ESP and Reincarnation

[BobG]

Hi folks,

I got a bit carried away in the "Welcome" forum and Amb suggested that I take my thoughts to a different forum so here I am.

Copying and pasting from the "Welcome Forum" we have:


Originally Posted by amb
Dear Bob. That nice gentleman whose name appears on this forum has a million dollar challenge to anyone who can scientifically prove ESP, or any other super-natural phenomena.
Welcome to this most enlightening of forums.
Thank you Amb.

As I see it, ESP, if it exists, would be very difficult to prove.

The problem is that it either involves left over vanishing senses from our past or newly developing senses for our future. In either case, these senses are very rudimentary and therefore very unreliable.

By the way, the only other oddity that I believe in is reincarnation and that needs to be strongly qualified. I don't believe in ghosts, predicting the future, bending spoons, levitation, etc., etc., etc. I also don't believe in ESP at a distance. I only believe in it close up since, if it exists, I presume that it would be like any one of our other senses, only less developed. We certainly cannot extend our smell to several miles so I wouldn't expect ESP to extend that far either.

I believe in the possibility of reincarnation but I think it is an extemely rare occurrence. In fact, it is so rare that it may never have happened. It's just possible.

Simply put, here I am, so it has happened. Why can't it happen again? What will be the difference in the year 3000AD when I will have been dead for 1000 years and the year 1000AD which was 1000 years before I arrived. Nothing really so if it happened in 1000AD, it could happen in 3000AD.

However, like I said, I think this is very improbable and if it were to occur, you would have no knowledge whatsoever of your former life. You would have no way of knowing that you have been reincarnated.

As I implied in my last post, I could go on and on but I'll give you guys a break. As the new kid on the block, I hope I'm not overdoing it!

Also, am I making any sense?

Bob Guercio

[Denver]

Hello Bob and Welcome.

On your comment about reincarnation, if there is no way to verify you have been reincarnated, and no knowledge of your past life, and if it is so rare it might never happen, how could you tell the difference from someone who has been reincarnated, and someone who has not?

It seems like if there is no way to tell a difference, then there is no justification to claim there is a difference. And if there is no way to prove reincarnation, then there is no justification to claim one person has been reincarnated, and another hasn't.

So given that state of affairs, you'd be in the boat of having to assume there is no difference between someone who makes no claims they've been reincarnated, and someone who thinks they have, but also has no proof.

Which kind of leaves you with no justification to claim reincarnation is real, doesn't it?

[Ryan O'Dine]

I, too welcome you, Bob.

As for the ESP, perhaps you can you explain why you think it exists, and what form you picture it taking (roughly, how do you think it works? Do you have personal experiences you can relate)?

Might help us understand where you're coming from.

[BobG]

Hello Bob and Welcome.

On your comment about reincarnation, if there is no way to verify you have been reincarnated, and no knowledge of your past life, and if it is so rare it might never happen, how could you tell the difference from someone who has been reincarnated, and someone who has not?

You can't tell if someone has been reincarnated because basically there is no difference between one that has and one that hasn't.


It seems like if there is no way to tell a difference, then there is no justification to claim there is a difference. And if there is no way to prove reincarnation, then there is no justification to claim one person has been reincarnated, and another hasn't.

There is no difference so speaking about telling the difference is not valid.


So given that state of affairs, you'd be in the boat of having to assume there is no difference between someone who makes no claims they've been reincarnated, and someone who thinks they have, but also has no proof.

But a person has no way of knowing that they have been reincarnated; therefore thinking it is mindless speculation.


Which kind of leaves you with no justification to claim reincarnation is real, doesn't it?

Disagree. I stand by my original thoughts.

By the way, I tend to think that reincarnation is a very rare event. It is so rare that, even though possible, it may never have occurred.

Gosh! I'm going to love this forum of Randy. I have to be careful that it doesn't take over too much of my life.

Bob Guercio

[Denver]

Bob, suppose I also claim you owe me $1000? Sure, it might be possible, but I have no evidence of it, and could not prove it to you or anyone else to whom I made the claim. Should I be taken seriously in my claim? Should I consider I might be wrong about it? Or would you be expected by any reasonable person to pay up, based on my claim as it stands?

It sounds like you're in the same boat with reincarnation. You can claim it's real. But with no evidence, there is no reason it should be taken seriously, is there?

[BobG]

I, too welcome you, Bob.

As for the ESP, perhaps you can you explain why you think it exists, and what form you picture it taking (roughly, how do you think it works? Do you have personal experiences you can relate)?

Might help us understand where you're coming from.

If we have it, it is not extrasensory. It is just be an underdeveoped sense that we have not yet detected.

For example, some animals have the sense of detecting electromagnetic fields. If we have this sense, it is certainly not developed to the same extent as these animals that I am referring to.

As an example of these animals that I am referring to, there is a species of birds or butterflies, I don't remember exactly, that migrate by orienting themselves with the earths magnetic field.

I cannot give you any details on the specifics of these senses that I'm talking about because they have not yet been detected and I certainly am not able to use mine if it exists.

I'm not sure how I stated it in my original post but just to clarify my thinking, I'm not saying that these senses exist. They could exist. I don't know but I will not saying that this is impossible.


Bob Guercio

[Fnord]

Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) is nothing more than a well-developed ability for sub-cognitive judgment - in a word, "Intuition." It's a reflexive mental process that "picks up" on subliminal cues, bypasses conscious reasoning, and delivers a "feeling" to the conscious mind about a situation. It is a learned function - nothing wooish about it.

Everyone has it to a greater or lesser degree, with women seeming to be more able to make intuitive leaps (Woman's Intuition"). This may be due to the way that their brains are hard-wired to be more efficient in associative or relational thinking than a man's brain might be.

There have been times when I've attended interviews of employee candidates, and come away with the feeling that "something" wasn't right about the interviewee. On several occasions, soon after expressing my feelings to HR, they informed me that the candidate was disqualified for drug abuse, a DUI, or a criminal record of domestic violence. I guess that having been raised by an abusive alcoholic (and later marrying another one) has "tuned" my intuition to pick up on alkies, junkies, and those who are prone to commit acts of violence against women and children.

Anyway, ESP as a "psychic" ability simply does not exist. It is simply a mis-understood aspect of pre-cognitive thought processes - processes that the person is simply not conscious of.



At least, that's what I've come up with on my own, and without any scientific research.

Intuition.

[Ryan O'Dine]

So you're saying some non-supernatural forms of ESP and reincarnation could possibly exist -- but you're not making any positive claims, and you have no evidence. Yes?

I think it's interesting to speculate on such things, but if what you're saying is basically 'what's not impossible is possible,' then I'm not sure you're going to get much of a debate going here.

(Then again, this is the JREF forum. ;))

[BobG]

It sounds like you're in the same boat with reincarnation. You can claim it's real. But with no evidence, there is no reason it should be taken seriously, is there?

I will say that there is no reason why you should take it seriously; however, I take my beliefs very seriously.

People believe in religion. I don't. However, I'm not about to say that some of them don't take their beliefs seriously.

This gets me to another thought and for the moderators listening, please give me a warning before kicking me off of this forum. I'm still not sure of how far I can go here.

People may say that they believe in a religion but in most cases they don't. They know that they don't believe but they play the game because it is the politically correct thing to do.

Brainwashing also plays a role in all of this. The only way that humans can cast all logic aside, which is what they do regarding religion, is for one to have a religion pounded into them from birth. This is expecially true of those that really believe.

Death also plays a role in all of this. I do believe that most people enjoy life and do not want to die. Even those that don't enjoy life don't want to die which results from the survival instinct which most of us believe in. Thus, religion allows us to deny death and to believe that we are going to be around forever. Most religions talk of an afterlife so if there is an everlasting afterlife, there is no death.

Enough said until I know the limits of this forum because, at this point, I'm sure there are many reading this that don't like what I have to say.

I have discussed this in other forums and have gotten kicked out. I'm hoping that this is the forum for discussions of such sensitivity.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) is nothing more than a well-developed ability for sub-cognitive judgment - in a word, "Intuition." It's a reflexive mental process that "picks up" on subliminal cues, bypasses conscious reasoning, and delivers a "feeling" to the conscious mind about a situation. It is a learned function - nothing wooish about it.

Everyone has it to a greater or lesser degree, with women seeming to be more able to make intuitive leaps (Woman's Intuition"). This may be due to the way that their brains are hard-wired to be more efficient in associative or relational thinking than a man's brain might be.

There have been times when I've attended interviews of employee candidates, and come away with the feeling that "something" wasn't right about the interviewee. On several occasions, soon after expressing my feelings to HR, they informed me that the candidate was disqualified for drug abuse, a DUI, or a criminal record of domestic violence. I guess that having been raised by an abusive alcoholic (and later marrying another one) has "tuned" my intuition to pick up on alkies, junkies, and those who are prone to commit acts of violence against women and children.

Anyway, ESP as a "psychic" ability simply does not exist. It is simply a mis-understood aspect of pre-cognitive thought processes - processes that the person is simply not conscious of.



At least, that's what I've come up with on my own, and without any scientific research.

Intuition.

I know that everything that you have said about intuition is absolutely true!

I don't believe that the door on ESP, at this time, should be slammed shut.

Bob Guercio

[shuttlt]

This gets me to another thought and for the moderators listening, please give me a warning before kicking me off of this forum. I'm still not sure of how far I can go here.
The mods are pretty relaxed. Unless you actively try to get kicked off and ignore multiple warnings you won't be (unless you're a sock puppet or something).

[BobG]

So you're saying some non-supernatural forms of ESP and reincarnation could possibly exist -- but you're not making any positive claims, and you have no evidence. Yes?

Exactly.


I think it's interesting to speculate on such things, but if what you're saying is basically 'what's not impossible is possible,' then I'm not sure you're going to get much of a debate going here.

No! It's impossible for me, in this life, to live forever. I'm not about to say that there is a possibility that I, Robert Guercio, will live as Robert Guercio forever.


(Then again, this is the JREF forum. ;))

I so far, I'm thoroughly enjoying this forum.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

The mods are pretty relaxed. Unless you actively try to get kicked off and ignore multiple warnings you won't be (unless you're a sock puppet or something).

I'm probably not a "sock puppet" but what is that?

Also, believe me, I like contraversy but I have no intentions of getting kicked off of this forum.

Gotta go! Got things to do and I already realize that this forum is addicting to a person like me.

Bob Guercio

[IXP]

However, like I said, I think this is very improbable and if it were to occur, you would have no knowledge whatsoever of your former life. You would have no way of knowing that you have been reincarnated.
Bob Guercio[/SIZE]
I fail to see how there is anything left of you, if you are reincarnated in this manner.

IXP

[BobG]

I fail to see how there is anything left of you, if you are reincarnated in this manner.

IXP


Your consciousness remains, nothing else.

Bob Guercio

[Fnord]

Your consciousness remains, nothing else.

.
There is no verifiable evidence that Raising of the Dead, Reincarnation, Ressurrection, or any other form of people returning from the dead are valid concepts outside of a Bible or a Dungeons & Dragons game.

And don't give us any of that "You can't prove it isn't true so it must be true" crap.

Belief is not proof.

[Lanzy]

Your belief sounds a lot like belieivng "I'm invisible, unless someone is looking at me."

[Professor Yaffle]

In what way is it "your" consciousness?

And what leads you to believe that it would be incredibly rare. If there is no way of telling whether it has happened it could happen never, rarely, frequently or always and there would be no way to tell the difference. So on what are you basing your judgement that it is rare?

[BobG]

In what way is it "your" consciousness?

And what leads you to believe that it would be incredibly rare. If there is no way of telling whether it has happened it could happen never, rarely, frequently or always and there would be no way to tell the difference. So on what are you basing your judgement that it is rare?

Intuition, judgement, feeling, guesswork, etc.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Your belief sounds a lot like belieivng "I'm invisible, unless someone is looking at me."

I don't think this is true!

Bob Guercio

[godless dave]

Intuition, judgement, feeling, guesswork, etc.


None of those are particularly reliable.

[BobG]

[COLOR=white]

And don't give us any of that "You can't prove it isn't true so it must be true" crap.

Belief is not proof.

Proving a negative defies logical thinking so I don't expect you to do that. It is up to the proponent of an idea to prove it.

That said, I cannot prove it!

You don't have to have the same beliefs as I have. I don't have to have the same beliefs as you.

Also, there is some hostility in your response.

I've met Randy. He is a neighbor of mine who lives about 15 miles north of me. I went to one of his local magic shows and chatted with him afterwards.

I know his beliefs on this subject and he certainly would disagree with me. I also know that there would be no hostility in his disagreement! Randy is a gentleman.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

None of those are particularly reliable.

Agreed.

[BobG]

Folks,

Am I the only one in this crowd who believes in the possibilities of ESP and reincarnation?

If so, I find that very surprising! How can we think critically if everybody is of the same mind. We would all be "yessing" each other to death.

I do believe that some of you reading this thread are even stronger than I am in your beliefs on ESP and reincarnation. Please speak up!

Bob Guercio

[Professor Yaffle]

"Get off ma show"

9zdmqV2iDN8

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Bob, Bob, Bob;

What on Earth are you claiming? :confused:

What would you say about the "fact" the World was created last Tuesday complete with all our memories about our past life? It is amusing speculation but that's it. :boggled:

How is any of the "thinking" you have presented about reincarnation any different?

In the case of ESP: there is no unequivocal evidence of it's existence and there is no known mechanism.

Respectfully,

Gord

[godless dave]

Folks,

Am I the only one in this crowd who believes in the possibilities of ESP and reincarnation?

If so, I find that very surprising! How can we think critically if everybody is of the same mind. We would all be "yessing" each other to death.

I do believe that some of you reading this thread are even stronger than I am in your beliefs on ESP and reincarnation. Please speak up!

Bob Guercio


Bob, we're skeptics. You already admitted you have no evidence for your belief. Most of the people on this forum deliberatly try not to believe in things that have no evidence to support them.

I don't believe in the possibility of reincarnation. To me, it seems like it contradicts everything we know about the human mind.

I believe that some kinds of ESP don't contradict science and could, theoretically, exist. I don't think they currently exist in humans.

[BobG]

Bob, we're skeptics. You already admitted you have no evidence for your belief. Most of the people on this forum deliberatly try not to believe in things that have no evidence to support them.

I don't believe in the possibility of reincarnation. To me, it seems like it contradicts everything we know about the human mind.

I believe that some kinds of ESP don't contradict science and could, theoretically, exist. I don't think they currently exist in humans.

OK. Fair enough.

On the issue of ESP and reincarnation, let's agree to disagree. I have always found this a very pleasant way of ending a disagreement.

By the way. There is a topic that we can probably genuinely agree upon. Religion.

I believe that all religions are man made and that God does not exist.

I'll leave my ranting on that whole subject for another time.

