i have alot of respect for some of the posters of this forum and would like to get some opinions on this. this article doesn’t PROVE reincarnation, but provides scientific possibility, at least thats what i took from it. I think there are some people on here who know MUCH more than myself on the subject and i would love to learn more.
All I know is, if there is reincarnation…and what you come back as is influenced on how you lived your previous life…I’m coming back as a big turd.
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
i have alot of respect for some of the posters of this forum and would like to get some opinions on this. this article doesn’t PROVE reincarnation, but provides scientific possibility, at least thats what i took from it. I think there are some people on here who know MUCH more than myself on the subject and i would love to learn more.[/quote]
My honest opinion is that science hasn’t come close to understanding the true purpose of all DNA strands and that genetic memory has been proven in lesser organisms (like flatworms). I think it is only a matter of time before much of what is believed as far as reincarnation turns out to be genetic memory of people who come before you. Perhaps that will explain De ja Vu or similar occurances and possibly expand into ESP…which may be an experienced occurance being repeated in some way triggering a genetic memory. I find it interesting but not so much that I have done any deeper research.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
cesliwakan wrote:
i have alot of respect for some of the posters of this forum and would like to get some opinions on this. this article doesn’t PROVE reincarnation, but provides scientific possibility, at least thats what i took from it. I think there are some people on here who know MUCH more than myself on the subject and i would love to learn more.
My honest opinion is that science hasn’t come close to understanding the true purpose of all DNA strands and that genetic memory has been proven in lesser organisms (like flatworms). I think it is only a matter of time before much of what is believed as far as reincarnation turns out to be genetic memory of people who come before you. Perhaps that will explain De ja Vu or similar occurances and possibly expand into ESP…which may be an experienced occurance being repeated in some way triggering a genetic memory. I find it interesting but not so much that I have done any deeper research.[/quote]
i was hoping you would reply X, if you have a spare 20 minutes i think you may enjoy the read. there are some parts explaining how modern science differs from classic science in that, classic science only accounts for things that are touchable and knowable, and cannot account for an electron jumping from one atomic orbital to another instantly without crossing the space between.
hence the new science of quantum mechanics.
that dosent prove reincarnation but simply that classic science can’t be used to explain, prove or disprove ALL things.
am i right? or am i missing something.
humbly
I’ll write my impressions as I read the text; so some stuff at the end might not jive perfectly with stuff at the beginning; but we’ll see.
“the Buddha…completely understood the true nature of the universe.” Faith, not fact. We’re not off to a great start.
Page 11 discusses some of science’s failings in explaining rebirth, impermanence, egolessness and phenomenas such as clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. The problem here is the assumption from the onset of the existence of such phenomenas, and the conclusion that science does not confirm them is “a failing of science.”
The scientific method works the other way around. You do not assume the conclusion you wish to arrive to at the outset. You can posit hypotheses and devise ways to test them, but if all your tests fail, you must conclude that your hypothesis was wrong; not that your assumption remains correct and that science has failed.
There’s then a fairly long recap of classical science and of the quantum revolution at the beginning of the 20th century… I guess they’ll return to this later?
The actual Rebirth part starts of with the fact that some famous people, such as Descartes, believed in it and that some portion of the population also believes in it. Well, 90% of the population believed, at one point, that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe; and millions of kids believe that Santa Claus exists. Both beliefs are wrong; and trying to show support for rebirth by similar means proves nothing.
Things then take a turn for the worse, as rebirth is defined as the “re-embodiment” of the immaterial part of a person." Science doesn’t do “immaterial” very well. Unless the “immaterial” can be observed as matter or energy, I don’t think we’ll get very far.
Maybe we can test the effects or that “immaterial part” of a person and go from there. I’m on page 30 at this point. Onward.
Now, this is not going well. To test Rebirth, they use hypnosis, a state of extreme suggestability. Their view, of course, is that hypnosis enhances the memories of past lives and allows subjects to better recall their past lives. Scientology does the same thing during auditing; encouraging the subject to “re-experience” past lives to find engrams that are causing them problems in this life. Personnally, I think that shows that hypnotized people are highly suggestible and that some will respond positively to the suggestion that they have lived past lives. It does not ascertain the reality of those past lives.
