Aproach on reincarnation (spam only on topic, no flaming plz)

[Macleod1701]

I'm largely undecided about what I beleive in this regard, when I was younger, (ah those care free days) I possibly did want to beleive in reincarnation. But now I just think that when I eventually pop the big D can't that just be it, worked all my life, paid bills, put up with all the poop that life throws at me and ready for a rest and a lot of non existing. I'm completely against all religion, there's no need for it in my life so when I die if I do end up reincarnated I'll be really bloody annoyed if I have to go through the whole of life again.....it'd be like playing the same computer game over and over, no matter how many variations there are it all ends up the same, how borring! Either that or some higher being zipping in front of me to judge how I lived my life, the poor thing would have a lot of profanity directed towards it and be told I don't beleive in it!
Reincarnation is definately not for me......unless I come back as a pampered cat!

[Demortis]

my religious beliefs have upset vrey many people over the years so i will not say them here but i do think that reincarnation, is possable. some higher being doesnt decide, "oh hey, you were a bad person, your going to be a fly for two days." i think the "tranformation " of your phiscal(sp?) form is based on your desires and wishes. you create your self, and you shall create it again and again till somehthing that should have been done is.

but yes science has proven many things in histroy. the one major thing i want to see is when they prove God or Gods (if thats what you believe) exisits.

[Macleod1701]

I think your being a bit presumptious there mate, what if scientist proved beyond a doubt that gods DIDN'T exist? If he did or didn't then it probably wouldn't affect my life at all but that sort or revelation would affect a lot of people and thier beliefs.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]I think your being a bit presumptious there mate, what if scientist proved beyond a doubt that gods DIDN'T exist?[/quote]

But that's just it: you can't prove the negative of any argument about existence. Prove, for instance, that elves never existed. How? All you can show is that their existence is unlikely, even preposterous: but you can't prove their non-existence.

In addition, science is all about measuring things. When you move into a discussion of things that can't be quantified, science is at a bit of a loss. Science can't prove you have emotions, nor can it analyze specifically how Mozart came to write exactly his 41st symphony.

To bring the subject home, science can't prove the "lack of existence" of reincarnation. Logic can show how unrealistic and shallow (philosophically speaking) a reward/punishment-based reincarnation system is. But there's no way to prove or disprove a theory that there's a human soul without a physical dimension, or that it is drawn to planes of existence based on the emotions it attunes itself to. All you can do is say it's likely to be true or unlikely, for various reasons of personal belief.

[Macleod1701]

Sorry I meant to phrase it in a way that was suggesting a 'what if' arguement. I wasn't saying a definitive yes or no that gaods exist I merley trying to show him the need to be cautious about stating that 'when' it is proven that gods exist is not the right way to say it.

My fault that I'm at work and trying to post too so my sentences are a bit jumbled. Anyway do you get what I was meaning?

[fable]

I think I see what you're getting at.

[Macleod1701]

Glad someone does cause I wonder if I do sometimes

Just in relation to the supernatural, has anyone come across the 'Orb' phenomenom? There was a theory that they were related in some way to the soul and reincarnation in some way. I can see how people would relate the two what with the previous post on energys. I myself am a beleiver in ghosts and the like but not so much in orbs and what they may be.

[Demortis]

I didnt mean to say that God(Gods) existed just trying to say, im waiting for science to prove one way or another. but i guess this is all about faith.

[Macleod1701]

Fair enough mate, the only faith I have is in myself, friends and cats (so cute and cuddly). So if science does prove gods exist I'll be really ticked off for being proven wrong lol

[C Elegans]

I don't believe in reincarnation for the same reason as I don't believe in any transcendent phenomena - there is no objective evidence to support the existance of such phenomena. The day we can observe reincarnation, gods, spirits or telepathy objectively, ie with controlled, empiric, scientific methods, I will start to believe in it.

[QUOTE=Demortis]I didnt mean to say that God(Gods) existed just trying to say, im waiting for science to prove one way or another. but i guess this is all about faith.[/QUOTE]

Science will never prove one way or the others, since science cannot prove whether a phenomena does not exist (as Fable posted above), it can only demostrate that a phenomena exists.