Regards,

Bob Guercio

[VisionFromFeeling]

As I see it, ESP, if it exists, would be very difficult to prove. ESP, extrasensory perception, should be verifiable if it exists, unless it involves the perception of things that themselves have not been proven to exist, like ghosts.
If we have it, it is not extrasensory. It is just be an underdeveoped sense that we have not yet detected.There is an agreement as to what perception is within human perception, some individuals having worse or having better perception that lies in the margins of this range. Something outside of this range would be extrasensory, such as microscopic vision.
For example, some animals have the sense of detecting electromagnetic fields. If we have this sense, it is certainly not developed to the same extent as these animals that I am referring to.Exactly. ESP would refer to what humans can do.
Am I the only one in this crowd who believes in the possibilities of ESP and reincarnation? I do believe that some of you reading this thread are even stronger than I am in your beliefs on ESP and reincarnation. Please speak up!This is a Skeptics Forum, you are not likely to find many here who believe in these unproven things. I choose to believe in reincarnation although I admit that humans have no evidence of it. And I am a paranormal claimant investigating and soon testing a claim of ESP.
I believe that some kinds of ESP don't contradict science and could, theoretically, exist.ESP if proven would not contradict science.
I don't think they currently exist in humans.;)
Your belief sounds a lot like belieivng "I'm invisible, unless someone is looking at me."We are all a pattern of waves until someone looks at us and we collapse into particles. ;) (Quantum Physics)

[Fnord]

In what way is it "your" consciousness?

And what leads you to believe that it would be incredibly rare. If there is no way of telling whether it has happened it could happen never, rarely, frequently or always and there would be no way to tell the difference. So on what are you basing your judgement that it is rare?
Intuition, judgement, feeling, guesswork, etc.

You've answered only the first question, so I'll reiterate the others in a more concise form.

Upon what evidence do you base your claims?

[Hokulele]

We are all a pattern of waves until someone looks at us and we collapse into particles. ;) (Quantum Physics)


No.

[Soapy Sam]

Bob- I think the majority view here is that consciousness is a process- ie a series of brainstates changing in time. Some of the hardline AI fans here would say the hardware is irrelevant and a computer can display consciousness. Others (myself included) suppose it to be an emergent property of living systems , which might be simulated by hardware to some extent. This debate leads off in several directions from there, but I suspect practically everyone here would think that there has to be some hardware substrate to support consciousness- ie it's not disembodiable and does not survive death.
From that POV, it's very hard to see how two brains, perhaps existing centuries apart, composed of different molecules, grown in different wombs, using different genes and food sources in a different environment could, in any theoretical sense, support "the same" consciousness. And that's without getting into subjective qualia , sense of self and a gazillion other complexities. Even two identical twins, while often mentally very alike, are different individuals, and they would be massively more alike than any two brains separated in time.

As for ESP, my own conclusion is pretty well identical to that expressed by Fnord in post 7.

By the way, despite shared similarities of worldview, we still manage to argue like long time married couples here. And not everyone shares the sceptical POV:-The poster named "Vision from Feeling" for instance has her own rather different take on many things...

[BobG]

Bob- I think the majority view here is that consciousness is a process- ie a series of brainstates changing in time.

Soapy,

I feel that I have the same consciousness that I had 50 years ago. Sure I'm a lot smarter and my judgment is infinitely better but it's still me.

And if my IQ were to shift 30 points in either direction, it would still be me only I would be either a lot smarter or a lot dumber.

Bob Guercio

[arthwollipot]

Bob:

You believe that reincarnation is possible. In those situations where it does happen, exactly what is it that is being reincarnated?

Secondly, you appear to have this belief that reincarnation is possible, even though you also admit there is no evidence for it, and if it does occur, it would be rare. I would like to know why you believe this. What is it that led you to this belief?

[BobG]

Bob:

You believe that reincarnation is possible. In those situations where it does happen, exactly what is it that is being reincarnated?

Consciousness.

Secondly, you appear to have this belief that reincarnation is possible, even though you also admit there is no evidence for it, and if it does occur, it would be rare. I would like to know why you believe this. What is it that led you to this belief?

As I stated before in a previous post - Intuition, judgement, feeling, guesswork, etc.

But as I thought about it, you could also add many years of heavy and ponderous comtemplation.

[shuttlt]

Bob,

Do you have any argument in favor of your beliefs, or evidence to discuss? If you want to believe in reincarnation because it makes you happy and there is no way to know one way or the other, then fine... so long as you don't go around knocking people on the head safe in the knowledge that they will someday be reincarnated. What more is there to say? Do you want us to provide evidence for/against these things?

[BobG]

Bob,

so long as you don't go around knocking people on the head safe in the knowledge that they will someday be reincarnated.

This I have not done!!!

I've been very clear that I think it is a very rare event. In fact, I believe that I've stated in a previous post that, in my opinion, the probability of reincarnation is so small that it may never have even happened.

I'm not telling anybody to die with the expectation that they will be back!!!

Why don't we all agree to disagree on this issue? I've had enough and wouldn't mind leaving it at this time.

This is the most pleasant way of ending a disagreement! How about it?

Bob Guercio

[Akhenaten]

There is an agreement as to what perception is within human perception, some individuals having worse or having better perception that lies in the margins of this range. Something outside of this range would be extrasensory, such as microscopic vision.


If it's one of our normal 5 senses with heightened abilities then it's just supersensory. Microscopic vision could conceivably be achieved by a human eye with an abnormal lens.

Extrasensory means detectable by means other than our known senses.

Humans can't do it. None of them. Not one.



Exactly. ESP would refer to what humans can do.


No, as a matter of fact, ESP refers to what humans can't do. That's what the "Extra" part is about, like in "extraterrestrial". Do you know what an extraterrestrial is?



This is a Skeptics Forum, you are not likely to find many here who believe in these unproven things. I choose to believe in reincarnation although I admit that humans have no evidence of it.


How scientific of you.



And I am a paranormal claimant investigating and soon testing a claim of ESP.


Not much evidence of these things either, but that's for a thread about you and this isn't it.



ESP if proven would not contradict science.
;)


Invisible Pink Unicorns, if proven, would not contradict science. They would become a part of it. IPUs are looking better than ESP to get into the text books first.



We are all a pattern of waves until someone looks at us and we collapse into particles. ;) (Quantum Physics)


Horse Hockey

[Mashuna]

;)
We are all a pattern of waves until someone looks at us and we collapse into particles. ;) (Quantum Physics)


I looked at a pattern of waves until someone called me and I collapsed at a cool party. (LSD)

[BobG]

We are all a pattern of waves until someone looks at us and we collapse into particles. ;) (Quantum Physics)

Let me interject a little bit of trivia here.

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!

This does not surprise me because I don't believe that it is possible for humans to understand Quantum Mechanics. We accept it and work out the mathematics of it but a true understanding such as the concept of velocity (mph) is way beyond us.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

How scientific of you.








This gentleman may be very scientific as I am.

I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter?

I have an appreciation for history. Is that scientically based? Of course not!

Bob Guercio

[Soapy Sam]

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!


Neither do I.
This (sadly) does not make me as smart as Feynman.

By the way- you are under no obligation to continue a debate , even if you started it.
If it's interesting though, other people may carry it on.
It's common for posters not to read the entire thread- they may see something you said in post 1 and add a post 367 demanding further data, despite not reading posts 2- 366. You're under no obligation to reply.

[Akhenaten]

This gentleman may be very scientific as I am.

I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter?

I have an appreciation for history. Is that scientically based? Of course not!

Bob Guercio
my bolding


Not at all Bob. Your thoughts are your own and I have no problem with that. The poster I was addressing has claimed to be a scientist though, which creates different issues.


Yes, history is scientifically based. An unscientific approach to history is where religion and politics come from. YMMV


Cheers,

Dave

[BobG]

By the way- you are under no obligation to continue a debate , even if you started it.
If it's interesting though, other people may carry it on.
It's common for posters not to read the entire thread- they may see something you said in post 1 and add a post 367 demanding further data, despite not reading posts 2- 366. You're under no obligation to reply.

I realize this but I am fascinated with the way this discussion has gone.

I do realize that this debate has been conducted in a very gentlemenly fashion but a couple of posters have expressed some hostility. This I don't understand!

Bob

[BobG]

my bolding


The poster I was addressing has claimed to be a scientist though, which creates different issues.




There is a problem with claiming to be a scientist if the claim is made to justify the correctness of your opinion.

I presume that this was the case?

Bob

[BobG]

my bolding




Yes, history is scientifically based. An unscientific approach to history is where religion and politics come from. YMMV


Cheers,

Dave

I didn't mean to imply that history was not scientifically based. I meant to imply that my appreciation of history was not scientifically based.

Although not scientifically based, my appreciation for history still exists!

Thus, I can have ideas, opinions and beliefs about ESP and reincarnation which are not scientically based.

Bob

[shuttlt]

Let me interject a little bit of trivia here.

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!

This does not surprise me because I don't believe that it is possible for humans to understand Quantum Mechanics. We accept it and work out the mathematics of it but a true understanding such as the concept of velocity (mph) is way beyond us.

Bob Guercio
Which is fine, so long as you don't take it to mean that Quantum Mechanics can/might say anything you choose. The practical implications and limitations of Quantum Mechanics are fairly well understood. It isn't at all obvious to me that quantum mechanics says anything remotely helpful to any of this, could you indicate more precisely how you think it does?

[BobG]

Which is fine, so long as you don't take it to mean that Quantum Mechanics can/might say anything you choose. The practical implications and limitations of Quantum Mechanics are fairly well understood. It isn't at all obvious to me that quantum mechanics says anything remotely helpful to any of this, could you indicate more precisely how you think it does?

I'm sorry!

It doesn't. I just thought that I would introduce some trivia into the conversation.

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4979191#post4979191)
Bob:

You believe that reincarnation is possible. In those situations where it does happen, exactly what is it that is being reincarnated? Consciousness.

Well, we all have consciousness, so what does it mean to have the same consciousness as a person who lived before, if you don't remember that prior life? Like IXP said, what remains of you? Are you talking about a person's personality, their likes, dislikes, wants, etc.?

I can see this heading straight toward the nature-vs-nurture question, because if a person has no memory of prior experiences and starts a new life with a clean slate, nurture will change everything that isn't there by nature. It sounds like you're saying that the part which can't be changed by nurture would be the part that's reincarnated?

Actually, what intrigues me most is your belief that reincarnation is possible, but very rare, since most believers in reincarnation believe it's fairly common and only past-life memories are rare.

What do you think triggers reincarnation upon death in those rare people who have it happen?

(For what it's worth, I personally don't "believe in" reincarnation because it requires a soul or something similar to last after death, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence for that. If evidence came forth showing that a soul lasted after death, I'd consider reincarnation as a possibility, and of course if strong enough evidence of reincarnation itself came forth, I'd gladly accept it.)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm sorry!

It doesn't. I just thought that I would introduce some trivia into the conversation.

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.

I seem to be one of the naughty people here who you are not responding to because I do not take your amusing speculations seriously. :(

However, whether anyone understands QM or not, useful predictions can be made about the real world by using its mathematical equations. The Pope, however, seems to have a problem with reality.

[BobG]

I seem to be one of the naughty people here who you are not responding to because I do not take your amusing speculations seriously. :(



I'm not sure what you said in the post that you are referring to but if you made light of what I said, of course I wouldn't respond to it. What's the purpose?

If you questioned my thoughts in an intelligent manner, than I would respond.

If I made light of something that you said, I don't think you would respond to me!

Bob Guercio





Bob Guercio

[Akhenaten]

There is a problem with claiming to be a scientist if the claim is made to justify the correctness of your opinion.

I presume that this was the case?

Bob


Yes mate, but it's no biggie. It's the subject of another thread and is a bit OT here.


Cheers,

Dave

[BobG]

Well, we all have consciousness, so what does it mean to have the same consciousness as a person who lived before, if you don't remember that prior life? Like IXP said, what remains of you? Are you talking about a person's personality, their likes, dislikes, wants, etc.?

None of the above. Personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. could all be different from your first life.

I can see this heading straight toward the nature-vs-nurture question, because if a person has no memory of prior experiences and starts a new life with a clean slate, nurture will change everything that isn't there by nature. It sounds like you're saying that the part which can't be changed by nurture would be the part that's reincarnated?

No! You could be one hell of a nice guy in this life but in the next, you would have different genetic makeup which could make you a scoundrel. And genetic makeup is nature.


Actually, what intrigues me most is your belief that reincarnation is possible, but very rare, since most believers in reincarnation believe it's fairly common and only past-life memories are rare.

What can I say?

What do you think triggers reincarnation upon death in those rare people who have it happen?

I don't have a clue! I don't know what triggered this life but if I knew that, I would be able to answer your question.


(For what it's worth, I personally don't "believe in" reincarnation because it requires a soul or something similar to last after death, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence for that. If evidence came forth showing that a soul lasted after death, I'd consider reincarnation as a possibility, and of course if strong enough evidence of reincarnation itself came forth, I'd gladly accept it.)

OK

[Pup]

None of the above. Personalities, likes, dislikes, etc. could all be different from your first life.

...

No! You could be one hell of a nice guy in this life but in the next, you would have different genetic makeup which could make you a scoundrel. And genetic makeup is nature.

If it's not personality or genetics or memories, then what part of "you" remains when "you" are reincarnated? I can't think of anything else.

[shuttlt]

It almost seems like Feyman not understanding Quantum Mechanics is like the Pope not believing in God.
I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff. .....He's mentioned quantum mechanics and God in the same post....

[Marduk]

Your belief sounds a lot like belieivng "I'm invisible, unless someone is looking at me."

who said that ?
:D

[BobG]

If it's not personality or genetics or memories, then what part of "you" remains when "you" are reincarnated? I can't think of anything else.


I remember a good word that may helpful: sentient

sentient: 1. Having sense perception; conscious; 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Sentience is what is reincarnated and this exists in other living beings. For example, dogs and chimpanzees have it while worms, in my opinion, do not.

It takes a central nervous system which worms do not have.

Not all living beings are sentient since it takes a certain amount of brain power to achieve this. I cannot tell you where the dividing line is in the animal world. It's probably more of a gray area where those above the area are sentient and those below are not sentient. Those in the gray area are in some sort of a nebulous world between consciousness and unconsciosness.

As an example of an animal that I do not believe is sentient is a crab. Of course, anybody who has been bitten by a crab may disagree with me but I believe that what a crab does is all controlled by reflexes, just as a spider spinning a web is a reflexive action. This is known because spiders spin perfect webs and never make mistakes. If it were something that they were thinking about or if they had other thoughts on their mind as they were spinning this web, such as a person knitting, there would be mistakes.

Yes and I hope this doesn't upset you guys more than you already are, but, in my scheme of things, a human being can be reincarnated into a dog and a dog can be reincarnated into a human being. And of course, either sex is possible.

Bob

[BobG]

I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff.

If you believe that this is guff, you shouldn't be responding or you should not be responding seriously. If you presented to me what I perceived as "guff", I would not respond to you seriously. That is if I would even respond?

Please note that I would always respond to you in a courteous manner.

Bob

[Marduk]

I don't know why it's so hard not to get sucked into replying to all this guff. .....He's mentioned quantum mechanics and God in the same post....

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness

[Pup]

I remember a good word that may helpful: sentient

sentient: 1. Having sense perception; conscious; 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Well, yes, we all have it. But it's like vision (I mean eyesight, not metaphorical vision). We all have it, but to say that one person's vision is reincarnated in another doesn't mean anything, if none of the genetic or learned properties transfer over. I'm just not getting it. What about a person's individual sensience stays the same when it's reincarnated?

