE ]
why not? that would be a basic reason, if we can skip over what it means to ' ..disprove scientific FACT' . ( there's some good food for thought for you in that skipped part).

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Ok, since we don't let our presuppositions effect our judgment, then why is it most skeptics/scientists won't even consider research done in the paranormal, re-incarnation, or NDE's? We know nothing about consciousness, and these phenomena may be the most crucial in understanding who we are as human beings. Sure as of right now, they might be hard to investigate, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Why don't they even consider? We have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We know nothing about consciousness ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing's not as large as it used to be ( or WE is smaller).

It's worthwhile reading a couple books, articles, or googling sites dealing with consciousness research.

Just reading 'Consciousness Explained' :-) will give you a taste of one corner of the field. But get into neuroscience relating to it perhaps by Damasio or Ramachandran.

Sure, it's one of the last frontiers but 'nothing known' is false and 'being ignored' is worse.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

I'm familiar with some research on consciousness (koch, dennet, hameroff), sure our understanding is increasing and will continue to increase, but my point is we have no idea how the brain if at all can create consciousness, and we have to accomodate for all phenomena if we truely are going to understand this dilemna.

[madnak]

You keep talking about the research being done, but you're unwilling to link to the research itself or to the journals in which it's published. You do realize that science isn't just going out and talking to people who claim to have experiences?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but my point is we have no idea how the brain if at all can create consciousness,

[/ QUOTE ]

If you insist on "no idea" and "if at all" then you are ignoring what they knew even 20,000 years ago from empirical testing ( konking on head rather than on foot). Are you going to stay adamant that we know Nothing about it? You make it difficult to go forward if you brush aside everything we find out and start each morning from zero.
Are you suggesting that if you go in for an operation you may suggest they put your elbow in butter rather than use any new-fangled 'make me unconscious' crap on you because, hey, we know nothing about how the brain makes consciousness - if at all. Would you stick to your claim of our state of knowledge?

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

There is plenty of literature on the subject of the paranormal, look up books such as Irreducible Mind, The Afterlife Experiments, Entangled Minds...there are many more, and are serious and scientific and present evidence for their claims, their evidence is not anecdotal either. For example here is an excerpt about NDE's from the book Irreducible Mind.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/03/irreducible_min.html

http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMindex.html
If you want me to post more i shall.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so since i'm the idiot and your the genius, WHY is it reincarnation research should be avoided? Of course some of the cases aren't perfect, and it's hard to draw a conclusions, but there is enough data there to suggest something is going on. It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that. So of course the only the way around it, is to berate the research that way it's easier to ignore. Which is essentially the case here, for some unstated reason i'm a crackpot because i support this research. Anyways i doubt i'm going to get an explanation, but if i do, i'll gladly admit i'm wrong, but of course it has to be valid one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is like your tenth post in a row now that has failed to answer luckyme's simple questions, and now you are starting to get indignant about it and pretend like he is calling you a moron or pretending to be a genius.

In this forum, if you have some interesting material or research that you've read that you want to discuss, you should, first, READ that research, second, try your best to understand it, and THEN third, finally, present it in the OP and be prepared to discuss it. All you've done is link it. Tell us what parts of it were particularly convincing to you. Tell us up front how rigorous and legitimate you find it to be. The reason we want to know this is because if, 50 posts from now, we've found out that its all a bunch of BS, you arent able to backpedal and say "Well I just found this on the internet its not like I vouched for it." Get it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of literature on the subject of the paranormal, look up books such as Irreducible Mind, The Afterlife Experiments, Entangled Minds...there are many more, and are serious and scientific and present evidence for their claims, their evidence is not anecdotal either. For example here is an excerpt about NDE's from the book Irreducible Mind.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/03/irreducible_min.html

http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMindex.html
If you want me to post more i shall.

[/ QUOTE ]

We want you to post what parts of your search you've found interesting and then attempt to defend them from criticism and answer questions to the best of your ability. This really is like Splendour II.

[madnak]

This stuff isn't science, man. It sounds like you don't know what science is. I don't know the subject, maybe some of these books make some valid points, but they don't constitute research. They're largely editorial. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, I mean "The Selfish Gene" falls into the same category. But Dawkins wouldn't be convincing if he didn't have solid experimental data to back up his claims, and if his claims weren't falsifiable.

