Is There Valid Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation?

[Payton]

Does any such research exist?

 

[Drakkith]

I doubt it. What kind of evidence would be acceptable? Knowledge of previous lives? Acting a certain way? I really can't think of anything that wouldn't have another explanation that is much more likely.

 

[Metaleer]

imho, anything called "science of reincarnation" is nothing but pseudoscience.

 

[Jack21222]

Does any such research exist?

About as much as the science of magical, flying unicorns.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There probably have been simple experiments (such as questioning people who say they remember past lives) but nothing thorough or conclusive. Remember that science works by observing a phenomenon, reading/learning all current knowledge on the subject, making a hypothesis, experimenting to test the hypothesis

As we have never observed reincarnation, life after death or any mechanism by which consciousness survives after brain death there really isn't anything to study.

 

[chickenz]

Suppose hypothetically that reincarnation was real. Now, how you would even begin an experiment to research its details?

If you can come up with one, good for you. Even ignoring expense and ethical issues, I certainly can't.

 

[JaredJames]

Suppose hypothetically that reincarnation was real. Now, how you would even begin an experiment to research its details?

If you can come up with one, good for you. Even ignoring expense and ethical issues, I certainly can't.

Easy. No ethical issues required - unless of course you are talking about killing people to 'reproduce' it, which is just non-sense. There are plenty of people born / dying each day to work with.

You'd need accurate records of people's lives and then you'd simply check what people report about their 'past lives' against those details.

If it matches with relative accuracy, particularly details that the person couldn't have picked up themselves, then it's job done.

Of course there are assumptions, a) it's only with humans, b) you could find the person amongst the 6 billion on the planet who was reincarnated and finally c) it happens instantly or within a useful time period of death (not tens or hundreds of years apart).

Frankly, this is all extraordinarily speculative and I see no useful discussion coming from going down this route.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Easy. No ethical issues required...You'd need accurate records of people's lives and then you'd simply check what people report about their 'past lives' against those details.

With respect I disagree, we can't assume something is true and go looking for the evidence. By this I mean that if we had evidence that a percentage of people had knowledge of previous peoples lives that itself would be the observation requiring investigation. It wouldn't itself be evidence for reincarnation because we have not demonstrated that the knowledge is passed through reincarnation. The only way to investigate such things is to develop all our sciences and wait to see if there is any mechanism in existence for life after death

 

[JaredJames]

With respect I disagree, we can't assume something is true and go looking for the evidence.

I was directly addressing the post saying if it is real, how would we test it. So I was working on the basis that we somehow knew it existed and weren't assuming it.

By this I mean that if we had evidence that a percentage of people had knowledge of previous peoples lives that itself would be the observation requiring investigation.

True.

It wouldn't itself be evidence for reincarnation because we have not demonstrated that the knowledge is passed through reincarnation.

No, it wouldn't mean reincarnation is real. But, it would be a potential mechanism for it. If reincarnation is the only thing that explains it, then let's just stick with Occam's Razor for now, until something better comes along.

The only way to investigate such things is to develop all our sciences and wait to see if there is any mechanism in existence for life after death

Non-sense. If we had to wait until technology developed to investigate we wouldn't get anywhere. It's by investigating we develop. Computers didn't just jump into quad core existence.

Of course, until our technology is capable of doing so, we may not be able to answer it fully. But that doesn't stop us investigating and producing theories.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Non-sense. If we had to wait until technology developed to investigate we wouldn't get anywhere. It's by investigating we develop. Computers didn't just jump into quad core existence.
Of course, until our technology is capable of doing so, we may not be able to answer it fully. But that doesn't stop us investigating and producing theories.

Very true, hmm I'm not sure how best to put it. If we have no current explanation of how something could even be possible (i.e. life after death) we've got to first rewrite the principles we've already discovered before addressing that subject.

 

[GUS]

There was some program about a boy who knew his past life and the director of the program took him to his past life village thousands of km away and it was exactly as he described or something.
I think it is possible science will prove we have something akin spirit one day - but it would be in the realms of quantum mechanics, organisation of light and electro magnetic waves into coherent patterns or something. After all - all our consciousnesses are is a collection of electrons rattling around - so its not that great a leap to make that such complex organisations of electrons could exist without being tied to matter. Nothing any sensible scientist would touch at the moment of course but then they insisted the world was flat at one point. Anyway even if they did scientifically prove the existence of non material intelligence religion would still be bollocks.

 

[JaredJames]

There was some program about a boy who knew his past life and the director of the program took him to his past life village thousands of km away and it was exactly as he described or something.

Of course, this is on the assumption that child couldn't possibly have visited and/or researched the place. Along with a whole host of other possibilities for how the knowledge of the place could come to exist.

After all - all our consciousnesses are is a collection of electrons rattling around - so its not that great a leap to make that such complex organisations of electrons could exist without being tied to matter.