Yes and I hope this doesn't upset you guys more than you already are, but, in my scheme of things, a human being can be reincarnated into a dog and a dog can be reincarnated into a human being. And of course, either sex is possible.

Not sure "upset" is the right word. If we discovered it was true, then folks might be upset, or not, to know that grandma could be the neighbor's dog now. But I can't see the point of being upset just because somebody claims that something is true, since that has no effect on whether or not it is true.

[BobG]

Well, yes, we all have it. But it's like vision (I mean eyesight, not metaphorical vision). We all have it, but to say that one person's vision is reincarnated in another doesn't mean anything, if none of the genetic or learned properties transfer over. I'm just not getting it. What about a person's individual sensience stays the same when it's reincarnated?



Not.

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!

It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm not sure what you said in the post that you are referring to but if you made light of what I said, of course I wouldn't respond to it. What's the purpose?

If you questioned my thoughts in an intelligent manner, than I would respond.

If I made light of something that you said, I don't think you would respond to me!

Bob Guercio


Bob Guercio

Well here is what I said:
Bob, Bob, Bob;

What on Earth are you claiming? :confused:

What would you say about the "fact" the World was created last Tuesday complete with all our memories about our past life? It is amusing speculation but that's it. :boggled:

How is any of the "thinking" you have presented about reincarnation any different?

In the case of ESP: there is no unequivocal evidence of it's existence and there is no known mechanism.

Respectfully,

Gord

You have been speculating and using your "beliefs" to justify your conclusions. Your "thoughts" are not new or original. How about some show of intelligence on your part?

Go ahead and insult me if you wish. This is part of the Internet. I've been here for years.
:boggled:

[Pup]

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!

It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

Vision was an analogy. Sentience is an ability, like seeing or hearing, and of course a lack of sentience can also be induced in a living person, such as in unconsciousness, for example. If none of the genetic or learned properties connected to that ability transfer to another person, what stays the same enough that one could say that a person's individual sentience was reincarned into another?

Ah, wait. Is this the problem? To try to figure out what you meant, I looked at "sentience" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience).

I'm using it in the first sense mentioned: "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively."

Are you using it the other way they mentioned? "In science fiction, sentience is 'personhood': the essential quality that separates humankind from machines or lower animals." I still can't figure out the answer, but it seems that would allow a fuzzier new-agey definition of an individual's sentience, more like an essence or soul.

[Denver]

The actual senses are not involved in my thinking.

What do you feel in an isolation tank. Total darkness with no sound!


Not if you have tinnitus.



It doesn't matter what your vision or audio acuity is when you are inside this tank.

Yet, you still are sentient.

Bob

A better example might be when you are asleep and not dreaming. Why do you wake up when someone calls your name? Are you sentient when you are unconscious?

[shuttlt]

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness
Oh! For God's sake..... a sense of wonder I've got, a sense of the infinite mystery of the universe ditto... what I don't have is infinite patience for discussing whether or not, by means unknown, consciousness might, very rarely, have been reincarnated in a way that cannot be detected. People can believe in this, invisible unicorns, or whatever if they want I'm just done listening to it.

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

[BobG]

Well here is what I said:


You have been speculating and using your "beliefs" to justify your conclusions. Your "thoughts" are not new or original. How about some show of intelligence on your part?

Go ahead and insult me if you wish. This is part of the Internet. I've been here for years.
:boggled:

I haven't said anything to justify my conclusions/beliefs/theories etc. I'm just stating what they are. I haven't tried to convince anybody of the veracity of these beliefs.

Secondly, I am not trying to be new or original. If you have heard this before, that's ok by me.

It only shows that there is at least one other person in this world who agrees with me.

Please realize that I'm a bit sensitive to what I say in these forums because some assh*** just kicked me out of one with no option available to return. I also enjoyed that forum.

Thankfully I found another on the same subject which is just as good. In fact, many of the posters are the same and a couple of the guys could not understand how I got kicked out without a warning or being put on probation.

Bob

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Ah, wait. Is this the problem? To try to figure out what you meant, I looked at "sentience" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience).



To me, to be sentient means to be conscious, nothing more!

I am sentient, you are sentient, my dog is sentient and quite smart I may add.

Bob

[BobG]

Not if you have tinnitus.

True. But you know what I meant!



A better example might be when you are asleep and not dreaming. Why do you wake up when someone calls your name? Are you sentient when you are unconscious?

No!

[BobG]

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

How could I be a troll? A troll stays anonymous.

I'm one of the few people in these forums that uses his real name.

If I wanted to hide, I would use a "user name" but why do that?

You are probably using your real name and I like that. That's the way it should be.

By the way, this whole thread started because I wanted to say something about myself as a new member of this forum because I think it's a good idea to know where we are coming from. I started this line of thinking in the welcome forum and it was suggested that I take it to the appropriate forum. So here I am.

Bob

[Hokulele]

Let me interject a little bit of trivia here.

Richard Feynam, one of the giants in the field of Physics and specifically Quantum Mechanics, did not understand Quantum Mechanics! He said so!!

This does not surprise me because I don't believe that it is possible for humans to understand Quantum Mechanics. We accept it and work out the mathematics of it but a true understanding such as the concept of velocity (mph) is way beyond us.

Bob Guercio


http://commonsensequantum.blogspot.com/2009/06/feynman-and-what-comes-next.html

[Marduk]

Oh! For God's sake..... a sense of wonder I've got, a sense of the infinite mystery of the universe ditto... what I don't have is infinite patience for discussing whether or not, by means unknown, consciousness might, very rarely, have been reincarnated in a way that cannot be detected. People can believe in this, invisible unicorns, or whatever if they want I'm just done listening to it.

Trolls all over the internet are going hungry. I'm off.

so Einsteins a troll now ?
hmmm transference I reckon
;)

[shuttlt]

Bob,

I'm not sure having a plausible looking name is a good indication of whether you are a troll. I apologise if I've bitten your head of without cause. As I said, you are welcome to believe in whatever you want. When you're ready to start a topic and discuss something I promise to be polite and respectful.

[Marduk]

How could I be a troll? A troll stays anonymous.

he was responding to my post which was actually a quote from Einstein.
which proves the point I was making rather well
lol
:p

[Fnord]

I haven't said anything to justify my conclusions/beliefs/theories etc. I'm just stating what they are. I haven't tried to convince anybody of the veracity of these beliefs.

.
That much is glaringly obvious, so I'll repeat the question I asked 4 pages ago, and which you have so far completely ignored.

Upon what evidence do you base your claims?

If all that you are doing is stating a belief or an opinion, then say so. Yet you seem to be claiming that reincarnation is real without providing any valid supporting evidence - subjective beliefs and opinions are not evidence. And just because dozens, hundred, or even millions of people can be found to share your belief or opinion, that does not make your belief or opinion any more valid.

Claims must be supported by valid evidence, and extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinarily valid evidence. Claiming that reincarnation is real is making an extraordinary claim - it defies any known law of science, and there has been no valid evidence to support the claim.

(Ordinary claims can be supported by known physical laws, or reasonable extrapolation therefrom, or a repeatably verifiable demonstration of the claim itself. Reincarnation does not fit the definition of an ordinary claim.)

[Xulld]

Critical thinking begins with asking yourself why you hold a belief, and if no rational reason exists, then it would be irrational to continue to hold such a belief, and thus to be a skeptical critical thinker one would abandon as many irrational thoughts as possible.

IMHO.

[shuttlt]

he was responding to my post which was actually a quote from Einstein.
which proves the point I was making rather well
lol
:p
I was responding to both of you, the troll part was aimed at Bob... perhaps I could have been clearer. Anyway, I'll bite. What was the point you were making by your Einstein quote?

[BobG]

.
That much is glaringly obvious, so I'll repeat the question I asked 4 pages ago, and which you have so far completely ignored.

Upon what evidence do you base your claims?

If all that you are doing is stating a belief or an opinion, then say so.

It's a belief and an opinion. I'm not sure where you have been but I have been saying this throughout this thread!

Bob

[BobG]

Critical thinking begins with asking yourself why you hold a belief, and if no rational reason exists, then it would be irrational to continue to hold such a belief, and thus to be a skeptical critical thinker one would abandon as many irrational thoughts as possible.

IMHO.

I certainly don't agree with this logic.

Louis Pasteur had a belief in the germ theory of desease and it certainly wasn't logical and rational at the time. Imagine if he had abandoned this belief.

The annuls of history are chock full of people that have held on to a belief deemed by others to be illogical and irrational.

Copernicus comes to mind! Or should he have abandoned the theory that all planets, including the earth, revolved around the sun.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Hey! I just noticed. I am a scholar in this forum!

What did I do to be so worthy of such a title?

Bob

[Denver]

I certainly don't agree with this logic.

Louis Pasteur had a belief in the germ theory of desease and it certainly wasn't logical and rational at the time. Imagine if he had abandoned this belief.

The annuls of history are chock full of people that have held on to a belief deemed by others to be illogical and irrational.

Copernicus comes to mind! Or should he have abandoned the theory that all planets, including the earth, revolved around the sun.

Bob Guercio

And this brings us to the scientific method.

It is certainly fine and good to ask questions and propose theories. But how do you tell which ones are worth while, and which ones are fantasy?

One answer is, you don't care which are worth while and which ones are fantasy. In which case, there's not much to really discuss here.

The other is, you gather more evidence, propose and perform tests, and modify your theories and make new conclusions based on the results.

Pasteur and Copernicus took these paths. Even if what they proposed was further modified in the future, that is a continuance of the scientific method over time: new conclusions based on new evidence and results.

[BobG]

The other is, you gather more evidence, propose and perform tests, and modify your theories and make new conclusions based on the results.



I have no idea where to begin performing tests for my theories. Does that mean that I should abandon them?

Perhaps someone smarter than I am will know how to go about testing these theories but I don't have the foggiest idea where to begin.

Bob Guercio

[Denver]

I have no idea where to begin performing tests for my theories. Does that mean that I should abandon them?

Perhaps someone smarter than I am will know how to go about testing these theories but I don't have the foggiest idea where to begin.

Bob Guercio

You're right - that seems to make it a bit difficult to tell them from fantasy and make-believe, doesn't it?

[BobG]

You're right - that seems to make it a bit difficult to tell them from fantasy and make-believe, doesn't it?

At this point in time, string theory is not testable. However, that seems to be the most promising route to take in the field of Physics.

Should we abandon string theory?

Bob Guercio

[Denver]

At this point in time, string theory is not testable. However, that seems to be the most promising route to take in the field of Physics.

Should we abandon string theory?

Bob Guercio

I have little knowledge about string theory, and make no claims of it myself. However, I assume it is a theory proposed to explain observable phenomena. Should it be abandoned? Maybe, if it doesn't match observations, and better theories supplant it.

What observations do you think support reincarnation that can't be explained better by other theories?

[BobG]

What observations do you think support reincarnation that can't be explained better by other theories?

No observations support reincarnation; however, I will not abandon my deeply
held beliefs which I have gone to great lengths to articulate.

Bob Guercio

[Pup]

To me, to be sentient means to be conscious, nothing more!

I am sentient, you are sentient, my dog is sentient and quite smart I may add.

Well then I just don't get it. If one person (or dog) is reincarnated into another, what similarity is there between the consciousness of the two, or what difference is there between that pair and any other random pair?

If the answer is "absolutely nothing except that they're reincarnated," then it's simply empty word games, and in that usage "reincarnated" means nothing.

If the answer is something like the same pink unicorn breathed them to life in the spirit world years apart, then the answer may be untestable and required to be taken on faith alone, but at least I'd understand that "reincarnated" is being used to mean something.

[BobG]

If one person (or dog) is reincarnated into another, what similarity is there between the consciousness of the two

Both have the same consiousness!

It's pretty obvious at this point that we are plowing over the same ground again and again. There are millions of ways of asking the same questions and millions of ways of answering the same questions.

I will continue to read this thread in case something new comes up that I may want to comment on. Otherwise, I will no longer post to this thread.

I thank you for listening and critically commenting on my beliefs.

Bob Guercio

[Fnord]

It's a belief and an opinion. I'm not sure where you have been but I have been saying this throughout this thread!

.
Well, that clears it all up. It also makes further discussion irrelevent, since one person's beliefs and opinions are as good as any other ... unless, of course, those opinions and beliefs can be acted upon in a manner that is both practical and beneficial for all.

[Ferguson]

No observations support reincarnation; however, I will not abandon my deeply
held beliefs which I have gone to great lengths to articulate.

Bob Guercio

So you believe it just because you want to, and it comforts you. Do you have any interest at all in reality?

[Hokulele]

The same consciousness?

Heck, I don't have the same consciousness I had at age 18. A stroke, a couple of glasses of wine, or other changes to my brain and/or its chemistry would change my consciousness yet again.

[Marduk]

I was responding to both of you, the troll part was aimed at Bob... perhaps I could have been clearer. Anyway, I'll bite. What was the point you were making by your Einstein quote?

that in the midst of scepticism there is still room for poetical belief
surely we all believe in that......
and that the more sceptical of woo we become, surely there is a balance and we need to offset our orthodox rigidity with something less solid ?

or if you don't, try explaining to your preferred partner why you love them in realistic sceptical terms and watch what happens
;)

[Marduk]

I have little knowledge about string theory, and make no claims of it myself. However, I assume it is a theory proposed to explain observable phenomena. Should it be abandoned? Maybe, if it doesn't match observations, and better theories supplant it.

What observations do you think support reincarnation that can't be explained better by other theories?

"string theory" has already been abandoned as a hypothesis, I don't think it ever made it as far as a real scientific theory,

"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing." -- Jim Holt

still not taking anything away from the O.P's opinion, it was just a bad example
;)

[Marduk]

Both have the same consiousness!

It's pretty obvious at this point that we are plowing over the same ground again and again. There are millions of ways of asking the same questions and millions of ways of answering the same questions.

I will continue to read this thread in case something new comes up that I may want to comment on. Otherwise, I will no longer post to this thread.

I thank you for listening and critically commenting on my beliefs.

Bob Guercio

I think its pretty clear Bob from all the anecdotal cases that the same consciousness is not shared. Thats kinda the whole point. We are after all the sum of our experiences, that is what makes us who we are, if we don't share the exact same experiences in the exact same context then we aren't the same are we !

:D

[LightningStrike]

Bob reincarnation is a doctrinal falsehood. It implies that the person is going to come back. Re-occurence is what happens and it is life that re-occurs. I am life in this body as you are there in your body. All the self knowledge gained is not lost and recurs in another form as consciousness.

[ferj]

Bob, I know psychic powers exist, :duck: Evolution seems to have solved the problem of survival. Why recycle used up life when it can produce billions of humans the natural way? On the other hand, life is stranger than a lot of us would like it to be.

[BobG]

Why recycle used up life when it can produce billions of humans the natural way?

What I have said seems quite natural to me.

[Denver]

Bob, I know psychic powers exist, :duck: Evolution seems to have solved the problem of survival. Why recycle used up life when it can produce billions of humans the natural way? On the other hand, life is stranger than a lot of us would like it to be.