There are then claims of young children recalling past lives and talking about them volubly and accurately. Even if true, which I doubt, that’s hardly “science.” At best it’s anectdotal evidence, but hardly constitutes a repeatable experiment under controlled conditions. Anyone who has kids knows that they have an amazing imagination and a high capacity for learning and “absorbing” facts and fictions and incorporating them into their games. Whatever the actual facts of each case, the paper seems to be in quite a hurry to “confirm the validity of such cases and exclude the possibility of fraud.” If it was actual science, you could set up your own experiment and reproduce the results. No such possibility here.
There is a few more of that type of claims, with child prodigies and spiritual guides being offered as “proof” of rebirth. The text then concludes that they have scientifically proven rebirth. Yeah, right.
They then claim that you cannot scientifically disprove rebirth, a common tactic for people with unbased claims. Intellectually dishonest, since in science, you must prove your point, theory or assertion for it to be accepted. You do not claim it as truth and then challenge people to disprove it.
We then have another “tactic” where the claim is made that since Quantum Mechanics are so counter-intuitive and hard to understand, but indubitably science, that rebirth is also science because it’s “mysterious.” The same ridiculous claims are made in the film “What the Bleep do we know?” where all matters of mumbo-jumbo and fairy tale claptrap is “explained” by misusing terms and concepts from quantum mechanics.
In the annexes, there is a list of well known physicists. Why it’s there is not clear, except to maybe try to show that these people would support the rebirth theory? From what I know of these scientists, none of them have ever expressed support for that concept; and some of them have even explicitely stated that they did not believe in any form of afterlife.
Conclusion: The article doesn’t provide any real scientific backing for rebirth. It makes a valient attempt to sound scientific and to present apparently sound reasoning; but it’s not, by any measure, actual science. It’s closer to a Star Trek script where Geordie Laforge explains how a tachyonic beam can reverse the polarity of a black hole and thus save the Enterprise. It sounds good, but the emperor has no clothes.
Science’s concept of “reincarnation” is through having children. The more high quality children you have, which enables them to have more children in turn provides your best bet at whatever you want to call it, be it reincarnation, immortality, etc… But, when you die you yourself ceases to exist, and your consciousness blinks in to nothingness. You can though teach your children what you’ve learned to better enable them to live their lives to fulfil their purpose.
The purpose of life is to replicate.
Generally things that lead to and aid replication are pleasurable. It’s no accident that having sex, being in love, and raising a family is pleasurable. It’s no accident either that being rejected of sex, breaking up, or losing a child are also the most painful experiences one can have. No it’s not romantic or magical but that is science’s stance at this point. Although some would say that freaky sex, a torrid love affair, and watching your children grow up are romantic and magical. 
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
cesliwakan wrote:
i have alot of respect for some of the posters of this forum and would like to get some opinions on this. this article doesn’t PROVE reincarnation, but provides scientific possibility, at least thats what i took from it. I think there are some people on here who know MUCH more than myself on the subject and i would love to learn more.
My honest opinion is that science hasn’t come close to understanding the true purpose of all DNA strands and that genetic memory has been proven in lesser organisms (like flatworms). I think it is only a matter of time before much of what is believed as far as reincarnation turns out to be genetic memory of people who come before you. Perhaps that will explain De ja Vu or similar occurances and possibly expand into ESP…which may be an experienced occurance being repeated in some way triggering a genetic memory. I find it interesting but not so much that I have done any deeper research.
i was hoping you would reply X, if you have a spare 20 minutes i think you may enjoy the read. there are some parts explaining how modern science differs from classic science in that, classic science only accounts for things that are touchable and knowable, and cannot account for an electron jumping from one atomic orbital to another instantly without crossing the space between.
hence the new science of quantum mechanics.
that dosent prove reincarnation but simply that classic science can’t be used to explain, prove or disprove ALL things.
am i right? or am i missing something.