How could we prove that a spotted goblin did not create the universe? We cannot - we can only demonstrate alternative explanations that are coherent and objectively shown with experiments and observations. If a person or group then claims "but there is a spotted goblin around, I know it because I met him in my visions/dreams/other subjective experience and he said he created the universe", then we cannot falsify this, because individual, subjective experience is not falsifyable. In order to falsify something, a hypothesis and a prediction must be set ("if a spotted goblin created the world, then --> prediction")

That's why religion is never falsifyable, and thus it can only be subject for personal belief.

[InfiniteNature]

Then there is in science the whole principle of repeatibility, the assumption that past events or laws necessarily follow present and future events. That the laws then are the laws now, I mean how do we know its a assumption not a proof, how do we know that as the universe expands the laws won't somehow change, that various things such as the speed of light values won't change, or whatever, perhaps the assumption works because now the events and laws are relatively stable, but as time goes on it doesn't work.

What if the statistical probability of a asteroid appearing is say one in a million, then we have gravitational pertubation which now makes a asteroid hit every decade or so, doesn't that change the overall probability of events?

Or the probability of somebody turning into a wilderbeast is say one in a trillion, but then tomorrow half the world turns into wilderbeasts, what's the probability of that happening now?, and it is a continuing process.

At the same time it makes no talk about random, in the cracks events, things that aren't repeatible in the laboratory but are nonetheless significant, say a once in a lifetime wormhole appearing out of the vacuum for example, or truly long scale events, weird things, greater universe questions, like for example the concept of inflation in the big bang, the belief that the early universe expanded for a time faster than light for a period then didn't. Can we repeat this in a lab?, no but the idea for a while seems to fit the data so we use it, but it is nonetheless still a assumption.

Then there are cracks in our understanding assumptions, those irritating things we just ignore because we can't explain away them. For example current physics does not explicitly forbid time travel, people ignore it or try and come up with untestable ways of disregarding it but it still sits there. Something that just violates our current understanding of the universe, but in no way really violates our own physical theories.

At the same time, isn't science guilty of making its own assumptions, that then limit it, not talking about psychic ability or whatever, just that by specializing in many different fields, there is now a shortage of people capable of bringing together the overall picture. What the message portrays when you combine pschology sociology, chaos theory, history, and geology for example, as opposed to a geologist trying to understand a socilogist or vice versa. Each one might have questionable assumptions but is unverifiable because of the greater degree of specialization.

Then there is the larger questions of who we are, what we are, are we a collection of neurochemical signals passing from neuron to neuron, bouncing back and forth; if so how do you account for those moments of intuition those things which can not be explained by simple memory or environment or even genes.

How do we account for the fact that for much of our species life we lived in the plains of Africa, basically stayed a Stone Age level, and this was just plain old Homo sapiens, just like us in intelligence adaptibility, etc. But then this period of innovation that starts, starting from a stagnant period of hundreds of thousands of years, towards a sudden jump towards things like agriculture, writing, metal working, and then the successive ages of metal bronze age iron age so forth.

Then nothing much happened, and then barely three hundred years or so, the industrial revolution, age of reason, the space age. I mean why then fact is the Roman Empire had much of the same technologies it could have started a revolution.

It wasn't the culture, why the sudden jump, actually why all the jumps, why do we successively develop more intelligence then we really need (something that frankly the environment doesn't account for).

There's a lot of stuff that science doesn't account for that hasn't yet come up with, or possibly will not come up with because of its underlying assumptions, but it does not mean that events do not occur that are nonetheless real and significant.

Then I ask, if you believe in gods or goddesses or its, what kind of assumptions limit you, if we are limited by our worldviews, and can only concieve of a world defined by those worldviews, what then that exists outside those world views, what happens when you can't ignore those worldviews.

Is it possible to think of something not concieved by any human worldview? and isn't that something just as real?

[Magrus]

Then I ask, if you believe in gods or goddesses or its, what kind of assumptions limit you, if we are limited by our worldviews, and can only concieve of a world defined by those worldviews, what then that exists outside those world views, what happens when you can't ignore those worldviews.