Welcome back ferj. I remember you from the practice run for the $1 million. You were trying to confirm your psychic beliefs by predicting the UK lotto numbers. Ever win that?

[BobG]

You were trying to confirm your psychic beliefs by predicting the UK lotto numbers.

This I don't believe in!

Bob

[ferj]

Welcome back ferj. I remember you from the practice run for the $1 million. You were trying to confirm your psychic beliefs by predicting the UK lotto numbers. Ever win that?

No, but I can try again if you like :)

[arthwollipot]

If consciousness is what is reincarnated, but personality and memories may be different?

If personality and memories are not retained in reincarnation, what is?

[Akhenaten]

Ka?

[LightningStrike]

If consciousness is what is reincarnated, but personality and memories may be different?

If personality and memories are not retained in reincarnation, what is?

Consciousness is the blank slate and yet contains the self knowledge accrued through countless recurrences. The process of living and dying produces self knowledge which is the knowledge of man and woman's real origins. It can't be known or reflected on yet directs my whole life. All the circumstances that I require to become more intelligent happen. Intelligence is measured as the ability to lead an untroubled life.

What reincarnates is emotion. I know that I am not emotion but emotion does arise and gets perpetuated by my ignorance of it. I give it life or experience which is what it is looking for. Yes, it is an entity and when I die all the emotion I have made lives on in the psyche looking to reincarnate through anybody, anytime.

[LissaLysikan]

I would think that would leave an imprint on whatever is reincarnated, which, were it of some value, would be noticeable to yourself or others. If it has no effect, how can it be claimed to exist/happen?

[Tapio]

Hi ya'll! Since reincarnation is something I held as a deeply meaingful belief for about 15 years (not anymore), I think the subject is fascinating.

Bob, I would like to ask you a question. You've answered quite clearly why you believe in the possibility of reincarnation at the moment. However, your post...

No observations support reincarnation; however, I will not abandon my deeply
held beliefs which I have gone to great lengths to articulate.

...makes you sound rigid and fanatic in your belief (which you admit to not being supported in any reasonable way). Is this something you are consciously aiming at? To create yourself a system of beliefs which can not, and will not be altered, no matter what?

Now, I'm definitely not trying to sound hostile, sorry if I do. I'm genuinely interested in what makes you hold on so hard to something you acknowledge not necessarily deserving to be held on to. I understand it demands great courage to accept you've been, quite frankly, wasting your mental capacity for the last years in creating a fairytale. But this forum is full of people (myself included) who have actually done exactly that, accepted the fact as it is. And hey, here we still are!:)

I can't speak for others, but at least for me realising the true nature of my belief in reincarnation was, after the initial embarrassment, frustration, even despair, something giving me a whole new perspective on how my mind functions. And after studying a lot more on the subject I now think in the end we're not all that different in these aspects. It's natural to form this kind of belief, it's okay to hold on to it as if your life was depending on it, but what makes us rise to a new level of being human, is when we honestly confront ourselves, find out why the things we base our belief on aren't really worth it, acknowledge our deficiencies and still, in the face of it all, take the leap of (letting go of) faith.

Bob, to me you sound like you're actually on the fence regarding this belief. I want to use this small space here to encourage you to jump.

[BobG]

Consciousness is the blank slate

Exactly. And it is the blank slate that gets reincarnated.

Thank you. I now have another way of expressing my thoughts.

Bob

[BobG]

Bob, I would like to ask you a question. You've answered quite clearly why you believe in the possibility of reincarnation at the moment. However, your post...



...makes you sound rigid and fanatic in your belief (which you admit to not being supported in any reasonable way).

On the contrary, I am very flexible and not at all rigid. In fact, I am quite liberal in my views and outlook on life.

This happens to be what I believe now but I certainly will change my views in the future, if necessary.

I believe that I expressed myself as being rather rigid because it seemed to be such an uphill battle. I was alone against everyone with absolutely no support from others.

At this point, I am happy to see that there are others who believe in reincarnation stepping up to the plate but, obviously, none of them share my exact beliefs.

By the way, how did you highlight the text in my message?

Bob

[Tapio]

@ LightningStrike (btw, cool avatar:))

What you're saying sounds sooo familiar from countless sessions of different 'spiritual masters' I've encountered. Sounds like you're talking of ideas derived from two basic Hindu concepts of:

sa(m/n)skara

Sanskaras are impressions derived from past experiences that form desires that influence future responses and behavior (karma).

and

vasana (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Vasana/id/62670)

vasana: (Sanskrit) "Subconscious inclination." From vas, "living, remaining." The subliminal inclinations and habit patterns which, as driving forces, color and motivate one's attitudes and future actions. Vasanas are the conglomerate results of subconscious impressions (samskaras) created through experience. Samskaras, experiential impressions, combine in the subconscious to form vasanas, which thereafter contribute to mental fluctuations, called vritti. The most complex and emotionally charged vasanas are found in the dimension of mind called the subsubconscious, or vasana chitta.

These concepts are, of course, thoroughly religious with not a shred of evidence-base, and as such quite impossible to discuss in a rational manner. However, if you're talking about something different, please elaborate. I'd be intrigued to hear the how's and why's behind your belief.

[Tapio]

On the contrary, I am very flexible and not at all rigid. In fact, I am quite liberal in my views and outlook on life.

Great! But I'm confused as to how this is compatible with you're claiming you are not about to alter your belief regarding reincarnation...

This happens to be what I believe now but I certainly will change my views in the future, if necessary.

Okay...so, let's play a little mindgame. What would you consider robust enough evidence to base disregarding the belief in reincarnation on?

I believe that I expressed myself as being rather rigid because it seemed to be such an uphill battle. I was alone against everyone with absolutely no support from others.

At this point, I am happy to see that there are others who believe in reincarnation stepping up to the plate but, obviously, none of them share my exact beliefs.

I can't even begin to imagine how hostile this forum must sometimes feel to somebody honestly believing in stuff most of the other members would rather eradicate from the face of the earth (exaggeration intended :p). My sympathies are with you. But! In the same sentence I must comment, that I know of no other place on the internet where to find such intellectual and worthy of thought views of such a variety of topics. So I hope the possible hostility you experience is in some ways compensated by the definite inspiration and learning, and you stick around!:)


By the way, how did you highlight the text in my message?

In the toolbar of the 'advanced' reply to thread-box you find a small highlited 'hilite' text. Just choose the part of text you wish to highlite and click on it!

[LissaLysikan]

Exactly. And it is the blank slate that gets reincarnated.

Thank you. I now have another way of expressing my thoughts.

Bob

Um - what is the difference between the blank slate of a first incarnation and the blank slate of a reincarnation?

[BobG]

That was a mistake to say! It isn't me.

Regarding your other questions, I feel as if I am going around and around in circles explaining myself so please read all my previous posts in this thread.

Bob

[BobG]

Um - what is the difference between the blank slate of a first incarnation and the blank slate of a reincarnation?

I have no idea what this means?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by LissaLysikan http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4989011#post4989011)
Um - what is the difference between the blank slate of a first incarnation and the blank slate of a reincarnation?
I have no idea what this means?

That's the point at which I got stuck and gave up trying to understand too. I mean, if you can't understand the meaning of the question, and I/we can't begin to understand the concept without an answer to the question, I don't know how to proceed.

[Mashuna]

Um - what is the difference between the blank slate of a first incarnation and the blank slate of a reincarnation?

I have no idea what this means?

Well, as I read it, it's the following:

You've said that you don't think everyone is reincarnated. So if a new baby isn't a reincarnation of someone else he/she is a blank slate.

Now, you don't think that reincarnation means having any memory of a past life, or being the same person, or even the same species. The only thing that is reincarnated is something you call 'consciousness'. You've also said that the reincarnated consciousness is this blank slate - nothing carried forward from the previous life in terms of knowledge, experience or memory.

So the question LissaLysikan asks is, what is the difference between an original blank slate and a reincarnated blank slate? What possible method is there for telling them apart?

[LightningStrike]

These concepts are, of course, thoroughly religious with not a shred of evidence-base, and as such quite impossible to discuss in a rational manner. However, if you're talking about something different, please elaborate. I'd be intrigued to hear the how's and why's behind your belief.

I had a master who didn't use eastern language. He was western a God realised man of no belief or tradition. He could describe the truth of life which is concerned with Love, Life, Death, Truth and God.

We are all concerned with that. I can't go beyond my own experience and describe reality beyond what I have realised so I can't discuss it but if you wish to read yet another spiritual master then look for Barry Long. If you are looking for the truth without belief you will have it reflected by him. In self knowledge you already know the truth you just need a clear reflection.

[Mashuna]

I had a master who didn't use eastern language. He was western a God realised man of no belief or tradition. He could describe the truth of life which is concerned with Love, Life, Death, Truth and God.

We are all concerned with that. I can't go beyond my own experience and describe reality beyond what I have realised so I can't discuss it but if you wish to read yet another spiritual master then look for Barry Long. If you are looking for the truth without belief you will have it reflected by him. In self knowledge you already know the truth you just need a clear reflection.

Wiki have the following quote from Barry Long, which they describe as 'quintessential'.

It (the Big Bang theory) would be really effective, and an astonishing scientific advance, if the theorising observer realised that as intelligence he is reducing all that he is seeing and imagining, including himself, to within a split second of the non-existent now-point in his own brain, the point of reality and the emergent point of the whole universe as far as man and sense can perceive it. Then the theory would be absolutely correct.
The scientist would not be concerned with a fabricated beginning billions of years ago but with himself, intelligence, being only a split second away from the pre-existent state, his own and everything's source - the motionless pure intellect or consciousness. Universe and man as intelligence would then unite in one sublime realised truth and the way would be open for scientific entry into the new epoch of time and knowledge beyond light-speed, sense and past.[25]

The hardest part of becoming a spiritual master is learning to keep a straight face.

[Tapio]

That was a mistake to say! It isn't me.

Regarding your other questions, I feel as if I am going around and around in circles explaining myself so please read all my previous posts in this thread.

Bob

Um...who is this directed to?

[Tapio]

I have no idea what this means?

:boggled: It's a very clear question. But before answering it you first have to decide which reincarnation-school-of-thought you endorse. You earlier stated you believe a human can reincarnate as a dog. How about plants and minerals? Also, do you believe this reincarnation has an aim of some sort, and if it does, who decides it?

[BobG]

:boggled: It's a very clear question. But before answering it you first have to decide which reincarnation-school-of-thought you endorse. You earlier stated you believe a human can reincarnate as a dog. How about plants and minerals? Also, do you believe this reincarnation has an aim of some sort, and if it does, who decides it?

Plants and minerals don't have a consciousness so they cannot be part of reincarnation.

No aim of any sort. Totally random.

[IXP]

Um - what is the difference between the blank slate of a first incarnation and the blank slate of a reincarnation?
All blank slates actually are not blank, they have a serial number. A new blank slate has a serial number that has not been used before, wheareas a reincarnated one reuses a serial number of a previous one.

IXP

[Gord_in_Toronto]

All blank slates actually are not blank, they have a serial number. A new blank slate has a serial number that has not been used before, wheareas a reincarnated one reuses a serial number of a previous one.

IXP

Not true if they have been low level formatted. :p

[Tapio]

Plants and minerals don't have a consciousness so they cannot be part of reincarnation.

No aim of any sort. Totally random.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now, I'm starting to be fairly confused by your definition (and lack of one) of reincarnation. Seems there's absolutely nothing even remotely tangible in the way you construct your belief (which doesn't mean it couldn't be believed, but it sure makes it hard for 'an outsider to your head' to grasp).

There is one question already asked, but left unanswered that might clear things up a bit. Since you couldn't understand it the way LissaLysikan asked it, I'll try to rephrase what I think s/he was trying to ask.

What is your belief of the difference of a consciousness the first time it is formed with a consciousness after reincarnation? This leads me to ask more. Do you believe that the possibly reincarnated consciousness has a 'beginning', as in 'the first time' it it incarnated? If not, how do you believe a consciousness begins and where does consciousness end if it's not reincarnated?

Mind you, these are sincere questions, which I don't think you've answered before in this thread. Thanks.

[arthwollipot]

I'm interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question too, but something is confusing me.

Bob, you've said that you've come to this conclusion through long years of consideration, and that you're not about to abandon this belief. My question is simply why?

What can possibly distinguish a world in which Bob's version of reincarnation does happen from one in which it doesn't? How does Bob's version of reincarnation provide any information on how the universe works? What use is Bob's belief? What purpose does it serve? How... why... gaah! I just don't understand how or why someone might come to such a strong and firmly held conclusion about something that has no discernable effect on the universe as a whole! I don't get it. I don't get it at all. It confuses me.

I'm not contributing to the discussion here, so I'll go back to lurking and see whether any of my confusions are alleviated.

[BobG]

I'm interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question too, but something is confusing me.

Bob, you've said that you've come to this conclusion through long years of consideration, and that you're not about to abandon this belief. My question is simply why?

What can possibly distinguish a world in which Bob's version of reincarnation does happen from one in which it doesn't? How does Bob's version of reincarnation provide any information on how the universe works? What use is Bob's belief? What purpose does it serve? How... why... gaah! I just don't understand how or why someone might come to such a strong and firmly held conclusion about something that has no discernable effect on the universe as a whole! I don't get it. I don't get it at all. It confuses me.

I'm not contributing to the discussion here, so I'll go back to lurking and see whether any of my confusions are alleviated.

I don't get any of these questions!

For example, asking "What use is Bob's belief?"

I mean really! What do you mean?

Bob

[arthwollipot]

I don't get any of these questions!

For example, asking "What use is Bob's belief?"

I mean really! What do you mean?

BobI mean, does your belief actually tell us anything about the world? Other than, of course, the fact that you believe it. I don't see why you've spend so much intellectual capital on this.

Furthermore, I'm still interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question. Is there any way to tell the difference between a consciousness that hasn't been reincarnated and one that has? If not, then how can there be a distinction between the two?

[BobG]

I mean, does your belief actually tell us anything about the world? I don't see why you've spend so much intellectual capital on this.

Of course. It tells you that reincarnation is a possibility and it explains what reincarnation means to me.

Intellectual capital doesn't get used up like gasoline so why worry about it. If nothing else, it's cerebral exercize which is always beneficial.

If you mean why do I spend my time on this, I enjoy it and it's fun.


Furthermore, I'm still interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question. Is there any way to tell the difference between a consciousness that hasn't been reincarnated and one that has? If not, then how can there be a distinction between the two?

There is no way to tell the difference between a new state and a reincarnated state.

I don't know what you mean by the second part of your question? It is what it is!

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Thanks for the clarification.

What is your belief of the difference of a consciousness the first time it is formed with a consciousness after reincarnation? .

Considering only the blank state, there is no difference.




Do you believe that the possibly reincarnated consciousness has a 'beginning', as in 'the first time' it it incarnated?


Yes.

[shuttlt]

So you just choose to believe this. You have no reason to believe it other than you choose to. Were there any other beliefs you thought you might choose, but decided not to?

[Tapio]

Considering only the blank state, there is no difference.