Either show me the research itself (that should be a paper with an abstract and sections explaining how the research was conducted), or link me to a reference in a scholarly journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal), preferably peer reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review).

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Well, i'm definaely glad your interested, what is it would like to see? If you go to the website of skeptiko, www.skeptiko.com (http://www.skeptiko.com), there are numerous guests who are the leading para psychology researchers, NDE researchers etc, and also interviews with skeptics(James Randi, Steven Novella, Richard Wiseman and others). The interviews i would recommend are with Dean Radin, Ed and Emily Kelly, and Steven Novella. There are plenty of other great podcasts as well. I highly recommend this website. This is the best i can do, to address your specific claims, as there is just to much research to talk about. I'd much rather you listen to the experts, then myself. And after if there is a specific topic or interview you would like to debate about, once you have listened to a podcast or two, i would be more then happy to have a discussion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, i'm definaely glad your interested, what is it would like to see? If you go to the website of skeptiko, www.skeptiko.com (http://www.skeptiko.com), there are numerous guests who are the leading para psychology researchers, NDE researchers etc, and also interviews with skeptics(James Randi, Steven Novella, Richard Wiseman and others). The interviews i would recommend are with Dean Radin, Ed and Emily Kelly, and Steven Novella. There are plenty of other great podcasts as well. I highly recommend this website. This is the best i can do, to address your specific claims, as there is just to much research to talk about. I'd much rather you listen to the experts, then myself. And after if there is a specific topic or interview you would like to debate about, once you have listened to a podcast or two, i would be more then happy to have a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too much research to talk about? Pick your favorite paper or experiment or article and at the very least, I'm willing to discuss it with you. Probably luckyme and madnak and others as well. But I dont plan on being nice about it, and I expect you to give your own opinions and explanations based on what you've read.

[JammyDodga]

[x]leading researchers
[x]interviews
[x]experts
[x]podcasts
[ ]any evidence or science

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[x]leading researchers
[x]interviews
[x]experts
[x]podcasts
[ ]any evidence or science

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Maybe you should actually listen to some of the podcasts, before being so ignorant. And on the discussion, i would liek to consider the debate between michael shermer and deepak chopra on the Afterlife published in skeptic.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should actually listen to some of the podcasts, before being so ignorant. And on the discussion, i would liek to consider the debate between michael shermer and deepak chopra on the Afterlife published in skeptic.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Listening to them is a big investment of my time, I'd rather you present the information contained within to me and answer some direct questions so that I know whether its worth my time or not.

You've been asked this about 20 times now and if you'd spent all the words you've used dodging and evading you'd probably be through the worst of it by now. This leads me to believe you are hiding something...either the knowledge that this is mostly flimflammery or some sort of self-esteem issue that you arent capable of defending this research you find so interesting. We wont lynch you or anything so out with it.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Noooo, i'm trying still trying to figure the best case to discuss with you. Trust me it's not easy as you think, it's not because i'm hiding anything, i wasn't sure exactly what topic you wanted to debate about, because frankly there is a lot we can debate on, but i want to be fair with respect to you, if you're not familiar with the research. So i think we debate on something more general, how about consciousness or the NDE?

[JammyDodga]

Easy, give us one piece of evidence or research of any kind in favour of the kind of stuff you are talking about which you think will stand up to scrutiny.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Alright, NDE of Pam Reynolds

http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Probably the best case in favour for an NDE.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have evidence of WHEN the experience occurs? Ok, let's hear it.

luckyme

[GaSSPaNiCC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE

its all in there, along with the skeptical arguements. I'm not asking any of you to consider this as proof as survival, but what i am asking you since she was able to recall events during her operation, would even consider the possibility that the event even took place?

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that "philosophical" deals with desires or nice sounding things that border on reality but are not ever it then I'll disagree. "Philosophical" deals with truth or better yet "wisdom" and is not a carnival side show.As the word states it speaks to the "love of wisdom". This really comes to the individual and not some broad abstraction as "philosophy".

Reincarnation and Karma speaks to Morality.Man's destiny is a moral tone poem whose essence is Love.

