Is There Valid Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation?

[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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

Thankyou Jared, I appreciate that.

 

[Peter Fentyle]

Thank you again, I will start a thread -- I guess under philosophy as someone suggested.

I briefly watched this presentation given by Dr Ian S roughly summarizing his work on Children who remember past lives: http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/video/stevenson.ram
I haven't read his books -- I think Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation -- but those that i know that have were pretty convinced that he was claiming evidence for reincarnation, but didn't openly state so.

It definitely was interesting. I'm still new to what constitutes good science so I can't comment further.

I don't know how you guys do that quote thing.

"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)?"

Well I asked the same question to a proponent of reincarnation and they told me that our births are real but we have no memory of that either. So memories do fade over time -- i mean i can't even remember exactly what i did yesterday at this time -- so i guess its possible that in the next life we lose that past memory or it gets stored in some other folder than past life regression can access. Possible i guess. Another reason they gave was that if everyone starts remembering their past life then they'd get attached to the family and friends from the past life and won't be able to function so well in this present life. Seemed like that happened with the Laila case in the video of Ian stevenson. So perhaps memory of the past life is negative to the progress of that person? I guess that's possible.

Useful memories, well i know there was this whole documentary called 'the boy who lived before' and he claimed he was a fighter pilot. Maybe not as great as a doctor? Does it matter though, i mean how do you determine a useful memory to a useless memory?

Anyway just sharing what i know, which isn't much.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'd be happy to discuss what science is and what constitutes good science. For a quick run down of this research, science essentially follows this progression;

observation
hypothesis
experiment
conclusion

The DoPS misses out experiments completely and just reports on cases where people claim reincarnation. In addition their methodology and conclusions are quite unfounded.

As for the discussion on why we don't remember passed lives you had with a proponent, we cannot remember our birth or early life because at that stage the synaptic plasticity of our brains is extremely high. But if you think about it if we don't remember our birth how are we meant to remember the life before? Unless this memory transfer phenomenon only hits children at a certain age. But this is unsupported speculation and probably goes against the forum rules.

P.s to quote someone you can either click the button "Quote" on the bottom right of their post and delete what you don't need or you can copy and paste what they said and write [-quote-] before the quote and [-/quote-] at the end, however the hyphens must be removed. I didnt do it here because if I did it wouldn't display, without the hyphens it looks like this

before the quote and

 

[dm4b]

One reason it is supposed that children are more likely to remember past lives is that their ("ego") consciousness is not yet fully formed. They have what has often been called in psychology, the oceanic consciousness. Essentially, their individuality, or ego, isn't as strongly as formed as an adults, and they feel themselves more part of their "environment". In most cases, as the child hits age 6 and when they develop a stronger sense of individuality, they typically lose any past life memories. As adolescents and adults, our consciousness gets very focused on our "current" individuality. We get all wrapped up in our roles we play now.

At the same time, children do not have a fully developed consciousness, it has been shown their consciousness is actually more active than an adults in some ways. One of the psychologists who perfomed a study on this stated the difference with adults is actually just how unconscious we are compared to children. Not exactly how we normally like to view things.

A more important question is, what exactly IS memory.

If you follow the whole NDE and reincarnation thing in detail and to their logical ends, you'll realize for them to be a true phenomenon and to account for the observations out there, memory ultimately would not be stored (solely?) in the brain. Try that on for size ;-)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

One reason it is supposed that children are more likely to remember past lives is that their ("ego") consciousness is not yet fully formed. They have what has often been called in psychology, the oceanic consciousness. Essentially, their individuality, or ego, isn't as strongly as formed as an adults, and they feel themselves more part of their "environment". In most cases, as the child hits age 6 and when they develop a stronger sense of individuality, they typically lose any past life memories. As adolescents and adults, our consciousness gets very focused on our "current" individuality. We get all wrapped up in our roles we play now.

At the same time, children do not have a fully developed consciousness, it has been shown their consciousness is actually more active than an adults in some ways. One of the psychologists who perfomed a study on this stated the difference with adults is actually just how unconscious we are compared to children. Not exactly how we normally like to view things.

A more important question is, what exactly IS memory.

If you follow the whole NDE and reincarnation thing in detail and to their logical ends, you'll realize for them to be a true phenomenon and to account for the observations out there, memory ultimately would not be stored (solely?) in the brain. Try that on for size ;-)

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. A child may have a lack of identity but that is no reason for saying that they contain memories of past lives! We have a good understanding of how a child's brain is different to an adults, we don't need to invoke magic.

It's fairly obvious that reincarnation would require memories outside of the brain or some mechanism to transfer memories from one person to another. This is pointless speculation though because we have never had a verifiable case of reincarnation, we have a thorough enough understanding of development/memory to exclude reincarnation and there is no mechanism known to man to transfer memories from one brain to the developing brain of a fetus

 

[JaredJames]

If you follow the whole NDE and reincarnation thing in detail and to their logical ends, you'll realize for them to be a true phenomenon and to account for the observations out there, memory ultimately would not be stored (solely?) in the brain. Try that on for size ;-)

Ignoring the stuff above this which has already been covered nicely - there is still no credible evidence for reincarnation. Outside of anecdote there's nothing - and anecdote means nothing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ignoring the stuff above this which has already been covered nicely - there is still no credible evidence for reincarnation. Outside of anecdote there's nothing - and anecdote means nothing.

What evidence would you consider acceptable, specifically?

 

[JaredJames]

What evidence would you consider acceptable, specifically?

For me, it would take some form of testing - of course, this is virtually impossible (we've been through the reasons before, I believe I outlined roughly what I'd like to see).

Regardless, anecdote doesn't cut it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For me, it would take some form of testing - of course, this is virtually impossible (we've been through the reasons before, I believe I outlined roughly what I'd like to see).

Regardless, anecdote doesn't cut it.

The only thing I saw was this. Maybe I scanned the thread too quickly?

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.

That would still be anecdotal, as you later mentioned. The problem that I have with many objections to claims like this is not that the objections are invalid, but it is hard to imagine any evidence that would be acceptable.

 

[dm4b]

What evidence would you consider acceptable, specifically?

<sarcasm>How about a plot of energy over time measuring the souls path of transmigration.</sarcasm> ;-)