It is a great leap, as it is observed no where.

Nothing any sensible scientist would touch at the moment of course but then they insisted the world was flat at one point.

Did scientists insist that? Or was it a general belief?

Anyway even if they did scientifically prove the existence of non material intelligence religion would still be bollocks.

Let's not go there, forum rules and all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it is possible science will prove we have something akin spirit one day

How could you possibly know that?

but it would be in the realms of quantum mechanics, organisation of light and electro magnetic waves into coherent patterns or something

Same reply as before with the addition that I'm getting sick of hearing quantum physics used as an excuse for magic

After all - all our consciousnesses are is a collection of electrons rattling around - so its not that great a leap to make that such complex organisations of electrons could exist without being tied to matter.

Our consciousness is an emergent property of brain electrochemistry. The idea that we are just electrons rattling around is massively oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness. There are no examples of patterns of electrons floating through space with no relation to matter, even if there was we could detect it.

they insisted the world was flat at one point

I advise you read The Relativity of Wrong, an essay by Isaac Asimov. If to the best of our knowledge and measurements the world was flat then it is sensible to say it is flat. Though its an urban myth that people thought the world was flat

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

 

[GUS]

How could you possibly know that?

Absolutely can't old boy - wild conjecture at best.

 

[GUS]

Of course, this is on the assumption that child couldn't possibly have visited and/or researched the place. Along with a whole host of other possibilities for how the knowledge of the place could come to exist.It is a great leap, as it is observed no where.

Did scientists insist that? Or was it a general belief?

I don't know - it depends whether you consider some of the ancient greeks scientists, certainly they also proposed that the Earth went round the sun and that it was also a globe - but there was debate about this and experiments to prove it so in a way I consider them the first scientists. What I mean is things that were once viewed as impossible by science are now viewed as fact or at least possible. The great oppression of science by religion means that to even consider the existence of consciousness without matter is bound to be rejected out of hand . Complex patters of electromagnetic wavs may be somewhere out there even if we haven't observed them.
Then there's Carver Meads theory that subatomic particles are not particles at all but in fact wavs - some consider that matter itself is not solid at all but electromagnetic fields at the most fundamental level.
I think there's lots of things in the universe that we still know very little about - dark matter for instance - and quantum physics does seem to show the universe behaves in irrational ways (at least from the physicists I have spoken to such as my stepmother - I am trying to improve my maths at the moment to deepen my own understanding which I am the first to admit is limited). There are a lot of things in the universe we have not observed - and when you get right down to it what is matter - what are neutrons, protons, gluons , quarks etc actually made of - are all particles waves as well ? Does matter even exist ?
That would make all physical things kind of an illusion anyway and the idea of consciousness without matter moot . This is a welcome discussion but... I have a lot of work to do .

 

[Jack21222]

I don't know - it depends whether you consider some of the ancient greeks scientists, certainly they also proposed that the Earth went round the sun and that it was also a globe - but there was debate about this and experiments to prove it so in a way I consider them the first scientists.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved that the Earth was round, and even gave a pretty accurate measurement, within a few percentage points of the true number. And yes, he was one of the first scientists. So, contrary to what you stated, scientists have never insisted that the Earth was flat.

What I mean is things that were once viewed as impossible by science are now viewed as fact or at least possible.

Name some.

The great oppression of science by religion means that to even consider the existence of consciousness without matter is bound to be rejected out of hand .

I can't make sense out of this statement at all.

Complex patters of electromagnetic wavs may be somewhere out there even if we haven't observed them.

Almost certainly, but what do you mean by that?

[quoteThen there's Carver Meads theory that subatomic particles are not particles at all but in fact wavs - some consider that matter itself is not solid at all but electromagnetic fields at the most fundamental level.[/quote]

Subatomic particles ARE waves... and particles at the same time. This is de Broglie's theory, and if he were alive, I'm sure he wouldn't be happy with this Carver Mead character.

I think there's lots of things in the universe that we still know very little about - dark matter for instance

To steal a quote from Dara O'Briain, "Science knows it doesn't know everything, or else it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to ya."

- and quantum physics does seem to show the universe behaves in irrational ways (at least from the physicists I have spoken to such as my stepmother - I am trying to improve my maths at the moment to deepen my own understanding which I am the first to admit is limited).

Quantum Mechanics behaves in a very rational way. There is a set of rules which everything follows. You can't get any more rational than that.

There are a lot of things in the universe we have not observed - and when you get right down to it what is matter - what are neutrons, protons, gluons , quarks etc actually made of - are all particles waves as well ? Does matter even exist ?

Take a class in Quantum Field Theory and get back to us.

That would make all physical things kind of an illusion anyway and the idea of consciousness without matter moot . This is a welcome discussion but... I have a lot of work to do .

That's philosophy, not physics.