When space, time and other scientific abstractions are treated as the "only real" then concepts such as "big bang" progressing to a death of "only heat" obfuscate the reality of the Moral. Without the Moral Man is a "fifth wheel" , watching the universal progression without being a part of the same.

We are "within nature" and if you consider yourself in any way involved with "morality" then a good logical conclusion is that "nature" is also involved with "morality". Around you is "nature" which is your karma. Your position and place on earth, your family, clan, nation and race, all karmic. Your very body is karmic and related to destiny.

Love frees one from earthly karma and in this Man becomes free, new and nobled. Karma is not a burden to be shunned but a great joy to be greeted and transformed, for in this comes the renewal of Man.

As an addition, yes, you planned your karma. What man can complain he is only a "atom of infinity" when he planned his house and now lives in it? Karma is Morality redeemed and is a boon to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i was not using "philosophical" as a putdown. i meant that the question of reincarnation, given my parameters on the definition, is one of philosophy, as opposed to "hard scientific fact." in other words, it can not be proven or disproven. it is a way of thinking about something rather than a material reality etc.

your idea of "karma" is interesting. it has never occured to me, and doesn't strike me as an obvious truth - most notably because i don't believe that there is any such thing as morality. one being's morality is another's demise. but i certainly admit that it could be true, given the truth of a certain set of assumptions.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can the brain in such a state, produce such a powerful experience?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have evidence of WHEN the experience occurs? Ok, let's hear it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE

its all in there, along with the skeptical arguements. I'm not asking any of you to consider this as proof as survival, but what i am asking you since she was able to recall events during her operation, would even consider the possibility that the event even took place?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood. I meant, "Do you have any evidence of WHEN the experience occurs?"

luckyme

[JammyDodga]

How can you possibly think this is scientific evidence? If that is the best you can do, you really dont have a leg to stand on.

1. She could have made it up with the help of one or more of the nurses
2. She could have hallucinated it either before she was made fully b raindead or after
3. She could have had some memories from during the operation, but she wasn't dead, she was in a state of near death, it really is different.
4. The website could have been making it up.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
actually, i was not using "philosophical" as a putdown. i meant that the question of reincarnation, given my parameters on the definition, is one of philosophy, as opposed to "hard scientific fact." in other words, it can not be proven or disproven. it is a way of thinking about something rather than a material reality etc.

your idea of "karma" is interesting. it has never occurred to me, and doesn't strike me as an obvious truth - most notably because i don't believe that there is any such thing as morality. one being's morality is another's demise. but i certainly admit that it could be true, given the truth of a certain set of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I should have been clearer as to my contention with your use of the word "philosophy". The drift of what I was saying is that a "thought" is a "fact" and it is scientifically "hard". If I call a tree a apple then my thoughts and speech appear to be disordered relative to the tree as seen by our senses. But in any case you and I cannot enter into this conversation unless we energize our thinking otherwise all we could do is stare out into space without thinking or thoughts.

Nonetheless our thoughts are "hard facts" and the study of "thoughts" and "thinking" untethered to the "tree" but correspondingly connected to the tree is relevant. This is another way of saying that only tying our thinking to our senses as if the sense bound world is all that is, is fatuous for the very world of our thoughts and thinking are a world of their own which can indeed connect the percepts of the external world.

By studying 'thinking" and "thoughts" one can and does come to a reality which is connected to the tree and in fact brings the earth bound senses into understanding. This world is the home of "philosophy" and in fact also "religion" and "art". Not definitions, but activities which climb the tonalities of Man in cosmic relation.

As to "karma" and "morality" many if not almost all relate morality to a given set of commandments but find that their individual moral tone is far more expansive than for example the ten commandments. Is not the "thou shall not kill" commandment an obvious moral concept(even though there are some who kill anyway)? If I exercise tact in relationship with my neighbor who may be facing a legal matter of severe humiliation am I not in the sphere of morality? Have I not lessened his burden or at least not added to the same by greeting him with compassion? I could have done otherwise and not been tactful and this again can lead to a moral tone, all of which may(maybe not) lead to a karmic response but not necessarily in this life. Yes, each man may have his own moral sphere and appear differently for in fact the history of Man can be seen as the history of Morality and Morals objectified.