Is it possible to think of something not concieved by any human worldview? and isn't that something just as real?

I like this. I've always prided myself in at least attempting to process and understand a persons view on things, regardless of my feelings or beliefs. Whether or not I agree, accept or follow these things is irrevelant. It leaves me open to learning new things, and correcting myself on many different levels. I may hold to my beliefs, but I'll leave my mind open to the possibilities of all of the "what if's" out there.

I can't hand out a picture, with a mathematical solution scribbled at the bottle, depicting a deific figure which makes things work with all the calculations to prove it. I can't do the opposite either. I happen to believe in it though, because there are things out there that science cannot prove. I've friends in the engineering field who shouted down any talk of spirituality until this past year, when they moved further into their education and moved onto other methods of looking at things. Now, they ask "what if". Science can't prove a lot of things, the theories out there for those things are no better than my beliefs on them really. They all end up as just theories in the end. I mean, can we really prove nothing lives inside a different environment on a certain planet, or a star? Just because nothing we know of could withstand the environment there? Perhaps there's a life form that thrives in extreme heat with a strange mix of gasses needed to breathe and such that we've never encountered. Maybe theres some such creature deep within this planet as well, who has no concept that we're all running around up here because it cannot survive in the atmosphere here or something. Who knows?

[C Elegans]

@Infinite Nature & Magrus:
When laymen describe what they think science is, and what the limitations, drawbacks and advantages of science is, they often describe a simplified version of some aspects of positivism, not science. Both of you appears to do the same mistake here. If you choose to gain your knowledge by other methods than science, fine, that is your personal choice, but if you want to discuss what science is and not, it is good to have some familiarity with the topic.

Since this thread is about reincarnation and not about theory of science I will not elaborate this too long, but some essential points:

1. It is a misunderstanding to believe that science only deals with laws. Some scientific disciplines does, other do not. In biology for instance, there are no laws. The demand for replications of results is A) only demanded in the experimental sciences and 2) only one way to collect objective data.

2. It is very old fashioned to believe science does not deal with randomness and changing probabilities. In physics and biology this is a very prominent part of searching explanations and understand mechanisms and causes of phenomena. Btw, @Infinite Nature: probability changes when the variables in the model changes, not because the event occurs or not.

3. It is also a misunderstanding to believe science does not deal with the unexplained. On the contrary, the whole point with science is to understand and explain what is currently unexplained. The difference is that science does not seek mystic explanations. The reason why physics does not deal a lot with time travel is not that physicists find it one of those "irritating things we just ignore because we can't explain away them". It's just that most scientists are not so interested in time travelling and trying to realise sci-fi novel stuff, they are more interested in how the universe came to be, how it will develop, how the particles our universe is made of behave, and how it all works. I suggest you do some reading on what physicists actually work with. There are some labs (I know of 2) who work with photon mechanics in a way that may apply to possibilities of time travelling, but it's hardly viewed an an important scientific question.

4. Science is a specific method for gaining knowledge. You may not like it, but many other people find it the most reliable method for increasing knowledge. The scientific method is full of limitations. Splitting our world in many different disciplines is one of those. It is however a misunderstanding to believe different scientific fields are based on unverifiable assumptions. On the contrary, in science the assumptions change all the time as knowledge increase. There is no dogma.

Of cause every human being is a collections of neurotransmitters and genes, that is necessary to be alive as a biological being. A worm is also a collection of neurotransmitters, genes and other material, plus behaviour and lots of other things. You pose the question as if there was a contradiction between the neurogenetic events and something else? I don't think who you are as an individual person is a scientific question at all, it's a personal question. If you want to understand yourself at a scientific level, there is plenty of neuroscience, genetics, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, psychology, sociology, antropology and history to read.

How do we account for the fact that for much of our species life we lived in the plains of Africa, basically stayed a Stone Age level, and this was just plain old Homo sapiens, just like us in intelligence adaptibility, etc. But then this period of innovation that starts, starting from a stagnant period of hundreds of thousands of years, towards a sudden jump towards things like agriculture, writing, metal working, and then the successive ages of metal bronze age iron age so forth.