 

[GUS]

Eratosthenes of Cyrene proved that the Earth was round, and even gave a pretty accurate measurement, within a few percentage points of the true number. And yes, he was one of the first scientists. So, contrary to what you stated, scientists have never insisted that the Earth was flat.

Incorrect.

Many pre-Socratic philosophers considered the world to be flat, at least according to Aristotle.[17] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) .

http://www.mse.berkeley.edu/faculty/deFontaine/flatworlds.html

The Greek belief that the Earth was a sphere was the result of an preceding dialectic.

Name some.

going back to the ancient Greeks the idea that the Earth went round the sun was an anathema to them including many Greeks who you have just said you considered scientists. Although it wasnt until much later the geocentric model was discredited, Hypatia was perhaps the first to suggest otherwise.

A more modern example is : Time travel - regarded as impossible by many scientists but regarded as possible by some such as Ronald Mallett. The fact that these ideas have been taken seriously enough to warrant any sort of debate at all amongst the scientific community (including the likes of Stephen Hawkin) is in stark contrast to the one way ticket to the looney bin it would have won him 130 years ago.

Im pretty sure the idea of quantum teleportation of information would have seen like magic to some earlier scientists as well - come to think of it if youd proposed the existence of mobile phones to Eratosthenes of Cyrene he probably would have considered that a wild fairy tale.

I can't make sense out of this statement at all.

Its pretty self explanatory really.

Almost certainly, but what do you mean by that?

I mean that consciousness is to the best of our understanding (which is poor) a complex interplay of electrons in the brain. Therefore it is possible that other complex structures of energy in the universe might represent a form of intelligence, though they the way such complexity arises and is generated may be different .

Subatomic particles ARE waves... and particles at the same time. This is de Broglie's theory, and if he were alive, I'm sure he wouldn't be happy with this Carver Mead character.

Yes I am aware of that. However some scientists have suggested that particles do not exist at all - are in fact purely electro - magnetic fields that appear to be particles .

To steal a quote from Dara O'Briain, "Science knows it doesn't know everything, or else it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to ya."

Ill see your Dar O'Briain and raise you a John Dewey

: Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination. ~John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, 1929

Quantum Mechanics behaves in a very rational way. There is a set of rules which everything follows. You can't get any more rational than that.

Yes but the rules are not rational, , at least according to my friends (two of whom are proffesional physicists ) , like a particle being in two places at once until you observe it. They all assure me that quantum physics is very curious indeed Schrödinger's cat and the observation affect being the most obvious. At the very least its a contraversial area. Still its great you understand it so well.

Take a class in Quantum Field Theory and get back to us.

Really - so you know what quarks are made out of ? Pray tell and pass the info on to this guy - you may save him years of research :

http://blogs.uslhc.us/but-what-are-quarks-made-of

I am getting their slowly but surely in my spare time - when I have done so I look forward to discussing the matter more in depth with the people I know who are physicists - I am quite aware of how superficial my understanding is . I am still wading through calculus at the moment.

That's philosophy, not physics.

It is neither - it is conjecture.

 

[Jack21222]

Incorrect.



http://www.mse.berkeley.edu/faculty/deFontaine/flatworlds.html

The Greek belief that the Earth was a sphere was the result of an preceding dialectic.



going back to the ancient Greeks the idea that the Earth went round the sun was an anathema to them including many Greeks who you have just said you considered scientists. Although it wasnt until much later the geocentric model was discredited, Hypatia was perhaps the first to suggest otherwise.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

A more modern example is : Time travel - regarded as impossible by many scientists but regarded as possible by some such as Ronald Mallett. The fact that these ideas have been taken seriously enough to warrant any sort of debate at all amongst the scientific community (including the likes of Stephen Hawkin) is in stark contrast to the one way ticket to the looney bin it would have won him 130 years ago.

Time travel isn't shown to exist (except for forward), so you cannot use this as an example of something where science said couldn't exist but does. I'm also not 100% convinced that time travel was ever considered "impossible" by science.

Im pretty sure the idea of quantum teleportation of information would have seen like magic to some earlier scientists as well - come to think of it if youd proposed the existence of mobile phones to Eratosthenes of Cyrene he probably would have considered that a wild fairy tale.

Again, these are things that science has never said "this cannot happen."

Its pretty self explanatory really.

No, the first part of your sentence has apparently no connection to the last part of the sentence, except the physical proximity of the words.

I mean that consciousness is to the best of our understanding (which is poor) a complex interplay of electrons in the brain. Therefore it is possible that other complex structures of energy in the universe might represent a form of intelligence, though they the way such complexity arises and is generated may be different.

There you go again, making up fairy tales to fill the gaps in your knowledge.

Yes I am aware of that. However some scientists have suggested that particles do not exist at all - are in fact purely electro - magnetic fields that appear to be particles .