humbly
[/quote]
I do think the only people who believe science has even attempted to explain all things are staunch evolutionists, and then only those who form their “lack of belief” into nearly its own religion. There are things we still don’t understand in our day to day lives. We have a pretty good concept of how a muscle grows bigger and stronger, however, beyond that is largely intelligent guessing. Some pain that is experienced is still related to theory as far as what causes it (dentinal hydrodynamic theory). I personally don’t believe that a person is truly “reborn” as a whole new person over and over. I think our concept of a “spirit” or consciousness is sorely lacking and that we are nowhere near understanding it. I think energy can be transferred. I believe in some form of ESP (I can feel when someone is staring at me even if my back is turned to them…why?).
I don’t think it is as simple as that site even projects. I think as humans we get ahead of ourselves and our own egos allow us to believe that we have things even partially figured out. I think we have a very long way to go just to get the basics. But then, I’m just another human whose life is no more than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. My hope in this life is just that I make enough of a dent for my being here to be noticed in that concept.
I just read it over, cover to cover. I’m in agreement with pookie mostly, with how this is conveyed.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Things then take a turn for the worse, as rebirth is defined as the “re-embodiment” of the immaterial part of a person." Science doesn’t do “immaterial” very well. Unless the “immaterial” can be observed as matter or energy, I don’t think we’ll get very far.
Maybe we can test the effects or that “immaterial part” of a person and go from there. I’m on page 30 at this point. Onward. [/quote]
Saying something “immaterial” is part of the science involved is a poor arguement. The closest kind of science to this is where you see a visible EFFECT of something you do not know, and therefore try to discover it. IE: Bodies of mass are attracted to one another - discover the force attracting them - Gravity - attempt to define what gravity is. Or something to that effect. With reincarnation, there is no “definite effect”.
Another point of science. I hate the arguement “you cant prove me wrong, I must be right”. Fine. I say God exists and that he did not make it possible for reincarnation to happen. Prove me wrong. - As you can see, whether it’s true or not, there’s nothing you can do about it. Science can’t prove it one way or another. Science is better at proving what there IS, not what there MAY be.
This is where I have a different opinion. The attempt isn’t valient. I read it just to see the scientific principals I was hoping to see, and instead it was all just superstition without any backing, or even the hint of a resonable explaination. At least in Star Trek you have a fantasy/sci-fi universe where it’s possible with the technologies they have. What a letdown.
““It sounds good, but the emperor has no clothes.””
Well, at least we can agree the emperor has no clothes.
Seriously though, the ‘immaterial part’ of the human body is thought. And it ends when the body dies, or in deep sleep etc…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I believe in some form of ESP (I can feel when someone is staring at me even if my back is turned to them…why?).
[/quote]
Because you are awesome!
ESPs RULE!
: p
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My honest opinion is that science hasn’t come close to understanding the true purpose of all DNA strands and that genetic memory has been proven in lesser organisms (like flatworms).[/quote]
Wouldn’t that entail that our DNA change as we experience new things? It would require DNA modifications to encode the memories from our brain neurons into ATGC sequences in, at least, the DNA of our reproductive cells.
Have any studies been done on that? Has someone compared DNA taken from a baby with his same DNA years later to see if any differences are present?
I’m not discounting the possibility entirely, but it seems unlikely; requiring the interconnections between billions of neurons to be stored and passed on in the DNA molecule. Furthermore requiring the modification of DNA as memories are acquired.
On that aspect, the posted article differs entirely. They propose no link at all between one life and the next; even using example of a New York citizen being a “rebirthed” Tibetan monk.
What does ESP have to do with reincarnation?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I believe in some form of ESP (I can feel when someone is staring at me even if my back is turned to them…why?).[/quote]
If you can prove that, you could be given a million dollars.
Details here: JREF - Home
And yes, they are entirely serious.
[quote]pookie wrote:
What does ESP have to do with reincarnation?
[/quote]
They both have to do with the supernatural, do they not? Is this discussion off limits to discussion on ESP? No one sent me the memo.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe in some form of ESP (I can feel when someone is staring at me even if my back is turned to them…why?).