In freedom, each man acts in moral activity, not a matter of "choice" but a matter of 'knowing" his activity. If Moses says"thou shalt not kill" and I put my head down and follow instructions then this moral activity is "not free". But if I do not kill because of my thinking and thoughtful activity buoyed by feeling and through the will then I am a "knowing doer" and am acting freely. What one sees when looking into nature is "wisdom" and Man through his work in the moral sphere lives within "Love" and transforms the earth. Karma and Love, within the sphere of Morality.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I should have been clearer as to my contention with your use of the word "philosophy". The drift of what I was saying is that a "thought" is a "fact" and it is scientifically "hard". If I call a tree a apple then my thoughts and speech appear to be disordered relative to the tree as seen by our senses. But in any case you and I cannot enter into this conversation unless we energize our thinking otherwise all we could do is stare out into space without thinking or thoughts.

Nonetheless our thoughts are "hard facts" and the study of "thoughts" and "thinking" untethered to the "tree" but correspondingly connected to the tree is relevant. This is another way of saying that only tying our thinking to our senses as if the sense bound world is all that is, is fatuous for the very world of our thoughts and thinking are a world of their own which can indeed connect the percepts of the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

while i agree that philosophical thought is a better tool than science for many things, i do not agree that a thought is a "fact" - at least by my definition of fact. a thought is not part of the material world (unless you get into brain science and start talking about synapses and receptors etc, which [i assume and hope] is not what you meant). that it isn't material does not diminish its value in any way - why would you want it to be "fact"? it's beyond fact. but it's not fact.

[ QUOTE ]
By studying 'thinking" and "thoughts" one can and does come to a reality which is connected to the tree and in fact brings the earth bound senses into understanding. This world is the home of "philosophy" and in fact also "religion" and "art". Not definitions, but activities which climb the tonalities of Man in cosmic relation

[/ QUOTE ]

i do appreciate your philosophy on this, sincerely. i think it's valid, but only equally valid to any other reasonable way of thinking about the same things. you might say, 'climbing the tonalities of man in cosmic relation.' another might say - 'being part of biology.' yet another might say - 'creating reality.' all could describe the same things and still all be valid. they are different ways of thinking about the same things. philosophies, not facts. i understand that you will counter with - "no, you don't understand me. _____ ____ ______." yes i do understand you, and you are right, but that does not exclude other, seemingly contradictory philosophies from also being right - precisely because reality isn't factual, its perceptual. (perception>fact)

[ QUOTE ]
As to "karma" and "morality" many if not almost all relate morality to a given set of commandments but find that their individual moral tone is far more expansive than for example the ten commandments. Is not the "thou shall not kill" commandment an obvious moral concept(even though there are some who kill anyway)? If I exercise tact in relationship with my neighbor who may be facing a legal matter of severe humiliation am I not in the sphere of morality? Have I not lessened his burden or at least not added to the same by greeting him with compassion? I could have done otherwise and not been tactful and this again can lead to a moral tone, all of which may(maybe not) lead to a karmic response but not necessarily in this life. Yes, each man may have his own moral sphere and appear differently for in fact the history of Man can be seen as the history of Morality and Morals objectified.

In freedom, each man acts in moral activity, not a matter of "choice" but a matter of 'knowing" his activity. If Moses says"thou shalt not kill" and I put my head down and follow instructions then this moral activity is "not free". But if I do not kill because of my thinking and thoughtful activity buoyed by feeling and through the will then I am a "knowing doer" and am acting freely. What one sees when looking into nature is "wisdom" and Man through his work in the moral sphere lives within "Love" and transforms the earth. Karma and Love, within the sphere of Morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think killing or not killing is a moral issue. it's ruled by social norm, which is a biological mechanism. i used to believe fervently in the morality of respecting individual rights. i still think respecting individual rights is important, but for practical reasons rather than moral. it would take me a very long time to write why. i'll try to do it sometime.

basically, i think it's mathematically impossible to respect the "rights" of all individuals at the same time - because all life is competitive and interactive.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
yes i do understand you, and you are right, but that does not exclude other, seemingly contradictory philosophies from also being right - precisely because reality isn't factual, its perceptual. (perception>fact)

[/ QUOTE ]

Madnak Speaks.