So to cut it short, your belief is that the only aspect of us that might reincarnate is our consciousness, which you call 'the blank state'. And now you say you believe there is no way to differentiate a 'new blank state' from a reincarnated one. Fine.

But in order for you to even begin constructing a belief in reincarnation, you must have some idea of how to differentiate these two kinds of 'blank states'. Since you don't believe that the 'blank states' can be told apart, there must then be something else than this 'blank state' which enables you to differentiate a 'new blank state' from a reincarnated one (which I think the highlighted word in your post also implies).

What do you believe this 'something else' is?

[Fishstick]

As an example of these animals that I am referring to, there is a species of birds or butterflies, I don't remember exactly, that migrate by orienting themselves with the earths magnetic field.

I cannot give you any details on the specifics of these senses that I'm talking about because they have not yet been detected and I certainly am not able to use mine if it exists.


Bob Guercio

There is nothing paranormal about this sense. The animal (a pigeon, for example) has a small but concentrated amount of magnetite in the beak, which is used for orientation during migration. Bees and some tortoises do this too.

[Tyooby]

Bob, I can understand that people believe in reincarnation because they (think) they have recollections of past lives, or because it makes sense to them because it explains certain aspects of reality (e.g. karma). But apparently neither one of these reasons for believing in reincarnation applies to you. The only other reason for believing I can think of is indoctrination. Is this the case with you? Have you started believing in the existence of reincarnation because someone has convinced you it exists? Or do you have another reason?

[BobG]

So you just choose to believe this. You have no reason to believe it other than you choose to. Were there any other beliefs you thought you might choose, but decided not to?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean?

People choose religions for all sorts of mindless reasons, in most cases because they were raised and brainwashed in it. Others choose a religion because they marry somebody of that faith.

I've thought about reincarnation and many other things for years and it is my conclusion that it is possible to be reincarnated although it is a very rare event.

Simply put:

In the year 1500 I wasn't here.

In the year 2000 I am here.

Presuming that I don't get reincarnated in the next 500 years, in the year 2500, I will not be here.

So I ask you, from my perspective and my perspective only, what is the difference between 1500 and 2500.

Absulutely none! So if it happened before 2000, it could happen again after 2000.

Bob

[EHocking]

I've thought about reincarnation and many other things for years and it is my conclusion that it is possible to be reincarnated although it is a very rare event.

Simply put:

In the year 1500 I wasn't here.

In the year 2000 I am here.

Presuming that I don't get reincarnated in the next 500 years, in the year 2500, I will not be here.

So I ask you, from my perspective and my perspective only, what is the difference between 1500 and 2500.

Absulutely none! So if it happened before 2000, it could happen again after 2000.

BobSo... your proof of reincarnation is that you didn't exist 500 years ago and you won't exist in 500 years time? :covereyes

In that case, using that logic:

I am God.

[BobG]

But in order for you to even begin constructing a belief in reincarnation, you must have some idea of how to differentiate these two kinds of 'blank states'.

Why?

[BobG]

There is nothing paranormal about this sense. The animal (a pigeon, for example) has a small but concentrated amount of magnetite in the beak, which is used for orientation during migration. Bees and some tortoises do this too.

Agreed! However, if we have a sense of this nature which I tend to think we do, it is too underdeveloped to be detected but it is suffieciently developed to be used by some of us now and then.

By the way, I am not one of them.

Bob

[BobG]

Bob, I can understand that people believe in reincarnation because they (think) they have recollections of past lives, or because it makes sense to them because it explains certain aspects of reality (e.g. karma). But apparently neither one of these reasons for believing in reincarnation applies to you. The only other reason for believing I can think of is indoctrination. Is this the case with you? Have you started believing in the existence of reincarnation because someone has convinced you it exists? Or do you have another reason?

No.

Nobody in my circle of assoiciates believe in reincarnation and, of course, nobody in my circle of friends agrees with me.

However, if I find anybody on this forum who agrees with me, I want to collaborate to help others to understand this.

Bob

[BobG]

So... your proof of reincarnation is that you didn't exist 500 years ago and you won't exist in 500 years time? :covereyes



Here we are plowing old ground again; however, I still feel that your response deserves a reply.

I've said it several times already that I have no proof of reincarnation!

Bob

[Tyooby]

However, if I find anybody on this forum who agrees with me, I want to collaborate to help others to understand this.

Bob

I think you should begin by defining what it is that reincarnates, and explain how you think it's possible and why it's plausible for this reincanation to take place.

[BobG]

I think you should begin by defining what it is that reincarnates, and explain how you think it's possible and why it's plausible for this reincanation to take place.

I've already done this to the best of my ability! Please reread all my previous posts on this subject.

If in the future I am able to present a better argument, I gladly will!

Bob Guercio

[Tyooby]

I've already done this to the best of my ability!

Then I don't think you'll find anybody who agrees with you, because I don't think your explanations make your version of reincarnation sound possible or plausible in any way.

For example, what's this blank slate/state or consciousness you speak of? How could it exist before you're born and after you die? What's it made of? How was it created? Does it have a purpose? Does it have an end? Why would it incarnate and reincarnate? What makes you think one blank state could be the reincarnation of another? They would have to have some common essence, that for example you and I don't share. Whats that essence? etc.

[Giggywig]

Agreed! However, if we have a sense of this nature which I tend to think we do, it is too underdeveloped to be detected but it is suffieciently developed to be used by some of us now and then.

By the way, I am not one of them.

Bob
You seemed to have defined both ESP and reincarnation to be completely untestable and unfalsifiable and then chosen to believe in them. Fine by me, not the choice I'd make but it's not my problem. But this seems to contradict that in the case of ESP. If it is "sufficiently developed te to be used by some people now and then", then it is absolutely testable. Yet, those who claim to have it can't pass scientific scrutiny. You are then left with the usual excuses for why it didn't work under controlled conditions, when the obvious reason is that it doesn't work at any time.

[BobG]

I think you should begin by defining what it is that reincarnates, and explain how you think it's possible and why it's plausible for this reincanation to take place.

I've already done this!

[BobG]

For example, what's this blank slate/state or consciousness you speak of? How could it exist before you're born and after you die? What's it made of? How was it created? Does it have a purpose? Does it have an end? Why would it incarnate and reincarnate? What makes you think one blank state could be the reincarnation of another? They would have to have some common essence, that for example you and I don't share. Whats that essence? etc.

The blank state that I am talking about is a totally empty brain. It has nothing to do with the potential of the brain; it is just totally empty. It may be small. It may be large. It may have little potential for abstract thinking. It may have a great deal of potential for abstract thinking. It may be that of a human. It may be that of a dog.

However, it is that of a sentient being.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Then I don't think you'll find anybody who agrees with you, because I don't think your explanations make your version of reincarnation sound possible or plausible in any way.

For example, what's this blank slate/state or consciousness you speak of? How could it exist before you're born and after you die?

It doesn't exist while you don't exist. It comes into being upon your first entry into the universe and it ceases to exist after you exit the universe. It could come back but it probably won't. I certainly am not depending upon it for myself.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

If it is "sufficiently developed te to be used by some people now and then", then it is absolutely testable. Yet, those who claim to have it can't pass scientific scrutiny.

Testing has not yet developed to a state sufficiently advanced to validate ESP. I believe that someday it will.

Another problem is there is a tremendous amount of fraud associated with ESP.

Bob

[BobG]

You seemed to have defined both ESP and reincarnation to be completely untestable and unfalsifiable and then chosen to believe in them.

I believe that I have defined reincarnation to be completely untestable. So be it! I can't help that!

I believe that I have defined ESP to be testable when the sophistication of testing reaches an appropriate level.

I am not sure what you mean by "unfalsifiable" but I've stated that a tremendous stumbling block to ESP verification is the fraud that is associated with it.

Bob

[Giggywig]

I believe that I have defined ESP to be testable when the sophistication of testing reaches an appropriate level.

I am not sure what you mean by "unfalsifiable" but I've stated that a tremendous stumbling block to ESP verification is the fraud that is associated with it.

Bob
What I mean by "unfalsifiable" is that it can't be shown to be false. You just need to claim that "the sophistication of testing has not reached an appropriate level." And on that point, what sophistication level is needed? If the effect is so small that our current level of sophistication can't find it, then how exactly does somebody who has ESP find out?

[BobG]

What I mean by "unfalsifiable" is that it can't be shown to be false. You just need to claim that "the sophistication of testing has not reached an appropriate level." And on that point, what sophistication level is needed? If the effect is so small that our current level of sophistication can't find it, then how exactly does somebody who has ESP find out?

A sufficient level of sophistication is needed to show that ESP does exist.

Currently, someone cannot find out if they have ESP; however, I believe that some people know that they have it.

A serious problem today is that we cannot separate these legitimate believers from the frauds.

Perhaps someday lie detecting may become sufficiently accurate so that this will not be a problem and scientists will be in a much better position to validate ESP.

Bob Guercio

[Tyooby]

The blank state that I am talking about is a totally empty brain. It has nothing to do with the potential of the brain; it is just totally empty. It may be small. It may be large. It may have little potential for abstract thinking. It may have a great deal of potential for abstract thinking. It may be that of a human. It may be that of a dog.

However, it is that of a sentient being.

Bob Guercio

I'm still unsure what exactly is being reincarnated. If by empty brain you mean a brain with no brainwaves, that brain has no consciousness at all. So there's no such thing as conscious beings with empty brains.

But even if there were, I would have had an empty brain, and you too, but we're not reincarnations of each other. So what do these hypothetical empty brains who are incarnations of each other have in common that your and my brain don't?

[Tyooby]

Perhaps someday lie detecting may become sufficiently accurate so that this will not be a problem and scientists will be in a much better position to validate ESP.

A sufficiently accurate lie detector couldn't prove ESP, it could only prove that some people believe they have ESP, which proves nothing.

[BobG]

I'm still unsure what exactly is being reincarnated. If by empty brain you mean a brain with no brainwaves, that brain has no consciousness at all. So there's no such thing as conscious beings with empty brains.


I mean a brain that has not had the opportunity to take in any information from the outside world. The outside world that I am talking about is not external to the womb but external to the body.

I would have had an empty brain, and you too, but we're not reincarnations of each other. So what do these hypothetical empty brains who are incarnations of each other have in common that your and my brain don't?

Nothing if they are not incarnations of either your brain or my brain. However, if they are, they have the same consciousness in common with each other.

[BobG]

A sufficiently accurate lie detector couldn't prove ESP, it could only prove that some people believe they have ESP, which proves nothing.

That is exactly what I meant and that would weed out the fraud making it much easier for the scientists who are doing the testing.

Bob

[shuttlt]

Bob,

Could you explain how you reasoned your way to this view of reincarnation. Given that you spent years thinking about it, I'm sure you can flesh it out a little.


People choose religions for all sorts of mindless reasons, in most cases because they were raised and brainwashed in it. Others choose a religion because they marry somebody of that faith.

On the whole they offer more reasons than you, even if it's just a feeling of being part of something.

I've thought about reincarnation and many other things for years and it is my conclusion that it is possible to be reincarnated although it is a very rare event.
Could you flesh out how you arrived at this conclusion about reincarnation?

[shuttlt]

That is exactly what I meant and that would weed out the fraud making it much easier for the scientists who are doing the testing.

Bob
Many people who claim to have ESP, dowsers in particular, appear to be sincere, but deluded.

Also, what happens if ESP/spirit guides/angels throw off lie detectors? That way you could have a lie detector that tests 100% in all other fields, but when it comes to asking people this question it keeps claiming people are lying. Given a hypothetical 100% accurate lie detector, I bet this issue would come up.

[Tyooby]

Nothing if they are not incarnations of either your brain or my brain. However, if they are, they have the same consciousness in common with each other.

As far as I know, there can be no consciousness without brain activity, or a brain, for that matter. So if two brains share the same consciousness, that would have to mean the brains are completely identical. But I guess your definition of consciousness is a different one than the usual.

[BobG]

Bob,


Could you flesh out how you arrived at this conclusion about reincarnation?

Not more than I have already!

[BobG]

But I guess your definition of consciousness is a different one than the usual.

Perhaps!

[shuttlt]

Not more than I have already!
So, what were you thinking about for the years you were thinking about this? Were you meditating or something?

[BobG]

Many people who claim to have ESP, dowsers in particular, appear to be sincere, but deluded.

I am not talking about these people. I am talking about the liars!




Also, what happens if ESP/spirit guides/angels throw off lie detectors? That way you could have a lie detector that tests 100% in all other fields, but when it comes to asking people this question it keeps claiming people are lying. Given a hypothetical 100% accurate lie detector, I bet this issue would come up.

This wouldn't happen because, in my opinion, spirits and angels do not exist.

[shuttlt]

This wouldn't happen because, in my opinion, spirits and angels do not exist.
How can that be if they keep throwing off the lie detector?

[BobG]

So, what were you thinking about for the years you were thinking about this? Were you meditating or something?

I've been thinking about everything my whole life and I am not into meditation.

I do believe in meditation but let's not go there!

Bob

[BobG]

How can that be if they keep throwing off the lie detector?

How could they possibility throw off a lie detector if they don't exist?

I maintain that they don't exist.

But let's not go there. I'm at the point where I would like to move on.

Bob

[Tyooby]

I'm at the point where I would like to move on.

Bob

Probably a good idea, because if you want to convince people on this forum, you'd need some solid evidence. I mean, if your goal is to find or gain people who share your beliefs, you're in the wrong place at a skeptics' forum. Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Even though we won't agree on your theories, it did find them somewhat interesting, and you seem like a pleasant person.

I do believe in meditation but let's not go there!
The benefits of meditation have been sufficiently proven, not a matter of belief but facts, as far as I'm concerned.

[BobG]

Even though we won't agree on your theories, it did find them somewhat interesting, and you seem like a pleasant person.

Thank you and likewise!


The benefits of meditation have been sufficiently proven, not a matter of belief but facts, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree and it's nice to leave on a note of agreement.

Bob

[BobG]

you're in the wrong place at a skeptics' forum.

Actually I don't think that I am because I am of the opinion that there is a tremendous amout of B.S. out there. And I hear you guys laughing!

By the way! Somewhere during the course of this thread, it was insinuated that I was a troll. I do believe that I've dispelled that thought!

A pain in the ass! Maybe! :):)

Bob

[gambling_cruiser]

Bob you havn't given any reason why you believe in reincarnation, so it's a unsubstantiated belief and of no use for anything.

[BobG]

Bob you havn't given any reason why you believe in reincarnation, so it's a unsubstantiated belief and of no use for anything.

I have addressed this several times in this thread!

Bob

[BobG]

Hey! I just graduated from a Scholar to a Thinker!

Bob

[RoboTimbo]

Hi Bob,

I don't recall if this was asked so sorry if it has been addressed: What is the point? You have no justification for your belief, you don't care about proving it to anyone, you can't seem to rationalize it even to yourself, you don't appear to be a troll, you aren't applying for the Million Dollar Challenge. So, why are you here sharing your unevidenced belief on a skeptic's board?