Fields perhaps, yes. Probably not electromagnetic fields. You can't hope to explain gluons in terms of electromagnetism. In any case, I can't see how this can possibly be related to anything in this thread. It sounds to me like you wanted to throw out some pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, and you felt that "electro-magnetic fields that appear to be particles" sounded like a good phrase.

Ill see your Dar O'Briain and raise you a John Dewey

: Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination. ~John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, 1929

There's a HUGE difference between imagination within the confines of science, and the wild mass guessing that people like you do.

Yes but the rules are not rational, , at least according to my friends (two of whom are proffesional physicists ) , like a particle being in two places at once until you observe it. They all assure me that quantum physics is very curious indeed Schrödinger's cat and the observation affect being the most obvious. At the very least its a contraversial area. Still its great you understand it so well.

Those rules are perfectly rational, they're just not intuitive. Quantum Mechanics is NOT a controversial area. At all. It hasn't been controversial for decades. It's one of the most well-tested theories in the history of science. Where's the controversy?

Really - so you know what quarks are made out of ? Pray tell and pass the info on to this guy - you may save him years of research :

http://blogs.uslhc.us/but-what-are-quarks-made-of

Do you want to address what I actually said, or do you want to just keep putting words in my mouth? If you just want to put words in my mouth, I don't need to be here, you can just argue with whatever fictionalized version of me your imagination can come up with.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's a HUGE difference between imagination within the confines of science, and the wild mass guessing that people like you do.

Bravo! This line made my day

 

[GUS]

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

You haven't actually to read your own reference. As I said before the idea of the Earth going around the sun was an "anethema" to the ancient Greeks - anathema means : a person, idea or thing detested or loathed - so that means the idea has to have existed for it to be rejected. Aristarchus of Samos was considered radical by the Greeks "fringe science" even and was rejected even ridiculed in favour of Ptolemys geocentric view. From your own reference :

His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy

and :

Aristarchus from Samos (250 BC) - Theorized the "radical" view that the Earth and all the Planets revolve around the Sun: The Heliocentric model. The model was not accepted because it contradicted the "Great" Aristotle and predicted parallax;

http://www.davincisworld.com/Astronomy/HistoryOfAstronomy.htm

Got to admit the guy was a genius - without scientific equipment at the time it must have seemed like everything revolved round the Earth (path of the stars, sun, moon etc) - to think otherwise took an incredible amount of lateral thinking.

Time travel isn't shown to exist (except for forward), so you cannot use this as an example of something where science said couldn't exist but does. I'm also not 100% convinced that time travel was ever considered "impossible" by science. Again, these are things that science has never said "this cannot happen."

"Science" does not consider anything - scientists do - and their opinions are diverse. You could of course be talking about mainstream opinion which is different - and of course mainstream science is not always correct. There are scientists who consider time travel impossible even now as there are scientists who consider the possibility of disembodied intelligence or even God possible now (for the record I am not religous).

No, the first part of your sentence has apparently no connection to the last part of the sentence, except the physical proximity of the words.

I just showed it to my girlfriend - she understood it easily within the context of the thread.

There you go again, making up fairy tales to fill the gaps in your knowledge.

A gap in everybodies knowledge. We don't know how consiousness works (my fathers words - and as one of the foremost psychologists in the world he should know what he's talking about) . Again if you read my second post I openly admit that what I said was "wild conjecture at best" .

Fields perhaps, yes. Probably not electromagnetic fields. You can't hope to explain gluons in terms of electromagnetism. In any case, I can't see how this can possibly be related to anything in this thread. It sounds to me like you wanted to throw out some pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, and you felt that "electro-magnetic fields that appear to be particles" sounded like a good phrase.

Actually its because I have taken a keen interest in physics form an early age. You also seem unaware of the meaning of the word pseudoscience - I have never claimed that what I said was science or anything other than conjecture - some of it is however informed to a degree by what I have read of different physics theories. There are phycisists who propose a wave only view or matter :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality#Wave-only_view

There's a HUGE difference between imagination within the confines of science, and the wild mass guessing that people like you do.

Many physicists and people have let their imaginations run wild far beyond the the bounds of science - Isaac Newton for example was a keen alchemist - there is even evidence that some of his most famous theories came from his work on alchemy. I know several proffesional physisists who entertain ideas that make those expressed on this thread seem conservative.
Of course they don't present their ideas as anything other than wild speculation and neither do I. Their ideas have also influenced me .

Those rules are perfectly rational, they're just not intuitive. Quantum Mechanics is NOT a controversial area. At all. It hasn't been controversial for decades. It's one of the most well-tested theories in the history of science. Where's the controversy?

That quantum physics works, is well understood, and is one of the most successful theories in the history of science is not contraversial - however the philisophical implications of quantum physics are still to this day extremely contraversial - there are in fact several threads on the physics forum where people debate its implications. If you take the Copenhagen interpretation for example - the idea that a particle can exist in many states at the same time is something most people would consider "irrational" in an everyday sense of the word.

Do you want to address what I actually said, or do you want to just keep putting words in my mouth? If you just want to put words in my mouth, I don't need to be here, you can just argue with whatever fictionalized version of me your imagination can come up with.

It would be nice if you could do the same. I asked what quarks were actually made of - your reply was to instruct me to "take a class in Quantum Field Theory" implying that the answers could be found within such a course - they are not - nobody knows.
As a final note I would like to say I DO respect the enormous amount of work and study that it takes to gain a real understanding of physics and realize this is something you are probably studying yourself and I am only to aware of my own lack of understanding s, I am currently studying physics myself - in a way your vitriol has served a good purpose in that it causes me to redouble my efforts to get through calculus. What I do not respect however is your inability to disagree with somebody without insulting them - I also dislike the way you seek to speak authoritavely on subjects that greater scientists than you openly admit they have limited understandings of .
Well I am currently writing to you from a proxy server because as you will no doubt be delighted to hear, my IP adress seems to have been banned from this site - I didnt think anyone would take it that far - but I will not be replying to any further posts of yours.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

GUS I appreciate you wanted to respond to Jack but do you think you could answer my points in post 13? Thanks

 

[GUS]

Surte Ryan - but my IP adress has been banned an its a bit of a fiddle to find a working proxy server so I cannot promise an ongoing debate.

How could you possibly know that?

I cannot - its just an idea .

Our consciousness is an emergent property of brain electrochemistry. The idea that we are just electrons rattling around is massively oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness. There are no examples of patterns of electrons floating through space with no relation to matter, even if there was we could detect it.

I am not a fan of reductionist theories at all myself. However many psychologists view consciouness as a pattern of thoughts thut ultimately have an electrochemical basis. Thoughts themselves I would argue are complex patterns of electrical activity spawned by neurons etc . Such complex electrical activity may exist elsewhere in the universe even if we haven't observed it (or even looked for it)a and even if it isn't produced by matter (ie neurons) - this of course is entirely speculative . An example would be that scientists looking for alien life often look for Earth like planets - If we look beyond the biological definition of life (respiration etc after all if machines one day became self aware they would never fit the biological definition of life) and define it instead as consciouness - why would life/consciouness develop the same way it has on Earth - it might be completely different - so it would make more sense to look for complexity rather than a copy of ourselves.
Consciouness itself is very very poorly understood - and many argue there is a big difference between "consciousness" and "neural activity" :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527427.100-you-wont-find-consciousness-in-the-brain.html

Full article :

http://preventdisease.com/news/10/010710_consciousness_not_in_brain.shtml

I advise you read The Relativity of Wrong, an essay by Isaac Asimov. If to the best of our knowledge and measurements the world was flat then it is sensible to say it is flat. Though its an urban myth that people thought the world was flat

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

There were ancient Greeks who believed the world was flat - I was refferring to them - please read my reply to Jack.
Welll I have to go ... really.

 

[JaredJames]

Surte Ryan - but my IP adress has been banned an its a bit of a fiddle to find a working proxy server so I cannot promise an ongoing debate.

Your IP address has been banned but your account hasn't?

You should contact the admins.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok my main contention is the point about electrical activity and thought. Whilst I agree that sentient life could possibly arise in non-Earth like conditions (cores of gas giants? surface of Neutron stars?) I'm not sure that the electrical activity can be solely attributed as thoughts. If you took the neurons away (and somehow the signal continued, perhaps because you are replicating the conductivity with synthetic components) I'm not convinced that we have enough evidence to say that the mind would still be there

And also how this relates to reincarnation?

 

[GUS]

Your IP address has been banned but your account hasn't?

You should contact the admins.

To be honest if it prevents me getting into stupid arguments online and neglecting my work - its probably a good thing...

 

[GUS]

Ok my main contention is the point about electrical activity and thought. Whilst I agree that sentient life could possibly arise in non-Earth like conditions (cores of gas giants? surface of Neutron stars?) I'm not sure that the electrical activity can be solely attributed as thoughts. If you took the neurons away (and somehow the signal continued, perhaps because you are replicating the conductivity with synthetic components) I'm not convinced that we have enough evidence to say that the mind would still be there

And also how this relates to reincarnation?

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever - its is totally wild speculation at best. Reincarnation proposes the idea of one consciousness entering another body which would imply the some sort "signal" continuing without the neurons or any material interface whatsoever. As I openly admit total speculation. Must go now really - cancel my account please admin !

 

[dm4b]

You'd need accurate records of people's lives and then you'd simply check what people report about their 'past lives' against those details.

I believe that's what these guys are attempting to do:

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/

 

[Evo]

I believe that's what these guys are attempting to do:

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/

Deepak Chopra and the crackpot Institute of Noetic Sciences? That DOPS group is not mainstream science.

 

[dm4b]

Deepak Chopra and the crackpot Institute of Noetic Sciences? That DOPS group is not mainstream science.

Um, the research is being performed by the University of Virginia. The folks you mention are sponsoring lectures by Jim Tucker. Were you digging for something?

Also, are you implying anybody that does anything outside "mainstream" science is a crackpot? If so, that sounds about as dogmatic as a christian fundamentalist.

The OP is asking if any science is being done on reincarnation. Did you really expect it to be in the "mainstream"?

I think the link I provided is as close as you're going to get. If you know something better, post it up.

 

[JaredJames]

Also, are you implying anybody that does anything outside "mainstream" science is a crackpot? If so, that sounds about as dogmatic as a christian fundamentalist.

The OP is asking if any science is being done on reincarnation. Did you really expect it to be in the "mainstream"?

I think the link I provided is as close as you're going to get. If you know something better, post it up.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where PF discussed anything outside of the mainstream. Perhaps you could highlight exactly where that's allowed in the rules?

 

[dm4b]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where PF discussed anything outside of the mainstream. Perhaps you could highlight exactly where that's allowed in the rules?

Sort of ironic since we're on the 2nd page of a thread entitled "science of reincarnation"

yeah, I would actually have to read the rules for that ;-)

 

[Evo]

Um, the research is being performed by the University of Virginia. The folks you mention are sponsoring lectures by Jim Tucker. Were you digging for something?

It's just a group of people doing paranormal research due to an edowment to the University to pay for it. It doesn't mean it's endorsed by the university.

Also, are you implying anybody that does anything outside "mainstream" science is a crackpot? If so, that sounds about as dogmatic as a christian fundamentalist.

No, I'm not implying they're crackpots, just that they have listed crackpot sources. Makes me wonder what they consider sound science.

BTW, thanks for the link.

 

[dm4b]

It's just a group of people doing paranormal research due to an edowment to the University to pay for it. It doesn't mean it's endorsed by the university.

No, I'm not implying they're crackpots, just that they have listed crackpot sources. Makes me wonder what they consider sound science.

BTW, thanks for the link.

Evo,

There's no doubt that the Institute of Noetic Sciences investigates things that are way outside the mainstream of science. But, I think if you have an honest look into them, you'd find that in many cases they apply the scientific method, as best as it can be applied to subject matters like these. Edgar Mitchell - it's founder - has tried to make sure that happens as best as possible.

Anyhow, just because they have a different worldview and decide to use their PhD's to look into something different, doesn't necessarily make them "crackpots". I think to say that too freely, would exhibit an intolerance of other's views, as religion has been known to do. But, it's fine to see things differently ... I sure don't agree with everything they do either.

As far as Deepak Chopra , I don't know anything about him, so I'll reserve judgement and comment on that matter, until I learn more about him.

And, in the real world, when you give somebody money/funds, you suppport/endorse them, whether you publicly say so, or not. People don't give away money lightly.

 

[JaredJames]

Sort of ironic since we're on the 2nd page of a thread entitled "science of reincarnation"

Well the question in the OP was valid. It wasn't a discussion regarding said topic. But we're no longer completely focussed on it.

There's no doubt that the Institute of Noetic Sciences investigates things that are way outside the mainstream of science.

It's fine to investigate outside of the mainstream, but until you have some papers out there from your research - some valid results - it's still not mainstream and there's no reason to treat it as such. Until that point, you can't have a serious discussion because there is nothing outside of anecdote to base it on. Seeing as this site, particularly S&D, demands particularly strong references to published work it's hard to take a discussion on the topic further.

But, I think if you have an honest look into them, you'd find that in many cases they apply the scientific method, as best as it can be applied to subject matters like these. Edgar Mitchell - it's founder - has tried to make sure that happens as best as possible.

Scientific method can be applied to everything.

And, in the real world, when you give somebody money/funds, you suppport/endorse them, whether you publicly say so, or not. People don't give away money lightly.

I agree with you, but there is an addendum I'd make. a) smooth talkers are pretty good at getting money from people and b) by giving your money you are showing support for what you believe they are doing not what they necessarily are (whether through misunderstanding or misrepresentation - perhaps down to a).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I believe that's what these guys are attempting to do:

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/

These people really seem like they are coming at the issue by assuming reincarnation exists and so are looking for evidence to support it. Even if there were thousands of cases that people could point to demonstrating that people had memories of dead lives that they had no connection to it would not be enough to convince me that souls exist any more than it would convince me that invisible mind reading unicorns were routinely reading peoples minds and then plopping those memories into other people after the first persons death.

To have evidence for reincarnation yo would have to have evidence that the mind exists after the body has died that that this mind can fuse with the brain of a newborn

 

[Evo]

There's no doubt that the Institute of Noetic Sciences investigates things that are way outside the mainstream of science.

The Institute of Noetic Sciences, a New Age research organization that "explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models", has supported What the Bleep Do We Know!? and published a study guide.

What the Bleep is banned on this forum because it's crackpottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Promotion

http://www.noetic.org/library/publication-articles/why-bleep/

As far as Deepak Chopra , I don't know anything about him, so I'll reserve judgement and comment on that matter, until I learn more about him.

Chopra http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

 

[Peter Fentyle]

Hi

I'm a total newbie. I just wanted to know something. Arent our senses limited and imperfect? So when we demand proof of things like reincarnation and other things, isn't it possible this kind of thing is outside the box of science? I mean we can only see and hear and understand reality to some extent using empiric methods. Does science mean only empiric data = reality? Kindly clear this doubt.

I also heard of Ian stevenson and his 40 years of research into reincarnation. Didnt see anyone speak about him or read his books?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hi

I'm a total newbie. I just wanted to know something. Arent our senses limited and imperfect? So when we demand proof of things like reincarnation and other things, isn't it possible this kind of thing is outside the box of science? I mean we can only see and hear and understand reality to some extent using empiric methods. Does science mean only empiric data = reality? Kindly clear this doubt.

I also heard of Ian stevenson and his 40 years of research into reincarnation. Didnt see anyone speak about him or read his books?

That is a fair question with a good answer. We don't use the term proof in science, instead we talk about evidence. When a scientist says something is true they are not saying that "this is 100% definitely absolutely true", rather they are saying "to the best of our knowledge this is true".

Science works by observing phenomenon and then designing experiments to text those phenomenon with the aim of gaining an understanding of how they work. The accumulated evidence points to whether or not something is true.

With regards to if empirical data = reality, no it doesnt. But it does point to the best explanation we have for reality. If there was a subject that we did not have the knowledge or technology to test then we can say nothing about it, it is unknown. It does not mean that it doesn't exist, it means that we do not know.

With regards to reincarnation there is the positive statement "after death a persons soul (non-brain bound mind) leaves the body and fuses with a new born". That statement can then be tested, so far we have accumulated absolutely no evidence for reincarnation in either its physical mechanism, evolutionary history etc etc. From these investigations resulting in a lack of positive evidence we can conclude that to the best of our knowledge reincarnation doesn't exist.

There maybe such a thing as souls which exist and go on after our death to live in some other plane of reality requiring science we have yet to discover to be able to detect however that is pure speculation. Speculating on the unknown/unknowable is a waste of time and not good science.

Regarding Ian Stevenson, I don't know much about him but understand that he spent some decades investigating claims of reincarnation. Regardless of his personal views he himself has never said he has evidence of reincarnation. Anecdotal evidence (word of mouth stories) are not good evidence as there is often no way to verify or repeat what has been claimed.

I hope this clears that up

 

[Jack21222]

Arent our senses limited and imperfect? So when we demand proof of things like reincarnation and other things, isn't it possible this kind of thing is outside the box of science?

None of our senses can detect neutrinos, but we've detected them anyway.

Our senses don't need to be limitless and perfect to prove certain things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

None of our senses can detect neutrinos, but we've detected them anyway.

Our senses don't need to be limitless and perfect to prove certain things.

Definitely, I'm tired of people saying "but have you seen it??". Well no because that's not possible hence why we invent machines to sense for us and report in media we can understand

 

[Peter Fentyle]

Thank you very much, that certainly helps clear some doubt. I have further questions of this nature about science and reality, but its not related to reincarnation. Can I contact you directly or through another forum?

I heard that Ian stevenson has this birth defect evidence which goes beyond the stories. Anyone checked that out? Seem quite far out.

 

[FlexGunship]

I heard that Ian stevenson has this birth defect evidence which goes beyond the stories.

What?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thank you very much, that certainly helps clear some doubt. I have further questions of this nature about science and reality, but its not related to reincarnation. Can I contact you directly or through another forum?

I heard that Ian stevenson has this birth defect evidence which goes beyond the stories. Anyone checked that out? Seem quite far out.

If you'd like to discuss theory of science generally I'd advice starting a thread in the general discussion forum (top left click the icon marked "new thread" and ask your question). Ill keep an eye out and discuss things related to that there.

As for Ian Stevenson I really haven't heard much of him before. He claims that birth defects and birth marks can correlate to diseases that killed the previous incarnation of the victim. I'll look into it (in peer-reviewed scientific journals only, no random websites) but I suspect that if you interview enough people over a long enough period claiming passed lives some of them will have birth marks/defects similar. I for one have a birthmark under my hair on the back of my head that cuts straight across my neck, If I named enough people in history one of them would probably have been beheaded. It's the same trick

 

[JaredJames]

Thank you very much, that certainly helps clear some doubt. I have further questions of this nature about science and reality, but its not related to reincarnation. Can I contact you directly or through another forum?

Science and reality? Depending on the content, this sounds more appropriate in philosophy.

I heard that Ian stevenson has this birth defect evidence which goes beyond the stories. Anyone checked that out? Seem quite far out.