That's basically my position. We can ascribe "existence" to them, and it's perfectly valid in a contingent sense, but the only basis for this conception of existence is the set of criteria applied to determine that quality.

There are many ways to cut a cake. I can cut a cake into 8 pieces, and then there are indeed 8 pieces in the cake. Those pieces matter, because they'll determine who gets what part of the cake (and where crumbs will be left behind). But there is nothing special or fundamental that separates piece 1 from piece 2 - I just happened to divide the cake at a certain location. I could have divided the cake at another location, and it would have been equally valid. The individual pieces of cake are a function of my slicing, not a property of the cake itself.

When the cake hasn't yet been sliced, asking about where slice 1 and slice 2 are seems arbitrary and nonsensical. That all depends on where you slice it. In the same sense, a person or object's identity depends on how we choose to assign the property of identity - that property doesn't exist in the universe itself, it's a function of how we choose to divide the universe. I view animalism as a way of assigning idenity - it's just a method of slicing the cake, it's no more "true" or "false" than any other method. The dilemma presented in the OP strikes me as a different method of slicing - or maybe a question of "what should we do with the crumbs?" I don't think there's a right answer.





OK I've read your reply to me but feel that responding to this post would be more considerate. It appears you are presenting a type of solipsistic/Kantian type view of knowledge and the world.





In your presentation of "the cake" You are saying that your particular viewpoint of the external world has a validity and that another also may have a validity depending upon "how the cake is cut". You make no mention of the possibility that the cake has an existence of its own.You say it is not discrete, and knowledge of it is dependent upon your particular viewpoint. I'm sure this could be stated better but I believe the drift is apparent.





Let's look at a tree as I see it is a better way to examine the character of the issue. the tree is large, tall, has many branches and reaches to the sky. It is the fall/winter and leaves are not apparent. I would say that the tree speaks for itself and its discrete existence is undeniable and that any truths about this tree will be offered by the tree. There can be differences in our perspectives about the tree as for example if we are sitting around the tree but are a 150 angle from each other. We have what might be called a mathematical difference in perspective but no matter how you cut it it is undeniable that the tree contains its own truth even if we haven't an iota of understanding or in fact are totally incorrect in our thinking. The truths about the tree are not about "opinions" by you and I but are contained within the tree. One might believe that this tree is within the "immutable all" but that in no way comes to the reality of the tree. It seems that one should work with the tree first and leave open the possibility of the "immutable all" for if this is so it will be found in the work. It is not found in the work ,at present, for the naive look at the tree presents discreteness and if you will, an individual tree, via our senses.The tree exists, I know it exists, and refuse to deny my senses.








Now , back to Kant who stated that "you cannot know the thing in itself". Kant looks at the tree and is naively perceiving the tree, a perception. The moment he turns away from the tree he is left with a"memory" of a tree which is not the tree. the drift is that in all of our thinking we work with the "memory' of the tree, an imagination that is actually a condensed picture of the reality but IS NOT THE TREE. This is the Kantian viewpoint and one can see its similarity to yours. I believe that Kant then posited the "categorical imperative" which is common to all and acts as a basis for knowledge and through this we can come to some type of agreement as to our "apparent truths" for after all, we are all 'working within our heads". So if you add a stability factor as Kant did(this is not a justification of Kant), then we can come to agreement. The categorical imperative has its own difficulties but this hasn't stopped modern men from espousing Kant in substance and form.





Now the scientist comes along and states 'I can find the truth of the tree". He immediately begins to chip at the bark, perhaps even cut the tree in half and viola we have knowledge based upon the mineral kingdom. No doubt potassium, sodium, sulfur, etc. will be found and in this the naive man is befuddled for when the chips are made there is no longer a tree. A flower is a flower in the earth and if cut and placed on your dinner table it ceases to be a flower. In the scientific viewpoint the machine gives the relevance to the finding. Man is divorced from the finding for if man begins to think on these things we are back to the "categorical imperative" . This hasn't stopped scientists from thinking, thankfully.