[BobG]

Hi Bob,

I don't recall if this was asked so sorry if it has been addressed: What is the point? You have no justification for your belief, you don't care about proving it to anyone, you can't seem to rationalize it even to yourself, you don't appear to be a troll, you aren't applying for the Million Dollar Challenge. So, why are you here sharing your unevidenced belief on a skeptic's board?

That is a good question. (no facetiousness intended)

I read about this forum and realized immediately that it was for me. Therefore, I posted an introductory message to introduce myself and proceeded to say something about myself.

Immediately, a dialogue started and it was suggested that we take the conversation elsewhere so here I am.

Believe me, this forum is for me and this whole thread is my introduction to you guys!

Bob Guercio

[RoboTimbo]

That is a good question. (no facetiousness intended)

I read about this forum and realized immediately that it was for me. Therefore, I posted an introductory message to introduce myself and proceeded to say something about myself.

Immediately, a dialogue started and it was suggested that we take the conversation elsewhere so here I am.

Believe me, this forum is for me and this whole thread is my introduction to you guys!

Bob Guercio

Ok, thanks for that. So, a follow-up question then. What do you hope to get out of this board with that kind of introduction?

[Giggywig]

Ok, thanks for that. So, a follow-up question then. What do you hope to get out of this board with that kind of introduction?

Attention?

[BobG]

Ok, thanks for that. So, a follow-up question then. What do you hope to get out of this board with that kind of introduction?

Then allow me to continue.

I am an atheist and i am very bitter regarding the effect that religion has had and continues to have on the world.

To begin with, there is no logic whatsoever to religion so the practice of religion is stifling to the intellect and demeans humanity. Additionally, the profit motive is very much at work regarding religion and you see it everywhere from the glitter and gold in Rome to the Evangelist tricking innocent believers out of their life savings. This is unconscionable and must be stopped and membership in this forum helps towards that goal.

Religion has caused more death and misery in the world than any other institution of man. Think of the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Holacaust, the Middle East, the Inquisition, etc., etc., etc. The downfall of religion, not that it will really ever happen, would be extremely benefit to humanity.

Unrelated to religion is the fact that I truly like to think deeply and I really enjoy a good intellectual discussion. This is obviously the place for that considering the wide range of message boards that you have. For example, I am currently participating in a discussion on Obama's health care initiative.

Also, I am quite liberal in my thinking and I'm sure that I am among my own kind.

I probably could go on and on but I think I'll stop here.

Thanks for letting me rant. By the way, I do think that I will have the opportunity to rant and rave on this forum from time to time and get it out of my system. I believe that the moderaters use a very high threshold before they interfere or close down a thread and that is how it should be.

This has turned out to be quite an introduction for me!

Bob Guercio

[RoboTimbo]

Then allow me to continue.

I am an atheist and i am very bitter regarding the effect that religion has had and continues to have on the world.

To begin with, there is no logic whatsoever to religion so the practice of religion is stifling to the intellect and demeans humanity. Additionally, the profit motive is very much at work regarding religion and you see it everywhere from the glitter and gold in Rome to the Evangelist tricking innocent believers out of their life savings. This is unconscionable and must be stopped and membership in this forum helps towards that goal.

Religion has caused more death and misery in the world than any other institution of man. Think of the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Holacaust, the Middle East, the Inquisition, etc., etc., etc. The downfall of religion, not that it will really ever happen, would be extremely benefit to humanity.

Unrelated to religion is the fact that I truly like to think deeply and I really enjoy a good intellectual discussion. This is obviously the place for that considering the wide range of message boards that you have. For example, I am currently participating in a discussion on Obama's health care initiative.

Also, I am quite liberal in my thinking and I'm sure that I am among my own kind.

I probably could go on and on but I think I'll stop here.

Thanks for letting me rant. By the way, I do think that I will have the opportunity to rant and rave on this forum from time to time and get it out of my system. I believe that the moderaters use a very high threshold before they interfere or close down a thread and that is how it should be.

This has turned out to be quite an introduction for me!

Bob Guercio

And thanks for that, too. Read the MA again to see what will get you sanctioned. Having an opinion isn't on the list.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I've been trying to hold my tongue, but it seems Bob is too good-natured to go off, so I'm gonna do it for him.

What is WRONG with you people?

Seriously. Everything you needed to know about this thread was concluded early on page one -- he has no evidence, is not making a defensible claim, and is merely stating an opinion -- as he was apparently invited to do in the Welcome thread.

Yet you drag the poor guy up and down the skeptical grinder, and then have the gall to accuse him of being an attention whore. He was ready to be done with this thread before the end of page one! It was you people who prolonged it.

Sorry for going off, but really -- the behavior exhibited by (some) skeptics on this thread has been frankly embarrassing. I hope Bob isn't put off by it. I suspect he might learn a lot -- and have a lot to give back -- if he can just get past those who are a little too full of themselves around here.

Okay. 'Nuff said. Now excuse me while I go loosen my shorts.

[Ferguson]

I've been trying to hold my tongue, but it seems Bob is too good-natured to go off, so I'm gonna do it for him.

What is WRONG with you people?

Seriously. Everything you needed to know about this thread was concluded early on page one -- he has no evidence, is not making a defensible claim, and is merely stating an opinion -- as he was apparently invited to do in the Welcome thread.


All members of the forum are able to post their opinion on the thread. Criticizing "religions" while professing one's own magical beliefs will surely invite members of a critical thinking forum to point out one's own hypocrisy. There are many good-natured Christians (or other theists) on this forum who "merely state an opinion," but that does not mean their opinions are somehow off-limits to criticism based on irrationality.

If I start a forum saying televisions work because leprechauns are inside them painting the back of the screen, does saying that I have no evidence mean anyone who criticizes the belief is suddenly "WRONG" and putting me through the "skeptical grinder?"

[BobG]

And thanks for that, too. Read the MA again to see what will get you sanctioned. Having an opinion isn't on the list.

Why have you talked about being sanctioned?

Have I said something wrong?

Bob

[RoboTimbo]

Why have you talked about being sanctioned?

Have I said something wrong?

Bob

Nope, not at all. You seemed to be worried about doing something wrong and I just wanted to reassure you that you hadn't. It also seemed that you hadn't read the Membership Agreement since you didn't know what "doing wrong" looked like so I referred you to the MA.

No worries, keep up the good work.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've been trying to hold my tongue, but it seems Bob is too good-natured to go off, so I'm gonna do it for him.

What is WRONG with you people?

Seriously. Everything you needed to know about this thread was concluded early on page one -- he has no evidence, is not making a defensible claim, and is merely stating an opinion -- as he was apparently invited to do in the Welcome thread.

Yet you drag the poor guy up and down the skeptical grinder, and then have the gall to accuse him of being an attention whore. He was ready to be done with this thread before the end of page one! It was you people who prolonged it.

Sorry for going off, but really -- the behavior exhibited by (some) skeptics on this thread has been frankly embarrassing. I hope Bob isn't put off by it. I suspect he might learn a lot -- and have a lot to give back -- if he can just get past those who are a little too full of themselves around here.

Okay. 'Nuff said. Now excuse me while I go loosen my shorts.

What the H are you blathering about?

Bob has only been asked questions any poster would be asked. The fact that he cannot provide any rational response is not our fault. :boggled:

[BobG]

Guys,

I have to ask a question here!

Don't you need people with opinions that differ from your own? How else are you going to be able to have critical discussions.

It seems to me that without differing opinions, all this forum would amount to is a very big "circle jerk".

I really couldn't understand why I was challenged for being here! That's about all that bothered me.

Bob Guercio

[RoboTimbo]

Guys,

I have to ask a question here!

Don't you need people with opinions that differ from your own? How else are you going to be able to have critical discussions.

It seems to me that without differing opinions, all this forum would amount to is a very big "circle jerk".

I really couldn't understand why I was challenged for being here! That's about all that bothered me.

Bob Guercio

What's the point of differing opinions if they can't be challenged?

[BobG]

Guys,

I have to ask a question here!

Don't you need people with opinions that differ from your own? How else are you going to be able to have critical discussions.

It seems to me that without differing opinions, all this forum would amount to is a very big "circle jerk".

I really couldn't understand why I was challenged for being here! That's about all that bothered me.

Bob Guercio

What's the point of differing opinions if they can't be challenged?


That is not what I said.

I said or implied very strongly that I did not mind being challenged for my opinions.

I said that I minded being challenged for being in this forum. It did not make me feel very welcome.

After all, it was intimated at one point that I was a troll!

Bob

[RoboTimbo]

That is not what I said.

I said or implied very strongly that I did not mind being challenged for my opinions.

I said that I minded being challenged for being in this forum. It did not make me feel very welcome.

After all, it was intimated at one point that I was a troll!

Bob

I welcome differing opinions and the people who bring them. Just be prepared to honestly defend your point of view. People can respect that.

[Ferguson]

Guys,

I have to ask a question here!

Don't you need people with opinions that differ from your own? How else are you going to be able to have critical discussions.

It seems to me that without differing opinions, all this forum would amount to is a very big "circle jerk".

I really couldn't understand why I was challenged for being here! That's about all that bothered me.

Bob Guercio

Of course, all manner of opinions are welcome, however you have to understand, if all anyone did when an opinion was stated, was say, "Yes, good point, maybe we do reincarnate," or "Yes, good point, maybe unicorns are real," or "Yes, good point, maybe Jesus is the only way," this forum would indeed amount to a very big "circle jerk."

It is the fact that opinions are challenged based on their justifications and logic that make this forum interesting and thought-provoking.

People who were suggesting this may be the wrong forum for you, were doing so based on your statement that, by your own admission, your beliefs were not based on evidence or arrived at through critical thinking. Since this is a forum based on critical thinking, they were merely stating you might enjoy yourself more on a different forum. I don't think anyone meant it personally, or to try and make you unwelcome. When people disagree with you, or ask why you believe something, you should not take it personally, it is the entire point of a forum like this to question our beliefs.

[BobG]

Just be prepared to honestly defend your point of view. People can respect that.

This I have done!

Bob

[BobG]

People who were suggesting this may be the wrong forum for you, were doing so based on your statement that, by your own admission, your beliefs were not based on evidence or arrived at through critical thinking.

Pardon me but this I never said.

My beliefs were arrived at through years of critical thinking!

Bob Guercio

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Pardon me but this I never said.

My beliefs were arrived at through years of critical thinking!

Bob Guercio

Bob,

What do you want from us?

Your beliefs are amusing but that's it.

You don't want to discuss or justify them. You do not seem open to any other ideas. My guess is that a great many people who have looked at this thread have never bothered to come back. Post away and put everyone on ignore -- you'll feel much better that way.

Gord

[BobG]

Bob,

What do you want from us?



I want you to encourage and not discourage differing ideas and opinions. It will make for a better and more interesting forum.

I know from private email that I have received regarding this thread that others of differing opinions stay away. You should try to reverse that and encourage them to come forward for serious and critical debate.

Thanks for patiently listening to me. This time I mean it when I say that this is my last post in this thread.

Enough said.

Bob

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I want you to encourage and not discourage differing ideas and opinions. It will make for a better and more interesting forum.

I know from private email that I have received regarding this thread that others of differing opinions stay away. You should try to reverse that and encourage them to come forward for serious and critical debate.

Thanks for patiently listening to me. This time I mean it when I say that this is my last post in this thread.

Enough said.

Bob


OK. Since you won't be participating, maybe I'll have the last word.

The whole damn forum is full of posts of "differing ideas and opinions". We love it for that reason. But, unless the poster is prepared to discuss the where, why and how, it does not help anyone to repeat over and over again that they believe without evidence and that we should shut up when we try to carry on a skeptical conversation. So far I gather that you are an atheist, believe in reincarnation and think "there may be something" to ESP. Whoopee. Innumerable posters have tried to understand why the latter two beliefs and all you repeat is the same thing.

In an earlier post I asked what you thought about "Last Tuesdayism" because it is similar in concept to your speculations. You did not reply. Maybe, it you were prepared to do so, you might have learned something. Or maybe not. :duck:

[arthwollipot]

Hey! I just graduated from a Scholar to a Thinker!

BobIt's based on your post count. You make a certain number of posts, and your title changes.

I've been trying to hold my tongue, but it seems Bob is too good-natured to go off, so I'm gonna do it for him.

What is WRONG with you people?

Seriously. Everything you needed to know about this thread was concluded early on page one -- he has no evidence, is not making a defensible claim, and is merely stating an opinion -- as he was apparently invited to do in the Welcome thread.

Yet you drag the poor guy up and down the skeptical grinder, and then have the gall to accuse him of being an attention whore. He was ready to be done with this thread before the end of page one! It was you people who prolonged it.

Sorry for going off, but really -- the behavior exhibited by (some) skeptics on this thread has been frankly embarrassing. I hope Bob isn't put off by it. I suspect he might learn a lot -- and have a lot to give back -- if he can just get past those who are a little too full of themselves around here.

Okay. 'Nuff said. Now excuse me while I go loosen my shorts.As a partial defense of my own posts here, I was merely curious. I did not understand how Bob came to the conclusion that he came to, and it fasicnated me. Hence I engaged in some "interrogation" in order simply to understand where he was coming from. I still don't understand how or why someone can decide that something exists that he has no evidence for and that has no discernable effect on the world whatsoever. It's like his choice of one mental state "belief in reincarnation" over another mental state "nonbelief in reincarnation" was totally arbitrary and not based on anything - except that he said that it was. I was curious to find out what the basis of the belief was. But since Bob doesn't want to discuss it further, I'm willing to chalk it up to one of life's mysteries.

[gambling_cruiser]

snip.

My beliefs were arrived at through years of critical thinking!

Bob Guercio

If that was true you should be able to show some critical thinking about reincarnation.
So far you seem hold tightly on a delusion with no reasoning at all.:D

[Ryan O'Dine]

All members of the forum are able to post their opinion on the thread. Criticizing "religions" while professing one's own magical beliefs will surely invite members of a critical thinking forum to point out one's own hypocrisy. There are many good-natured Christians (or other theists) on this forum who "merely state an opinion," but that does not mean their opinions are somehow off-limits to criticism based on irrationality.

If I start a forum saying televisions work because leprechauns are inside them painting the back of the screen, does saying that I have no evidence mean anyone who criticizes the belief is suddenly "WRONG" and putting me through the "skeptical grinder?"
There's a difference between questioning a person, and putting someone through a grinder. Bob's essentially been accused of being a troll and an attention whore. He's been repeatedly asked the same questions he answered early on page one. I understand people don't like the answers -- I don't like them either. Does that mean we have to hound him?

What the H are you blathering about?

Bob has only been asked questions any poster would be asked. The fact that he cannot provide any rational response is not our fault. :boggled:
He stated early on he could not provide a rational response to such questions. Why hound him about it? It's like a shark feeding frenzy -- people smell blood, they've got to have their piece.

Surely there's a line to be drawn between serious inquiry, and people merely piling on.

As a partial defense of my own posts here, I was merely curious. I did not understand how Bob came to the conclusion that he came to, and it fasicnated me. Hence I engaged in some "interrogation" in order simply to understand where he was coming from. I still don't understand how or why someone can decide that something exists that he has no evidence for and that has no discernable effect on the world whatsoever. It's like his choice of one mental state "belief in reincarnation" over another mental state "nonbelief in reincarnation" was totally arbitrary and not based on anything - except that he said that it was. I was curious to find out what the basis of the belief was. But since Bob doesn't want to discuss it further, I'm willing to chalk it up to one of life's mysteries.
My apologies to those who've been respectful and showed the minimum restraint here. I did not mean to blanket condemn everyone in this thread (though I admit that's pretty much what I did).

And hey, if I'm the only one who's been embarrassed by this thread, so be it. I'll take my thin skin and finger-wagging nannyism and go chase the younguns off somebody else's thread.

[shuttlt]

Ryan,

As the originator of the 'troll' comment, I thought I'd post. Bob has a very unusual posting style. Knowledgeable, and wide eyed and innocent at the same time. Time and again he makes beautifully constructed apparently self-contradictory statements. I find it hard to believe that somebody could post about having arrived at views after years of critical thinking, while claiming that their views are just beliefs that are not supported by any critical thinking, without at least some humorous intent.

He's most welcome to the forum of course. This place pisses me off sometimes for beating people up rather than helping to coax what coherent thoughts there may be out of them.

[Tapio]

There's a difference between questioning a person, and putting someone through a grinder. Bob's essentially been accused of being a troll and an attention whore. He's been repeatedly asked the same questions he answered early on page one. I understand people don't like the answers -- I don't like them either. Does that mean we have to hound him?

I feel 'hounding' is a bit exaggerating. Think of the usual response here...this thread has been pretty easy going ;). In any case I sure hope I'm not one of those you count as 'hounding', because I can totally second what arthwollipot said earlier about simpy being curious.

He stated early on he could not provide a rational response to such questions. Why hound him about it? It's like a shark feeding frenzy -- people smell blood, they've got to have their piece.

Glad to hear your POV. It's always good to remind oneself of the need to develop better communicating skills. But in this case I think it's more a question of somebody coming to a critical thinking forum claiming to have arrived to a conclusion based on critical thinking, and when asked about his thinking simply giving next to nothing to support his claim - either of the conclusion itself or the thinking which led to it. Of course people want to know more, and since it's simply words on a screen through which we're communicating, it's only natural some questions seem more or less like plain aggressive, even accusing.

Surely there's a line to be drawn between serious inquiry, and people merely piling on.

Possibly, and clearly the line you've drawn was crossed in this thread.

My apologies to those who've been respectful and showed the minimum restraint here. I did not mean to blanket condemn everyone in this thread (though I admit that's pretty much what I did).

As I stated before, at least I tried to be polite. If I failed, I also apologize. Not for asking questions related to topic and being persistent, but for sounding hostile. No intension of that.

And hey, if I'm the only one who's been embarrassed by this thread, so be it. I'll take my thin skin and finger-wagging nannyism and go chase the younguns off somebody else's thread.

Or maybe it's just that the topic of this this thread is something you can relate to? :)

------------------------

Anyway, Bob (hope you're still reading if not participating). I want to thank you for attempting the impossible. Trying to reasonably explain something completely irrational and arbitrary to a bunch of skeptics must be intimidating. But you tried, I give you credit for that.

However, in the end it all boils down to a fairly simple thing. I feel we might have a significantly different meaning for critical thinking. And this is something I'd like to have you pause on a bit. For if your intention is to stay discussing topics on these forums (which I hope you'll do) I suspect you'll unnecessarily run into just more conflicts and even bickering because of your strange version of the meaning for critical thinking.

In my experience, if you claim here you've done some critical thinking, people will expect you to have and provide a fairly clear, even systematic review of exactly that - your thinking. The subject doesn't really matter. You claim you've thought about something, even more so, you claim you've thought about it critically. So when questioned of your thoughts, to be taken seriously you might be expected to give something more as answers than simply 'this is what I believe'. Blind belief and critical thinking, as I see them, are rarely compatible. But I'm glad to learn more every day and wish you all the best on your journey.

Good luck!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There's a difference between questioning a person, and putting someone through a grinder. Bob's essentially been accused of being a troll and an attention whore. He's been repeatedly asked the same questions he answered early on page one. I understand people don't like the answers -- I don't like them either. Does that mean we have to hound him?


He stated early on he could not provide a rational response to such questions. Why hound him about it? It's like a shark feeding frenzy -- people smell blood, they've got to have their piece.

Surely there's a line to be drawn between serious inquiry, and people merely piling on.


My apologies to those who've been respectful and showed the minimum restraint here. I did not mean to blanket condemn everyone in this thread (though I admit that's pretty much what I did).

And hey, if I'm the only one who's been embarrassed by this thread, so be it. I'll take my thin skin and finger-wagging nannyism and go chase the younguns off somebody else's thread.

If he posts here, he will get responses.

Neither he or you can, or should be able to, control that. If he does not like the responses then he should stop responding. If he wants to set up his own blog and talk to himself, then no one will prevent him from doing so.
:(

[Ryan O'Dine]

Ryan,

As the originator of the 'troll' comment, I thought I'd post. Bob has a very unusual posting style. Knowledgeable, and wide eyed and innocent at the same time. Time and again he makes beautifully constructed apparently self-contradictory statements. I find it hard to believe that somebody could post about having arrived at views after years of critical thinking, while claiming that their views are just beliefs that are not supported by any critical thinking, without at least some humorous intent.

He's most welcome to the forum of course. This place pisses me off sometimes for beating people up rather than helping to coax what coherent thoughts there may be out of them.


I feel 'hounding' is a bit exaggerating. Think of the usual response here...this thread has been pretty easy going ;). In any case I sure hope I'm not one of those you count as 'hounding', because I can totally second what arthwollipot said earlier about simpy being curious.
...snip...
Thank you for these responses. It's nice to get level-headed replies even after I've gone off on a somewhat melodramatic rant.

If he posts here, he will get responses.

Neither he or you can, or should be able to, control that. If he does not like the responses then he should stop responding. If he wants to set up his own blog and talk to himself, then no one will prevent him from doing so.
:(
You are, of course, correct. And Bob has proven himself perfectly capable of responding here, so I'll leave him to it rather than hijack this thread any further.

[BobG]

Ryan,

I find it hard to believe that somebody could post about having arrived at views after years of critical thinking, while claiming that their views are just beliefs that are not supported by any critical thinking, without at least some humorous intent.



Shuttlt,

I do want to end this thread but how can I when my credibility is being assailed by your patent falseheads.

That said, kindly show me where I said that my beliefs are not supported by any critical thinking. Furthermore, kindly show me where I have contradicted myself.

I assure you that you can't and it is your credibility at this point which in doubt.

Bob Guercio

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,

I do want to end this thread but how can I when my credibility is being assailed by your patent falseheads.

That said, kindly show me where I said that my beliefs are not supported by any critical thinking.

Denver said:It sounds like you're in the same boat with reincarnation (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977424&postcount=5)
You said:I will say that there is no reason why you should take it seriously; however, I take my beliefs very seriously. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977494&postcount=9)
You say:I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980511&postcount=41)

So, if there is no reason why anybody else should take reincarnation seriously, yet you take your beliefs seriously, yet they are based on critical thinking. Are the reasons you take this stuff seriously a secret?

In post 49 you seem to imply that your views of reincarnation are based on you appreciation of history, yet in post 37 you say "the probability of reincarnation is so small that it may never have even happened."

You say your views are based on intuition etc... and you acknowledge they are not scientific, yet they are based on years of critical thinking. If you have been thinking critically, please tell us what the nature of those critical thoughts were, or are they a secret?


Furthermore, kindly show me where I have contradicted myself.

See above.

Bob, I'm happy to be proved wrong. I don't mean to beat you up and call you names, I just don't get where you're coming from.

[BobG]

Denver said:It sounds like you're in the same boat with reincarnation (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977424&postcount=5)
You said:I will say that there is no reason why you should take it seriously; however, I take my beliefs very seriously. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977494&postcount=9)
You say:I realize that my thoughts on reincarnation are not scientifically based but must that matter? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980511&postcount=41)

So, if there is no reason why anybody else should take reincarnation seriously, yet you take your beliefs seriously, yet they are based on critical thinking. Are the reasons you take this stuff seriously a secret?

In post 49 you seem to imply that your views of reincarnation are based on you appreciation of history, yet in post 37 you say "the probability of reincarnation is so small that it may never have even happened."

You say your views are based on intuition etc... and you acknowledge they are not scientific, yet they are based on years of critical thinking. If you have been thinking critically, please tell us what the nature of those critical thoughts were, or are they a secret?


See above.

Bob, I'm happy to be proved wrong. I don't mean to beat you up and call you names, I just don't get where you're coming from.

I can't believe this!

You claim to be a critical thinker and yet you present a sentence in a post that I made which is totally out of context.

Here is a copying and pasting of said post:

I will say that there is no reason why you should take it seriously; however, I take my beliefs very seriously.

People believe in religion. I don't. However, I'm not about to say that some of them don't take their beliefs seriously.

This gets me to another thought and for the moderators listening, please give me a warning before kicking me off of this forum. I'm still not sure of how far I can go here.

People may say that they believe in a religion but in most cases they don't. They know that they don't believe but they play the game because it is the politically correct thing to do.

Brainwashing also plays a role in all of this. The only way that humans can cast all logic aside, which is what they do regarding religion, is for one to have a religion pounded into them from birth. This is expecially true of those that really believe.

Death also plays a role in all of this. I do believe that most people enjoy life and do not want to die. Even those that don't enjoy life don't want to die which results from the survival instinct which most of us believe in. Thus, religion allows us to deny death and to believe that we are going to be around forever. Most religions talk of an afterlife so if there is an everlasting afterlife, there is no death.

Enough said until I know the limits of this forum because, at this point, I'm sure there are many reading this that don't like what I have to say.

I have discussed this in other forums and have gotten kicked out. I'm hoping that this is the forum for discussions of such sensitivity.

Bob Guercio

I trust that upon rereading this post you will understand exactly what I meant. If not, I'll be glad to explain it to you!

You made other claims in your post and I choose not to comment on them unless you want me to. If you want me to, I will but believe me I am going to rip your comments to shreds.

You cannot take a word here, a phrase there, another sentence here totally out of context and expect to make a valid argument for a belief.

Do I sound condescending? If not, it's only because you do not see me in person where you would witness my mannerisms and hear the inflections and tones in my speech.

Remember, I know what I wrote much better than you do; you didn't write it! I suggest that you back off in saying that I contradicted myself. You are in a hole and that hole promises to get much deeper and you will eventually be buried!

Bob Guercio

[Apology]

If there's no difference between a reincarnated person and a newly incarnated person, then what is the point of reincarnation in the first place? Reincarnation, under these particular restrictions, doesn't seem to accomplish anything.

In most religions that include reincarnation, the reincarnated spirit is in the process of perfecting itself or learning during each incarnation, so there is a point or a benefit to reincarnation. However, if you start over with a blank slate each lifetime, there doesn't seem to be a point to it any more.

Furthermore, why would reincarnation be rare if there was no notable difference between reincarnation and a new incarnation? If there's no real difference, why not have all new incarnations, or all reincarnations?

Since you don't believe there's a difference, I wonder why you care enough to A) believe in reincarnation and B) defend this belief.

[BobG]

Since you don't believe there's a difference, I wonder why you care enough to A) believe in reincarnation and B) defend this belief.

Apology,

I'm sorry but I am no longer commenting on ESP or Reincarnation. I've explained my position and I cannot keep repeating myself!

Bob Guercio

[Maia]

Ryan,

As the originator of the 'troll' comment, I thought I'd post. Bob has a very unusual posting style. Knowledgeable, and wide eyed and innocent at the same time. Time and again he makes beautifully constructed apparently self-contradictory statements. I find it hard to believe that somebody could post about having arrived at views after years of critical thinking, while claiming that their views are just beliefs that are not supported by any critical thinking, without at least some humorous intent.

He's most welcome to the forum of course. This place pisses me off sometimes for beating people up rather than helping to coax what coherent thoughts there may be out of them.

Yeah... I think I kind of see what you mean. I've followed this entire thread, and I'm still not exactly sure why Bob has kept posting what seems to be a pretty consistent paradoxical position on critical thinking vs. beliefs that are inherently proclaimed to not be the result of critical thinking. If that's not the case, it's doing a very good imitation of it! This certainly doesn't mean that a wide range of opinions shouldn't be here. But... let me see if I can provide an example of what I mean...

I'm not an atheist or a theist, and I mean what I say when I describe myself as a mystic. My take on true mysticism is that it makes it impossible for me to start a thread about beliefs, because I don't really believe anything in that direction at all. I don't have any answers. I don't have any questions. My answer to anything along those lines ("Does God answer prayer? Is God running everything? Why does God permit evil? Did God create the universe? Does God exist? etc.) would be: "I don't know." There are answers, but not the kind you're thinking of.

Let's just say that the thread would be really short. There's no way I could keep it up for five pages! ;) So why exactly HAS this thread gone on this long? If reincarnation and ESP don't have any logical basis for belief in this context, and if they're not really being defended, then how exactly how this gotten dragged out for 5 pages? I think it's fair for people to at least ask these questions.

[BobG]

Bob has kept posting what seems to be a pretty consistent paradoxical position on critical thinking vs. beliefs...

Let's just say that the thread would be really short. There's no way I could keep it up for five pages! ;) So why exactly HAS this thread gone on this long? If reincarnation and ESP don't have any logical basis for belief in this context, and if they're not really being defended, then how exactly how this gotten dragged out for 5 pages? I think it's fair for people to at least ask these questions.

I drank way too much coffee yesterday so here it is at 2:15 in the morning and I'm at this confounded computer! Regardless:

Why does a lawyer keep a person on the stand for hours and hours asking him the same question six zillion ways? I'm not a lawyer but I think it's to wear the defendant down to where he snaps or at least contradicts himself sounding like a blithering idiot. I think that is what has happened here although I haven't cracked!

I made my beliefs known from the very beginning but the respondents did like like that position and, like the lawyer analogy, they kept asking the same questions numerous different ways to try to get me to stumble.

I tried to end this conversation many times because I really got sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over.

However, doing this has been beneficial to me in a very interesting way. Now mind you, I have not changed my position one iota. However, in being forced to defend it as I have, I have become much more lucid in my thinking on this subject and therefore, much more adept at explaining myself.

For example, I did not use the expression "the blank state" originally; someone else did. However, after it was used I felt very comfortable with it and realized that "the blank state" was, perhaps, the best expression for me to use in the context of reincarnation.

On another issue, you have brought up the subject of critical thinking which seems to be a catchword on this forum. I have been wondering if we have been using different defintions for this phrase. Let me tell you what I think it means and I don't profess to be a semantics expert; in other words, I could be wrong!

Critical thinking means putting your brain into overdrive and having its neurons fire away at a breakneck pace in order for you to come up with ideas, creativity and, now here's where we may differ, speculation. Yes! Speculation!

It seems to me that speculation involves critical thinking and speculating is what I have done to come up with my beliefs on ESP and Reincarnation.

Do you guys remember Carl Sagan, who unfortunately died at too young an age. Would anybody on this forum ever accuse him of not being a critical thinker? Of course not! The question was rhetorical.