As per ryan above, the odds are that you can link various 'defects' such as birth marks to something related to a person who has died in the past is highly likely.

I have a birth mark on my side (an oval shape, 1 inch across) - like ryan said, you look around enough and you'll find plenty of people who died from being stabbed in the side. Once you have those people, you look for more similarities - all of which mean nothing and are perfectly likely to occur by chance without invoking any mystical force.

 

[dm4b]

In regards to the birthmarks and reincarnation ...

From the cases I briefly looked into, it's not like they noticed a birthmark and than searched all of history looking for something that relates to it.

It was more along the lines of some child (typically 5 yrs or younger) recounting a past life, which is later investigated and it is determined who he/she was based on those details. In some cases, it's only after this that the cause of death was determined and then the connection with the birthmark was made.

Even in the cases, where a tragic death was recounted, all the other past-life details need to match as well, not just the death/birthmark theme. (i.e. the birthmark is NOT the only "data point" being considered)

As with any other field, they have a few cases that are very convincing, and they have many that are very weak and circumstantial. And, they try to score them appropriately.

Of course, you can claim it's all a conspiracy, if you wish ;-) (which is, of course, another consideration that is seriously looked into by the investigators)

 

[JaredJames]

From the cases I briefly looked into, it's not like they noticed a birthmark and than searched all of history looking for something that relates to it.

Either way around, it's the same principle.

As with any other field, they have a few cases that are very convincing, and they have many that are very weak and circumstantial. And, they try to score them appropriately.

Unfortunately, distinguishing them on the net is difficult. Just too much rubbish out there.

Of course, you can claim it's all a conspiracy, if you wish ;-) (which is, of course, another consideration that is seriously looked into by the investigators)

No one said conspiracy, the children / people may truly believe what they are saying and yet it's not true. Many possibilities.

 

[dm4b]

Either way around, it's the same principle.

It's not the same principle at all. Above it was made to sound the bithmark is the only data point being used and searched against a virtually unlimited data set (all of history) and looking for a match.

When that isn't the case at all.

Unfortunately, distinguishing them on the net is difficult. Just too much rubbish out there.

Well, all you have to do is go to University of Virginia site and you'll find info there. Other info is probably available on request. Avoid the rubbish and go to the source.

No one said conspiracy, the children / people may truly believe what they are saying and yet it's not true. Many possibilities.

If you indeed look into this some more, you'll find out this is yet another factor taken into consideration.

 

[JaredJames]

It's not the same principle at all. Above it was made to sound the bithmark is the only data point being used and searched against a virtually unlimited data set (all of history) and looking for a match.

When that isn't the case at all.

I didn't intend it that way, I meant to point out we have a thing with finding one matching piece of evidence and then taking other items and matching them up.

Not saying that's what's happening, but just something to think about.

Well, all you have to do is go to University of Virginia site and you'll find info there. Other info is probably available on request. Avoid the rubbish and go to the source.

Given the reaction your link gained, I'm not exactly jumping at it.

If you indeed look into this some more, you'll find out this is yet another factor taken into consideration.

I'll have a read.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The problem (if one can call it that) with the evidence from Ian Stevenson and the Department of Perceptual Studies is that all of it is simply anecdotal evidence of cases. Reading through a review paper from them this afternoon (Tucker 2008) all that was presented was a series of anecdotes about children who began speaking of events in locations far away in times gone by and that these stories displayed similarity with real events, in addition birth marks/defects sometimes matched physical trauma from the lives of the people in the stories.

The paper was poorly written for a scientific paper (and I have read many, many poor papers). Whilst the paper was a review there was no attempt to explain the methodology of these studies, the only available explanations put forth were that the children were interviewed and then family members with these stories checked against records. The biggest gap in my mind is that the author does not explain how these people are discovered. In a society where reincarnation is a pervasive belief any child acting so could be coached* before the parent announces it to the media some how or gets in contact with the researchers. The truth of the testimonies of those involved cannot be established.

The fact that the child could be lying (on purpose or by accident) has been taken into consideration but only to this extent; it is mentioned in papers "well this could be a lie" and extraordinary cases that have been shown to be wrong are probably not reported. A problem with the research done by the division of perceptual studies is that they are looking for reincarnation. They are not actually studying anything, just reporting incidents that match their pre-conceived ideas about reincarnation. Look at it this way, if reincarnation was real why is it that only a fraction of people report memories? Why are there never any useful memories (children who are born doctors or rocket scientists)? All the DoPS has is anecdotal evidence and pure unsupported speculation, no evidence and no science to be found.*potentially not on purpose but purely by feeding said child information by accident e.g
Child: I used to live in Darfar...Darmurr?
Parent: Darfur?
Child: Yes, Darfur
Similar to cold reading but accidental

 

[JaredJames]

Well written ryan, I must concur with your conclusions after skimming through the site myself. Not sure there's much I'd add to it.