Then nothing much happened, and then barely three hundred years or so, the industrial revolution, age of reason, the space age. I mean why then fact is the Roman Empire had much of the same technologies it could have started a revolution.

It wasn't the culture, why the sudden jump, actually why all the jumps, why do we successively develop more intelligence then we really need (something that frankly the environment doesn't account for).

Why not the jumps? Why assume that unlinear temporal development is less explainable than temporally linear? And why view it as sudden jumps at all, developmental steps in Western history are not so sudden if you study the mechanism behind the events, as history often does. You seems to try to make a mystery of things which are very natural?

Your account above of the development of human life is not very correct. I do recommend you to do some reading on hominoid evolution, antropology and worldwide history, and you will see that development is not so simplistic as you describe above. What you perceive as "nothing happened" is a lot more, which you will notice once you start studying the topic. Also, what on earth do you mean by "more intelligence than we really need"?

Is it possible to think of something not concieved by any human worldview? and isn't that something just as real?

No it is not, in my opinion. We are stuck with our human worldview and that has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with the fact that we are human and cannot choose to be anything else If you believe religion, mysticism or something else will make you less human, I think you will be disappointed.

[Magrus]

I understand the basis of what science is, and what it's uses are. That wasn't the point. The point was that there are things out there that people can't prove. Science has been a method to prove the unknown and discover things, I know that. Yet, to think that just because something doesn't fit into our view of things, such things outside of it cannot exist is a flawed view on things. Too many I know think that way, even those who wanted to delve into science for a living.

If this were the case, science would have ground to a halt long ago.

For example, take microscopic organisms. If no one had come up with a way to magnify our vision to look and see such creatures, would people believe they existed? Too many people have the outlook of if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. I find it terribly closed-minded and dull.

No it is not, in my opinion. We are stuck with our human worldview and that has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with the fact that we are human and cannot choose to be anything else If you believe religion, mysticism or something else will make you less human, I think you will be disappointed.

Not for everyone. I can choose to open my mind to suggestions outside that of what most of those around me choose to accept and contemplate. It's all a matter of choice really. Just because something mentioned to you doesn't fit into how you percieve things doesn't mean it is automatically wrong and void. There are things science has proven, which have helped quite a bit. It doesn't mean that it will be the only way to prove everything though, or ever be able to prove certain things for that matter.

[C Elegans]

For example, take microscopic organisms. If no one had come up with a way to magnify our vision to look and see such creatures, would people believe they existed? Too many people have the outlook of if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. I find it terribly closed-minded and dull.

You are totally missing my point, @Magrus. You must make a distinction between belief and objective facts, and you must also make a distiction between believing in things can observe the effects of, and things you cannot observe either directly or indirectly.

Believing in reincarnation or in a god is not the same as believing in micro-organisms without being able to observe them. Long before the microscope was invented, scientists could objectively observe the effects of microorganisms. The effects of reincarnation, gods or spirits cannot be objectively observed.

Nobody has yet demonstrated the existence of Higgs particle, the last particle that would make the Standard Model complete. Yet, most scientists (and other people who are familiar with physics) believe it exists. Why is this? It is not because certain groups of physicists have inner personal experience of Higgs particle. It is because mathematical models of the atom nucleus and its hitherto known other 24 particles etc, predict that it should exist and the model used to predict its existence has previously correctly predicted the existence of discovered particles.
(see here for a brief explanation):
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1999/press.html
Do you see what I mean with making a distinction between personal, subjective and objective fundation for beliefs? Do you understand why believing in the Higgs particle is not equivalent to believing in reincarnation?

The Higgs particle is a mathematical construct, an objectively determined fantasy which may or may not turn out to be correct. Reincarnation is a subjective fantasy, the evidence is at a subjective level, some people have experieces they think can be explained by reincarnation.

So you may find it "dull and close minded" that some people choose not to believe in other people's fantasies, but I find no value in believing in other people's fantasies, I only believe in fantasies that are derived from objective data.
Maybe there is a god. Maybe there is a Santa Claus, Maybe there are unicorns. If an individual chooses to believe in any of this it is his or her personal choice (which I only have the right to critisise if it has destructive consequences for others). However, I see no reason to believe in any of them, and the objective evidence for for the existance of any of them is equally convincing.