The question is, how does one know the thing in itself?This question can only come about after denying the reality of the tree but it should be asked. What is it that disproves Kant but better yet makes us able to know the "thing in itself"? I'll take a break here and will follow up in another post.


Continuing on with the idea of not knowing the “thing in itself” we can see that this is relevant to the fact that the mental picture of the tree is not the tree and it is then assumed that Man, in his thinking, works with this mental picture of the tree but not the ‘real tree”. Further consideration reveals this to be faulty for the “real tree” is a perception which is limited by our being as we are limited beings in the world. Each man is individually limited by nature else we would be able to perceive the entire world complex in one fell swoop. The other consideration is that our “mental picture” is also a perception as the worldly tree percept is equally. In fact our entire being is a “percept” within our nature. One could therefore give no more credence to the “mental picture “as basis for knowledge than the original tree percept. Because of this some have posited that life is illusion, at best a dream, in which all men dream equally.




So how does “limited man” gain knowledge of the world? He does this through thinking. In each of the mental gyrations we go through thinking is assumed but not studied. If I throw a ball into the air a distance and watch it fall we will obtain a parabolic path and after pondering the presentation we, as mathematician, come up with the “concept” of the parabola. This “concept” is brought to us by thinking and in this the percept of the world which does not display the whole reality is complete by that part brought to us by thinking, the "concept". Because of Man’s limitations his percepts only display half of the reality while the concept, which is the part not observed by the senses is present and completes the whole. Likewise the concept “tree” or “animal kingdom” are concepts brought to us via thinking. In thinking we piece the world together connecting concepts to their respective percepts and to other concepts and therefore expanding our world knowledge vis a vis our precepts.




Of course, the idea of thinking must be considered. One must study thinking but can only do this in hindsight. To study or observe thinking while in the act of thinking is not tenable. One studies thinking at the completion of the act and in this thinking is studied and placed in our complex of concepts. The study of thinking reveals that thinking is that which is the part of the universal world process presented to all. Thinking is not individual but our substance in which truth is common to all of mankind, not the specific individual. In that an individual man is limited by his being as for example feelings or will which block perfect thought impulses the truths accomplished will display variations of multiplicity due to the fact that an individual man will obfuscate (depending upon the individual ,of course) the truth in reality, again secondary to his limited being. He works this worldly universe piecemeal and passes this to his brothers who in following the thought gain an appreciation of the world. Thinking is universal and in this we can all appreciate the truths involved and through thinking we can all come together. My feelings and will impulses are not common to all men but my thinking most certainly is so.


This is my response to Madlak concerning "percept" and I believe it responds to your consideration of"opinions" of many in relation to knowledge and knowing. the difficulty is that the disjunction between perception and thinking is spoken to. My post and others I've brought forward relates to how does Man break this seeming duality of perception and thinking. In it I categorically state that "thinking" is common to all men and that perceptions bring forth their own truths irrespective of the opinions of men(including mine).

The thinking brings forth the truths and the man rides the waves of thinking which is common to all. How does one know the truth of a presentation? That person knows the truth of the presentation but following this "thinking" for at that time we are in the supersensible world during the presentation of the thoughts. Its up to the listener or reader to make the judgment as to its reality. It is possible for these truths to be in error and for the reader or listener to correct the presenter. The disconnect between what the scientist may call "material" reality or "perception" is then closed and it will be up to others or the presenter to bring the "thoughts" into concordance with the perceptions which speak for themselves.

Man in his limitations sees a "tree" but this is only half of the reality for the concept of the tree completes the cycle and the sensible tree can be seen as a perceptive/conceptive whole not to be disassociated. This further leads to conclusions that the sensible percept is in itself a manifestation of a supersensible world.

Now I'll bring forth the ancient Indian concept of "Maya" or the shadows on the wall of a cave as brought forth by Plato. Relating to your sense that the materialistic scientist can weigh and measure reality it lives in a falsehood for this is the thinking of "death" which deals only with the inorganic and does not speak to life.

Dunno whether this helps but what I've presented is through thinking and hopefully the nudge away from materialism can be facilitated. I apologize for the length of the presentation but I'm trying to be a thorough as possible for in these studies a larger panorama of life becomes manifest and calls for more research or study in this supersensible world of thoughts.






















Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator