The Hard Science of Reincarnation

[rashore]

Quote

The nightmares began when Ryan Hammons was 4 years old. He would wake up clutching his chest, telling his mother Cyndi that he couldn’t breathe and that his heart had exploded in Hollywood. But they didn’t live in Los Angeles; Hammons’s family resided in Oklahoma. 

A few months prior, in early 2009, Ryan had started talking about going home to Hollywood and pleaded with Cyndi to take him to see his other family. He would yell, “Action!” and pretend to direct films when he played with friends; he knew scenes from a cowboy movie he had never watched; and said a cafe reminded him of Paris, where he had never been. He talked about his child, worldly travels, and his job at an agency where people changed their names. Cyndi didn’t think much of it until the nightmares set in and Ryan started describing death.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqygg/hard-science-of-reincarnation-past-lives

 

[papageorge1]

I am a believer in reincarnation myself but there is little for hard science to investigate at this time. About the best we have are memories of alleged past lives with specific details that do not seem reasonable to believe are just chance imaginings or information received through scientifically accepted channels.

The cumulative weight of that scientific evidence suggests that a process not known to current science is occurring. As far as science is concerned that process does not have to be reincarnation.

Edited April 7, 2021 by papageorge1

[Hankenhunter]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am a believer in reincarnation myself but there is little for hard science to investigate at this time. About the best we have are memories of alleged past lives with specific details that do not seem reasonable to believe are just chance imaginings or information received through scientifically accepted channels.

The cumulative weight of that scientific evidence suggests that a process not known to current science is occurring. As far as science is concerned that process does not have to be reincarnation.

What's amazing is how many Scientists, and professionals have started believing in it. It's becoming harder, and harder to refute, or debate. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but when do the thousands, and thousands of coincidences become not coincidence? Five thousand, ten thousand? Fifteen, twenty?No one seems to be willing to give a number. Especially skeptics. Can anyone hear answer that? Or would you prefer it to remain unknown for a platform of denial?

Que the laughing ego emotes from the hard cores. To you I say, prove it doesn't exist please. I'm saying it's possible, even probable. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[zep73]

21 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

What's amazing is how many Scientists, and professionals have started believing in it. It's becoming harder, and harder to refute, or debate. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but when do the thousands, and thousands of coincidences become not coincidence? Five thousand, ten thousand? Fifteen, twenty?No one seems to be willing to give a number. Especially skeptics. Can anyone hear answer that? Or would you prefer it to remain unknown for a platform of denial?

Que the laughing ego emotes from the hard cores. To you I say, prove it doesn't exist please. I'm saying it's possible, even probable. 

It's not that simple.

Before any case can be accepted as genuine, it first needs to meet some requirements. Like: Could there be a mundane source, like a parents instructions or a television story, to explain the child's testimony? Are there more than one independent witness who heard the child talk about it? Can the events and persons described be historically verified?
I believe the 20,000 examples you are suggesting would decrease substantially after being met by those requirements. Maybe there'd only be a handful left. But lucky for you, science only requires a couple.
Then there's the last issue: Who's gonna risk their career and spend thousands of man-hours investigating it, to find those couples of stories?

Anyone......?

I didn't think so.......

[Hankenhunter]

12 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It's not that simple.

Before any case can be accepted as genuine, it first needs to meet some requirements. Like: Could there be a mundane source, like a parents instructions or a television story, to explain the child's testimony? Are there more than one independent witness who heard the child talk about it? Can the events and persons described be historically verified?
I believe the 20,000 examples you are suggesting would decrease substantially after being met by those requirements. Maybe there'd only be a handful left. But lucky for you, science only requires a couple.
Then there's the last issue: Who's gonna risk their career and spend thousands of man-hours investigating it, to find those couples of stories?

Anyone......?

I didn't think so.......

I would, and have. Care to debate it? The fact Is that the anecdotal evidence exists. In huge quantities. Arguing like you just did is just semantics. 

Re-incarnation  is rapidly overtaking Christianity. A few more years of this global turmoil, and it will catch up and pass it. That's a huge chunk of the spiritual population, and world population. Which puts skeptics in a very tiny minority. Anecdotal evidence becomes evidence when your flooded with it. Your assuming that the anecdotal evidence can be whittled down without even studying the evidence presented. That's bias.

What's funny is you giving a thirty second time to answer, then added your own bias. "I didn't think so? Not very scientific.  Not logical.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

I would, and have. Care to debate it? The fact Is that the anecdotal evidence exists. In huge quantities. Arguing like you just did is just semantics. 

Re-incarnation  is rapidly overtaking Christianity. A few more years of this global turmoil, and it will catch up and pass it. That's a huge chunk of the spiritual population, and world population. Which puts skeptics in a very tiny minority. Anecdotal evidence becomes evidence when your flooded with it. Your assuming that the anecdotal evidence can be whittled down without even studying the evidence presented. That's bias.

Wanting to eliminate possible fraud is bias?

Anyhow, I suggest you grab your Ph.D. and get to work.

[Hankenhunter]

29 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Wanting to eliminate possible fraud is bias?

Anyhow, I suggest you grab your Ph.D. and get to work.

Not a problem if you read all the evidence, not just pick, and choose. The gestalt evidence as a whole. Not your personal pick, and choose to try to discredit. Can you do that? Funny how you made an assumption to what I said in my post. I stated it's possible, even probable. Also who decides the bias? You? Let's have a unbiased judge make that call. Debates need a moderator to keep the egos from running rampant. The reason I say this is I've debated here many times, and have been attacked for using a wrong word, or spelling for description instead of debating my logic. All in a vain attempt to drive me away. Ego driven comments, are not constructive, nor valid.

P.s Do you have a couple of months to read all the material I can dump on you? If you don't, I'm not going to bother. Be honest.

Actually, cancel that. After "Anyone......?

 

I didn't think so......." After that little gem, I highly doubt you could be unbiased.  You proved it with this. Offer recinded with my apologies.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Not a problem if you read all the evidence, not just pick, and choose. The gestalt evidence as a whole. Not your personal pick, and choose to try to discredit.

Science would never cherry pick.

Quote

Can you do that?

Me? I don't have a Ph.D. (although I have studied science and wish I had gotten one.)

And please. I'm not trying to insult you, so don't see me as an enemy. I'm just a science diplomat, trying to explain the scientific position in this matter.

[Hankenhunter]

7 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Science would never cherry pick.

Me? I don't have a Ph.D. (although I have studied science and wish I had gotten one.)

And please. I'm not trying to insult you, so don't see me as an enemy. I'm just a science diplomat, trying to explain the scientific position in this matter.

Except for the, "

Anyone......?

I didn't think so......."

That proved your bias is true. Right from the get go. That's ego talk. I refuse to debate with an ego.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[zep73]

Just now, Hankenhunter said:

Except for the, "

Anyone......?

I didn't think so......."

That proved your bias is true. Right from the get go. That's ego talk.

I was just trying to be funny. Seems I failed.

[Hankenhunter]

It wasn't funny because you didn't indicate it after your post. I highly doubt you were trying to be funny. You just got caught, is all. Now you're backtracking. 

[Hankenhunter]

To anyone who wants to debate. If you can't agree to the terms of the debate I dictated, save it. I'm not wasting my time, nor energy if you're not going to examine all the material supplied in link form. Me picking my best evidence is ego on my part. If you can't, I'll just say you won, and feed your ego. Plus, I highly doubt UM will allow me to copy/paste thousands of pages of anecdotal evidence. If your really serious, debate me privately on p.m. That should stop others, who's ego driven biases will pollute the debate, and create an ego loop.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[zep73]

20 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

It wasn't funny because you didn't indicate it after your post. I highly doubt you were trying to be funny. You just got caught, is all. Now you're backtracking. 

Wrong.

I was speaking as if all the world's scientists were listening, asking them to volunteer. Who would do that, unless they're trying to be funny?

[Hankenhunter]

7 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Wrong.

I was speaking as if all the world's scientists were listening, asking them to volunteer. Who would do that, unless they're trying to be funny?

I don't know. I'm going by what you supplied, not what your intentions were. I can't prove that. Only what you posted as evidence. Seemed quite clear to me. Your mind was made up before hand, before any evidence was even posted. My offer to debate is rescinded. You won. I lost. Thank you for your time. Good day.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[XenoFish]

Kids watch too much TV.  After skimming over some of the other works by the author of the linked article. Not impressed.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Xeno-Fish

[Hankenhunter]

7 hours ago, Xeno-Fish said:

Kids watch too much TV.  After skimming over some of the other works by the author of the linked article. Not impressed.

I dunno Xeno, I read the article three times, and can't find what your not impressed about it. Could you copy paste what bothers you? Could the ads in the article have something to do with it, or is it the website itself that bothers you? Or that science doesn't hold it in high regard like the rest of the science disciplines yet? Just curious. If you shoot something down, you really should explain why. "Not impressed" is hardly compelling evidence.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[Duke Wellington]

10 hours ago, rashore said:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgqygg/hard-science-of-reincarnation-past-lives

 

I go with the mind has primacy view.

I see the mind as being like an onion with various layers. Its the core level of mind, the one at the centre, which cannot be destroyed. And its from there the other layers come into existence and build up upon it.

That core mind adds those layers through thought, and each layer added has its own thoughts which keep it in existence. We can strip away layers (if we are taught how) to get back to the core mind and then we get to see that the mind has primacy.

While it may sound far-out I argue that pregnancy isn`t a organism coming into existence which develops a mind. Its mind first. Its mind building itself up until it has become a human being (in the case of our species). Starting with just the core mind additional layers get added on until out we pop ready to go. And then our youth is a continuation of the process of building up layers of mind.

Simple Mind has Primacy Experiment

As follows:

1. Get a notepad and pen.

2. Spend a few hours writing down every negative thought you have.

3. Lets suppose I wanted to give you some feedback about your thoughts. I could tell you it openly and directly. Or I could drop subtle hints in my sentences and actions towards you. Be mindful of what subtle feedback is rather than open and direct feedback.

4. Spend the rest of the day looking for subtle feedback from the universe regarding your negative thoughts. That feedback can come in what people randomly say, events that randomly happen to you, things that annoy you or do your head in.

5. Make the connection between negative thoughts and subtle feedback.

6. Pay particular attention to the negative thoughts you had which were new. When you see the subtle feedback it will help solidify in your mind that something odd is going on.

7. Perform further similar experiments with other thoughts that you have, and experiment with eliminating various thoughts. Watch how the subtle feedback works.

You`ll reach the conclusion that the universe feeds off your thoughts. Every thought, good or bad, gets subtle feedback. They all build reality for you. And that is how the mind has primacy. You have to identify the thought and the subtle feedback that comes from it to click whats going on rather than go through life from moment to moment not paying attention to it.

Of course when you die you cannot get rid of that core mind so off you go again. Thinking and creating.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Cookie Monster

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What's amazing is how many Scientists, and professionals have started believing in it. It's becoming harder, and harder to refute, or debate. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but when do the thousands, and thousands of coincidences become not coincidence? Five thousand, ten thousand? Fifteen, twenty?No one seems to be willing to give a number. Especially skeptics. Can anyone hear answer that? Or would you prefer it to remain unknown for a platform of denial?

Que the laughing ego emotes from the hard cores. To you I say, prove it doesn't exist please. I'm saying it's possible, even probable. 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

It is if it's overwhelming. This data is. Repeating data is data. At what point does coincidence become fact, as I posted above? Five thousand similarities? Ten thousand? Give me a number. Or is it that you're too attached to a rigid scientific principle that allows no leeway, nor cooperation? Then there's the research that's gone into it that's ignored because of perceived threats to their own bailiwick. Can you imagine their chagrin when it is proven that it's highly possible? Because that is the trend that's rapidly approaching. More, and more scientists, psychologists, physicians, psychiatrists, are believing in it, or at the very least researching it.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[Hankenhunter]

Here's something for the skeptics. There's tens of thousands of hours of recorded hypnotherapy sessions into past lives on the internet. Through hundreds of specialized hypnotherapists. Recorded, collated, organised to the scientific principle, then matching data is organised, and put to paper. It's all there. But because science can't measure an intangible, it's tossed to the wayside by other scientists. What a foolish thing to do. Rigid thinking does not lead to intuitive thinking, and that's a damn shame. No wonder we're stuck as a species right now. Thankfully, that's changing. Humanity is raising it's collective consciousness right now because of relaxed civilized attitudes.

Waiting for the ego laughing faces to be posted instead of actually looking for themselves, preferring to wrap themselves in a security blanket of self enforced ignorance. Yay team!

Edited April 8, 2021 by Hankenhunter

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

It is if it's overwhelming.

No. That's not true.

If anecdotes are overwhelming then data should automatically follow. 

That it doesn't illustrates it shows that it is the wrong approach. Something else that can produce data, known or unknown must be the right answer. 

That millions of claims over the centuries have been made without a shred of actual data, or a working theory means the traditional ideas must be wrong. You can't get that many instances without data. That just can't happen. It means the wrong conclusion is being drawn time and again. That's just basic logic. 

Quote

This data is. At what point does coincidence, be come fact, as I posted above? Five thousand similarities? Ten thousand? Give me a number.

Not even a billion billion.

One data set is needed. That's all. One way to show how it can work. That doesn't exist.

The plural of anecdote is not data regardless of the repetition. Saying 2+2=3 a billion times won't make it true. 

Quote

Or is it that you're too attached ta rigid scientific principle that allows no leeway, nor cooperation?

I understand it and how it refutes the life after death idea. 

If you wish to dismiss the science, you should understand the science first. BTW, I didn't see any science in the OP link.

LOL no there's no leeway or cooperation. Science isn't a person,not doesn't have emotions or preference. It is what it is.

When you see the sun rise on the morning do you feel it should have some leeway? Could the sun actually change its mind and be setting at the start of a day, or could it go a bit sideways to lengthen a nice day? It is what it is. We will see it over our horizon as gravity and orbital mechanics dictate. It's not open to influence. 

Quote

Then there's the research that's gone into it that's ignored because of perceived threats to their own bailiwick.

Sorry Hank. That is utter paranoid nonsense. Discovery stands on its own merits. Science accepts data, not anecdotes. That's the real NDEers hurdle.

Quote

Can you imagine their chagrin went it is proven that it's highly possible? Because that is the trend that's rapidly approaching.

It's not though. The very opposite forms the basics of physics. It doesn't matter what people like to believe, the periodic table doesn't change to accommodate belief. 

Quote

More, and more scientists, psychologists, physicians, psychiatrists, are believing in it, or at least researching it.

Sorry I just don't believe that at all. Belief isn't part of the scientific method. Researching maybe, people have interests. What would change things is some incredible discovery that changes pretty much everything we know. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Do you honestly see that? 

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Here's something for the skeptics. There's tens of thousands of hours of recorded hypnotherapy sessions into past lives on the internet. Recorded, collated, organised to the scientific principle, then matching data is organised, and put to paper. It's all there. But because science can't measure an intangible, it's tossed to the wayside by other scientists. What a foolish thing to do. Rigid thinking does not lead to intuitive thinking, and that's a damn shame. No wonder we're stuck as a species right now. Thankfully, that's changing.

I don't think it's tossed aside.

Many explanations are offered but are pooh poohed as skeptical dismissals.

What's really happening is proponents refuse to accept anything but a predetermined conclusion.

[Hankenhunter]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

No. That's not true.

If anecdotes are overwhelming then data should automatically follow. 

That it doesn't illustrates it shows that it is the wrong approach. Something else that can produce data, known or unknown must be the right answer. 

That millions of claims over the centuries have been made without a shred of actual data, or a working theory means the traditional ideas must be wrong. You can't get that many instances without data. That just can't happen. It means the wrong conclusion is being drawn time and again. That's just basic logic. 

Not even a billion billion.

One data set is needed. That's all. One way to show how it can work. That doesn't exist.

The plural of anecdote is not data regardless of the repetition. Saying 2+2=3 a billion times won't make it true. 

I understand it and how it refutes the life after death idea. 

If you wish to dismiss the science, you should understand the science first. BTW, I didn't see any science in the OP link.

LOL no there's no leeway or cooperation. Science isn't a person,not doesn't have emotions or preference. It is what it is.

When you see the sun rise on the morning do you feel it should have some leeway? Could the sun actually change its mind and be setting at the start of a day, or could it go a bit sideways to lengthen a nice day? It is what it is. We will see it over our horizon as gravity and orbital mechanics dictate. It's not open to influence. 

Sorry Hank. That is utter paranoid nonsense. Discovery stands on its own merits. Science accepts data, not anecdotes. That's the real NDEers hurdle.

It's not though. The very opposite forms the basics of physics. It doesn't matter what people like to believe, the periodic table doesn't change to accommodate belief. 

Sorry I just don't believe that at all. Belief isn't part of the scientific method. Researching maybe, people have interests. What would change things is some incredible discovery that changes pretty much everything we know. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Do you honestly see that? 

I suggest you look into it yourself instead of relying on that old rosebud, to shield yourself from something new, and possibly beneficial. To do otherwise is illogical. I guess that since neither can disprove the other were back to that ol' comfortable stalemate, eh? 

[Hankenhunter]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think it's tossed aside.

Many explanations are offered but are pooh poohed as skeptical dismissals.

What's really happening is proponents refuse to accept anything but a predetermined conclusion.

Even though that conclusion has been determined many times by trained professionals? Or are phsycologists, physicians, and psychiatrists not considered professionals?

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

I suggest you look into it yourself instead of relying on that old rosebud, to shield yourself from something new, and possibly beneficial. To do otherwise is illogical. I guess that since neither can disprove the other were back to that ol' comfortable stalemate, eh? 

I did look into it for over a decade when my father passed away. I come from a family prone to superstition and religion.

I'd say I have the advantage here. I can say I've spent some time on both sides of this coin, not just one.

How far back in human history have you researched afterlife ideologies? How many ideologies?