Not for everyone. I can choose to open my mind to suggestions outside that of what most of those around me choose to accept and contemplate. It's all a matter of choice really.

So you can "open your mind" and choose to liberate yourself from the human perspective? Do you mean that you become godly, another species or what when you do this?

Infinite Nature asked whether it is possible to think of something not conceived from the human worldview, and I am convinced that is impossible since in everything we think, percept and experience, our human sensory mechanisms are built in. You cannot get rid of the human visual systems that makes your eyes and brain perceive radiation of this certain wavelenght as the colour red. You cannot get rid of the organs in your ear that make you perceive another wavelenght as a sound. We are stuck in perceptory organs that we must interpret ourselves and our environment with. It does not matter if you believe in a god or in a mystical dimension, you can still only perceive your own beliefs and your own experiences with your human cognition and emotional systems.

[Magrus]

So you can "open your mind" and choose to liberate yourself from the human perspective? Do you mean that you become godly, another species or what when you do this?

My meaning is simply this. I have not closed myself off to becoming unaccepting for views, beliefs and ideas that I do not believe in myself. Why? For the simple fact that I might myself be wrong in what I believe, and the fact that I do not know everything. Regardless of what anyone thinks, neither do they. I've allowed myself to at least leave open the option, in my own mind, that if someone presents me with a theory, or thought, on a subject I haven't heard before or a viewpoint I haven't heard before on a subject I already have experiences with, I will at least listen and say to myself "well, that could be possible too". Not "thats ridiculous and cannot be true because science hasn't found proof". IMO, far too many people simply blind themselves to what they don't want to see or believe, for a variety of reasons.

Believing in reincarnation or in a god is not the same as believing in micro-organisms without being able to observe them. Long before the microscope was invented, scientists could objectively observe the effects of microorganisms. The effects of reincarnation, gods or spirits cannot be objectively observed.

It is the same, long before this, a good many people thought spirits caused illnesses, and the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Those odd, insane people out there stood up against those thoughts and no matter what anyone else thought of them stood by their own views and said "what if your wrong?" and proceeded to find ways to prove them wrong. Throughout mankinds history, people have come up with their own beliefs of why things were, and then later proved them right or wrong when they found new ways to find evidence on the subject. At some point in history, people were completely oblivious to what they couldn't see with their own eyes, including those microscopic organisms. Those organisms were no less fantastical to think of than ghosts making people sick and die. Why? They weren't something they had ever had any experience with and were just imaginations run wild.

Science is a method of analyzing reality around you and gathering evidence and facts and proving a point at a crude and basic level is it not? Well, how many new methods have been added to science over the last 100 years of finding, processing, and understanding reality around us? Who's to say how much that will change in the future, to a point that people are able to grasp and understand things that were only fantasy to everyone else a century before just like sailing around the world was hundreds of years ago?

I say, I'll keep whatever ideas thrown at me that cannot be proven either way yet open as a possibility, rather than disregarding it because no ones found a way to prove or disprove it. Just because a way hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean a way won't be found later.

[C Elegans]

My meaning is simply this. I have not closed myself off to becoming unaccepting for views, beliefs and ideas that I do not believe in myself.

Can you explain how is this equal to Infinite Nature's "thinking of something not concieved by any human worldview"?

It is the same, long before this, a good many people thought spirits caused illnesses, and the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Those odd, insane people out there stood up against those thoughts and no matter what anyone else thought of them stood by their own views and said "what if your wrong?" and proceeded to find ways to prove them wrong.

Firstly, your examples are all examples of how science demonstrated belief based on ideology and subjective experience to be incorrect. Thus, they prove my points exactly: subjective experience and ideology such as religion are less reliable methods to gain knowledge than the scientific method.

Second, it was not "insane people" who "stood up against" the beliefs of their time. The ancient Greek, Egyptians and other cultures thought the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun, because they had made measurements and calculations, ie objective observations and analysis. This knowledge got lost in Europe (but not in the Arab world and Persia) because the christian church held the idea that the earth was the center of the universe. In the 16th century Copernicus revived heliocentrism in Europe, probably after having read the works of Persian and Arabic astronomers. mathematicians. Thus, Copernicus based his thinking on knowledge gained with the scientific method (empiric observation) whereas the christian church based their ideas upon a religious dogma (what the bible said).

Well, how many new methods have been added to science over the last 100 years of finding, processing, and understanding reality around us? Who's to say how much that will change in the future, to a point that people are able to grasp and understand things that were only fantasy to everyone else a century before just like sailing around the world was hundreds of years ago?

Exactly, so why start believing in a lot of fantasies unselectively? Why believe in any ideas and images people throw at you? Time will tell what is correct and incorrect, so what's the point in believing in a lot of stuff that we can't even imagine? Speculating and fantasising, yes, but believing - why, unless you seriously work with developing methods to investigate and measure novel issues?
What we believe affect our views on the world, ourselves, and other people. It also affects our actions. Beliefs have consequences, that's why I certainly do not want to believe in anything that is not funded in an objectively.

Just because a way hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean a way won't be found later.

Just because something has not been scientificially demonstrated to exist, does not mean it exists either

[Macleod1701]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Just because something has not been scientificially demonstrated to exist, does not mean it exists either [/QUOTE]

Exactly! Very good point CE!

Now @Margus I wont assume your any specific type of religious beleiver, but lets for example you beleived in Hinduism. They beleive in reincarnation and from what I've heard and read are a fairly laid back bunch of dudes (Was watching Bill Bailey lol) Now what if science, at some point, managed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it did not, could not and would never exist? Would you listen to the arguements, read the papers published, digest all the facts and finally come to the conclusion that after studying it yourself with your open mind that the scientists were right? Or would you staunchly refuse to listen to anything you were told and carry on beleiving exactly what you wanted to? Replace Hinduism and reincarnation with any other religion and belief. What would you do? For that matter what would the rest of the religious population of the world do?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to say that despite the fact that humans can only analyse the world with the senses and intelligence that they evolved with. If given irrefutable proof religious believers would probably disregard it out of hand. Would the Pope accept that he was wrong if science proved there was no God and that his whole life had been mispent believing in something that didn't exist? (I know the pope and church's help billions in other ways before any picks on my choice of wording).

[Chanak]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I don't believe in reincarnation for the same reason as I don't believe in any transcendent phenomena - there is no objective evidence to support the existance of such phenomena. The day we can observe reincarnation, gods, spirits or telepathy objectively, ie with controlled, empiric, scientific methods, I will start to believe in it. [/QUOTE]

I personally can never fault anyone who chooses to stick to the scientific method. Considering how our brains are (in)famous for interpolating information to compensate for gaps in sensory input, it's a sound safety net. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail containing a series of images - optical illusions - that demonstrated this phenomenon very well. Our eyes' inability to process those images completely causes the brain to "fill in the gaps" so to speak, resulting in a person perceiving wavy lines where actually they are straight and the image perfectly symmetrical. When our eyes record an image, in many cases they are only able to capture portions, leaving a picture with holes in it for all practical purposes. As a result, the brain "wings it" and fills in those holes with data drawn from past experiences, or even best guesses.

My belief is this happens on all levels of our awareness. When confronted by the concept of death, our "hard wiring" instinctively recoils as it is supposed to. All we can actually perceive with our senses is that a person's body doesn't live anymore. Our deepest instinct is to avoid death, and this shapes how we mentally cope with the knowledge that one day, we will die as well. For some, the brain finds comfort in interpolating an afterlife of some sort.

I have my "hunches". My subjective experiences lead me to believe that some sort of activity continues for a human being after the body is pushing daisies. I have no way of knowing for sure.

[Macleod1701]

I'm enjoying this discussion. It is known that the brain retains it's electrical activity for a period of time after death, so maybe that is a form of afterlife?!
Although yet again going back to science, as no one has ever returned from death after a long period of time we'll probably never know. If the brain is still working after the body has died, is it still thinking and concious? When the electrical charge finally dissapates, where does it transfer too, if anywhere?