If you can prove that, you could be given a million dollars.
Details here: JREF - Home
And yes, they are entirely serious.
[/quote]
Thanks for the link, but did you post this because you believe it is impossible? What are your thoughts on anything related to it?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t that entail that our DNA change as we experience new things? It would require DNA modifications to encode the memories from our brain neurons into ATGC sequences in, at least, the DNA of our reproductive cells.
Have any studies been done on that? Has someone compared DNA taken from a baby with his same DNA years later to see if any differences are present?[/quote]
Have you ever heard of savant syndrome? Some believe it is related to genetic memory because it is the only scientific explanation for a young boy sitting at a piano and belting out a complex musical concert without formal training.
http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/faq.cfm
I found that site interesting. As far as whether any actual studies on human DNA have been done to prove it, not to my knowledge.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
(I can feel when someone is staring at me even if my back is turned to them…why?)[/quote]
Because you’re black and have to watch out for whitey.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
What does ESP have to do with reincarnation?
They both have to do with the supernatural, do they not? Is this discussion off limits to discussion on ESP? No one sent me the memo.[/quote]
I wasn’t teasing you, X. I was being truthful.
Altough I don’t think ESP is supernatural it is awesome - it’s just that most people are not aware of that capacity.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Thanks for the link, but did you post this because you believe it is impossible? What are your thoughts on anything related to it?
[/quote]
My thoughts on it are that while you may believe you have a faint ESP capability, the fact is that you are mistaken.
Human psychology is such that we tend to remember successes more than failures; and that once you’ve got the idea that you can “tell when people stare at you,” you’ll notice more the times when you “feel a stare” and it happens that the person was actually staring; and notice less when it turns out your “feeling” was wrong.
Testing it allows to decide the question, one way or another. Maybe you can tell whether someone is staring at you by means unexplainable by science and your natural senses; but there’s no way to actually know (rather than believe or think so) until we check.
The reasons why I don’t believe it’s possible is because all previous tested claims of it have failed. Of course, all the thousands of light bulbs Edison tried before finding the right filament didn’t prove it was impossible, only that he hadn’t tested the right one.
I would very much like to be proven wrong; because ESP and all those other mental powers would be way cool. I could really use telekinesis to bring the remote from the top of the TV to my hand when I’m already comfortably plopped in my easy chair.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do think the only people who believe science has even attempted to explain all things are staunch evolutionists, and then only those who form their “lack of belief” into nearly its own religion. There are things we still don’t understand in our day to day lives.[/quote]
I would agree that there are people who are adamant about keeping the status quo. And I can understand why someone, who has spent the past 40 years studying a certain field of science only to have it turned upside down, would be reluctant to embrace change.
But words like ‘evolutionists’ and have them described as turning their lack of belief into a quasi-religion scares me.
I understand that arguments and counter-arguments over faith vs. evolution have been made over and over again and repeating them here won’t change anyones opinion. Yes, science can’t explain everything, but its the best we have at the moment. Science is not a bureucratic apparatus that blindly follows a certain dogma, but a collection of people who all have differing opinions. So science tends to be quite self-correcting, even if slow at times.
Just look at the dark matter issue. Not too long ago many were calling it a quick fix. Now most are convinced there is something to it.
- POC
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Have you ever heard of savant syndrome? Some believe it is related to genetic memory because it is the only scientific explanation for a young boy sitting at a piano and belting out a complex musical concert without formal training.
http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/faq.cfm [/quote]
Yes, I’ve heard of it. Another common view is that those savant are able to perform spectacularly because they can concentrate more deeply on a single task; whereas most “normal” people are always multitasking even when they try to concentrate all their attention on a single matter.
Basically, if you could use all of your brain at once to count the dropped matches on the floor, you’d be just as good as Rainman at it.
Upon further reading of your site, I see they cover what I just said, and about 20 other theories to attempt to explain it.
Brain science is fascinating. Although I don’t feel that explaining savants requires any “paranormal” activity.
Except for the timeline involved, it would appear to be a relatively simple test to do.