Carl Sagan was a master at speculation which resulted in a multitude of ideas regarding alien life and space travel. I am not comparing myself to Carl Sagan who was immeasureably smarter than I am and I don't want to be accused of doing that!

Well my speculation (critical thinking if you will) lead me to my beliefs on ESP and Reincarnation.

That's it!

I'm not sure but perhaps it was a lack of clarity regarding the definition of critcal thinking which has caused this thread to last as long as it has.

I don't know! I'm just speculating. I'm thinking critically!

[Mashuna]

I think we do have a difference in definition. To me, speculation is a starting point. You have to apply critical thinking to your speculations to see if they make sense, see if they match up with other observations and if they're logically coherent. This is the part people keep asking you about, but you're staying at the speculation stage.

[BobG]

I think we do have a difference in definition. To me, speculation is a starting point. You have to apply critical thinking to your speculations to see if they make sense, see if they match up with other observations and if they're logically coherent. This is the part people keep asking you about, but you're staying at the speculation stage.

I see. I accept this but I must ask; what kind of thinking is used for serious speculation; deep thinking perhaps? Yes. Let's go with "deep thinking".

I do believe that if I change the expression "critical thinking" to "deep thinking" in all my posts, the content and ideas from my point of view remain the same.

Consider it done!

Are we all happy now and can we move on?

Thankfully the coffee is wearing off so back to bed.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Bob,

I'm not sure having a plausible looking name is a good indication of whether you are a troll. I apologise if I've bitten your head of without cause. As I said, you are welcome to believe in whatever you want. When you're ready to start a topic and discuss something I promise to be polite and respectful.

Shuttlt,

We are starting over on a clean slate. The bickering back and forth never happened.

Bob:):)

[BobG]

Folks,

I found this definition of critical thinking at http://www.criticalthinking.net/

Definition of Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is here assumed to be reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. This rough overall definition is, we believe, in accord with the way the term is generally used these days. Under this interpretation, critical thinking is relevant not only to the formation and checking of beliefs, but also to deciding upon and evaluating actions. It involves creative activities such as formulating hypotheses, plans, and counterexamples; planning experiments; and seeing alternatives. Furthermore critical thinking is reflective -- and reasonable. The negative, harping, complaining characteristic that is sometimes labeled by the word, "critical", is not involved

I believe that speculation involves critical thinking; however, I have not formally studied critical thinking so I will defer to one who has.

So please, if you have formally studied this, please speak up.

Normally I don't get wrapped around the axle on semantics but in this case it's different. After all, critical thinking seems to be the foundation of this forum.

Bob Guercio

[Akhenaten]

Folks,

I found this definition of critical thinking at http://www.criticalthinking.net/

Definition of Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is here assumed to be reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. This rough overall definition is, we believe, in accord with the way the term is generally used these days. Under this interpretation, critical thinking is relevant not only to the formation and checking of beliefs, but also to deciding upon and evaluating actions. It involves creative activities such as formulating hypotheses, plans, and counterexamples; planning experiments; and seeing alternatives. Furthermore critical thinking is reflective -- and reasonable. The negative, harping, complaining characteristic that is sometimes labeled by the word, "critical", is not involved

I believe that speculation involves critical thinking; however, I have not formally studied critical thinking so I will defer to one who has.

So please, if you have formally studied this, please speak up.

Normally I don't get wrapped around the axle on semantics but in this case it's different. After all, critical thinking seems to be the foundation of this forum.

Bob Guercio


You aren't tangled up with semantics at all. It's just a matter of saying that two words with completely different meanings can be redfined at whim to mean the same thing, so it's more like equivocation than anything.

I can speculate Invisible Pink Unicorns all day, but a moment of critical thinking casts them out of existence.

One of these things is not both the same as each other, to be perfectly plain.


As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.


Waenre

[BobG]

As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.


Waenre

I don't understand!

Bob

[Akhenaten]

I don't understand!

Bob


No, it appears not.

[BobG]

No, it appears not.

And you purposely choose not to clarify it!:shocked:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And you purposely choose not to clarify it!:shocked:

Probably because he has given up trying to get through to you.

:bwall

[Akhenaten]

Probably because he has given up trying to get through to you.

:bwall


You haz ESP!eleven!? :yikes:

[BobG]

You haz ESP!eleven!? :yikes:

As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio

[Mashuna]

As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio

I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.

[blue sock monkey]

Bob--I'm glad you mentioned Carl Sagan. He's one of my favorites too!

Have you read his book The Demon-Haunted World? If not, I highly recommend it. He talks about critical thinking and how we can apply it to our own thoughts and beliefs, as well as how to use skeptical thinking tools in evaluating new information.

In one section of the book, he gives a hypothetical situation about a person who claims to have a fire-breathing dragon in his garage. Since the dragon is invisible, leaving no footprints and no scent or sign from his breath, the dragon cannot be verified, and thus there is no reason for others to accept its existence, even provisionally. Now, the man with the "dragon" fails to grasp that the lack of evidence needs to be taken into account as he constructs his beliefs. There is nothing to differentiate his idea of there being an invisible dragon from there being no dragon in there at all.

Your ideas on reincarnation, as you've expressed them here, remain mere assertions. and I can't diffferentiate them from the dragon in the garage. :(

[BobG]

I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.

Thanks Mashuna.

It does seem that there are some genius's on this forum that have little patience for those of average intelligence.

Regards,
Bob

[BobG]

Bob--I'm glad you mentioned Carl Sagan. He's one of my favorites too!

Have you read his book The Demon-Haunted World? If not, I highly recommend it.(

I'm at the lilbrary now so I'll get it.

Yes. He is one of my favorites also.

We lost a great person when he died. He never did anything brilliant in the field of Physics (I think that was his field), but he was a tremendous advocate for science and the public liked him.

Bob

[Akhenaten]

As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum.

Dude,

The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.

All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because I intend to be here a very long time!

Bob Guercio


I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation.


Exactly as I intended it. Nothing like Bob's translation.



Thanks Mashuna.

It does seem that there are some genius's on this forum that have little patience for those of average intelligence.

Regards,
Bob


Hyperbole much? Try the new Rhetoric+ Now with added verbosity!

[Akhenaten]

I'm at the lilbrary now so I'll get it.

Yes. He is one of my favorites also.

We lost a great person when he died. He never did anything brilliant in the field of Physics (I think that was his field), but he was a tremendous advocate for science and the public liked him.

Bob


:yikes:


The Carl Sagen Portal (http://www.carlsagan.com/)

Carl Sagan was the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University.

He played a leading role in the American space program since its inception.

He was a consultant and adviser to NASA since the 1950's, briefed the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon, and was an experimenter on the Mariner, Viking, Voyager, and Galileo expeditions to the planets.

He helped solve the mysteries of the high temperatures of Venus (answer: massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (answer: windblown dust), and the reddish haze of Titan (answer: complex organic molecules).

For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for Distinguished Public Service, as well as the NASA Apollo Achievement Award.

Asteroid 2709 Sagan is named after him.

He was also awarded the John F. Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal of the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation, and the Masursky Award of the American Astronomical Society, ""for his extraordinary contributions to the development of planetary science."

As a scientist trained in both astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan has made seminal contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary scientists working today are his present and former students and associates..

[Mashuna]

Yes, but apart from that, what have the Romans has Carl Sagan ever done for physics?

[Akhenaten]

Yes, but apart from that, what have the Romans has Carl Sagan ever done for physics?


Didn't the Romans Carl Sagan invade all three of both of the countries that now constitute Great Britain also help to establish SETI?

[BobG]

Exactly as I intended it. Nothing like Bob's translation.

Now Akhenaten! You should know by now that I am not going to let you get away with taking a statement of mine out of context and clearly changing its meaning. Haven't you inferred that from all the posting that I have done. So:

Post #207 - You said "As for formally studying "critical thinking", I believe you might be missing the whole point of being at the James Randi Educational Foundation"

Post #208 - I said "I don't understand!"

Post #209 - You said "No, it appears not."

Post #210 - I said "And you purposely choose not to clarify it!"

Post #211 - Gord said "Probably because he has given up trying to get through to you."

Post #212 - You said "You haz ESP!eleven!"

Now comes my interpretation of Post #207

Post #213 - "The insinuation here is that I don't belong on this forum.
All I can suggest is that you put me on your ignore list because
I intend to be here a very long time!


But let's continue for context

Post #214 - Mashuna said "I read the quote to mean that this is a good place to study critical thinking, hence the 'Educational' part of the foundation."

And finally


Post #218 - You said - Exactly as I intended it. Nothing like Bob's translation.

Now after all that, are you going to say that I misinterpreted your post?

Please!:mad:

Bob Guercio

[Akhenaten]

<little snip>

Now after all that, are you going to say that I misinterpreted your post?

Please!:mad:

Bob Guercio





No, after all that I'm going to say that then we started talking about Romans Carl Sagan.


Cheers :)

Dave

[BobG]

No, after all that I'm going to say that then we started talking about Romans Carl Sagen.


Cheers :)

Dave


And cheers to you also:)

Bob

[Akhenaten]

The ancient Egyptians believed that in building the Pyramids they had created a resurrection machine.

Any thoughts Bob?



ETA: A linky


Resurrection Machine (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/215949/Egypt-Uncovered-Pyramid-The-Resurrection-Machine-Part-1/overview)

The Discovery Channel's Egypt Uncovered series was shot on tourist-restricted locations and features the expertise of notable Egyptologists, revealing updated theories of ancient Egyptian life. Pyramid -- The Resurrection Machine, Pt. 1 attempts to discern the true purpose behind the stone behemoths. It traces the history of the pyramids and explores both the times and places of their creation.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The ancient Egyptians believed that in building the Pyramids they had created a resurrection machine.

Any thoughts Bob?


ETA: A linky

Resurrection Machine (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/215949/Egypt-Uncovered-Pyramid-The-Resurrection-Machine-Part-1/overview)

I don't know about Bob but I have a fish named Eric. :covereyes

[Tapio]

Apology,

I'm sorry but I am no longer commenting on ESP or Reincarnation. I've explained my position and I cannot keep repeating myself!

Bob Guercio

Have you paused to think that maybe this situation here is not analogous with your lawyer parable?

I mean, could it be that the reason why so many of us have asked you what you might regard as 'the same questions' in so many different ways is because we feel they have not been answered, even if you feel they have been?

[Akhenaten]

I don't know about Bob but I have a fish named Eric. :covereyes


I hope you have a licence.

[BobG]

The ancient Egyptians believed that in building the Pyramids they had created a resurrection machine.

Any thoughts Bob?



ETA: A linky


Resurrection Machine (http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/215949/Egypt-Uncovered-Pyramid-The-Resurrection-Machine-Part-1/overview)

Yes

[Akhenaten]

Yes


I thoroughly deserved that. :)

[BobG]

Have you paused to think that maybe this situation here is not analogous with your lawyer parable?

I mean, could it be that the reason why so many of us have asked you what you might regard as 'the same questions' in so many different ways is because we feel they have not been answered, even if you feel they have been?

I have explained myself to the best of my ability. Explaining further is meaningless.

Bob

[Maia]

Re: the ancient Egyptians and the resurrection machine...

I have a co-worker... let's call him "Brian." He's certainly an interesting guy to work with, because I always look forward to finding out what the day's conversation will be. It's generally along the lines of: "If you stand in the middle of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, you'll get a really really bad headache, and it's because it's constructed using a multiple of the numbers thirteen and seven! There are seven stars on the crown of the Statue of Liberty! And it was sent to us by the French! Jesus and Mary Magdalen and France! Jesus and the number 13, 13 original disciples! If you dig under the Statue of Liberty you'll find! Back of the dollar bill, eye above the pyramid, Illuminati!"

Me: I can read all fifty names of the states on the back of the five dollar bill-- (Note: This part is true.)

Brian: I had a vision last night of the Devil on one side of my bed, and God on the other, and they threw colored red balls of light back and forth! My parents tried to put on medication, but all the doctors were wrong! The world is going to end in 2012!

Verbatim.

Anyway, I liked the parable about the invisible fire-breathing dragon. My advice to the guy involved would be to draw the dragon, then to create a short digital video of it using Maya, then to write a short story about it, then to expand this to a book, and then to stage an off-Broadway play about the sex lives of invisible fire-breathing dragons. Now that's how to share it with the world.

[Pup]

Your ideas on reincarnation, as you've expressed them here, remain mere assertions. and I can't diffferentiate them from the dragon in the garage. :(

Have you paused to think that maybe this situation here is not analogous with your lawyer parable?

I mean, could it be that the reason why so many of us have asked you what you might regard as 'the same questions' in so many different ways is because we feel they have not been answered, even if you feel they have been?

Bingo! When somebody introduces a new idea that sounds interesting, the obvious thing to do is to talk with them to find out more about it, but one has to start by understanding the basics, before one can carry on much of an intelligent conversation.

I got stuck at that point. I couldn't figure out what Bob meant by reincarnation. He seemed to think he was answering the questions that people asked. I understood the questions and why people were asking them, because they were the same kind of questions that I was curious about myself. But I couldn't understand the answers. Like questions about the dragon in the garage, the answers just seemed to lead to dead-ends, contradictions or circles.

I kept hoping that someone would ask a question in a different way that would elicit an answer that I could understand, or that someone else would "get it" and explain it in different words so I could get it too, but it never happened. Oh well. *shrug* My only regret is that it seemed like it had the potential to be an interesting conversation, if I could just figure it out.

However, I'm puzzled that the questions seem to be new or unexpected or unclear to Bob, because they seem to be the basic ones that I'd ask, or expect someone else to ask me, if I brought up a similar topic.

For unprovable assertions, I can even accept an unsupported non-logical answer like "I just know it to be true," but in this case, I can't even figure out what "it" is.

[shuttlt]

Bingo! When somebody introduces a new idea that sounds interesting, the obvious thing to do is to talk with them to find out more about it, but one has to start by understanding the basics, before one can carry on much of an intelligent conversation.

I got stuck at that point. I couldn't figure out what Bob meant by reincarnation. He seemed to think he was answering the questions that people asked. I understood the questions and why people were asking them, because they were the same kind of questions that I was curious about myself. But I couldn't understand the answers. Like questions about the dragon in the garage, the answers just seemed to lead to dead-ends, contradictions or circles.

I've been wondering about this too. If Bob hasn't been thinking critically about his idea, maybe our mistake was to ask questions from a critical perspective? Those aspects of his hypothesis simply do not exist.

[BobG]

Bingo!


Give it a rest! You're starting to look foolish!

[BobG]

I've been wondering about this too. If Bob hasn't been thinking critically about his idea, maybe our mistake was to ask questions from a critical perspective? Those aspects of his hypothesis simply do not exist.

You too!

[Maia]

Look, I'm sorry, but I have to say it... Now, there's nothing wrong with this. It's a perfectly okay motive. It doesn't mean that anyone is not a nice person. But quite honestly, I think that what Bob really wants is to start an argument and keep it going. It could be about anything. It could be on the topic of the perfect peanut-butter sandwich recipe. But if this wasn't the motive, it is just awfully hard to believe that


a.) the answers wouldn't have kept leading to dead-ends and circles, as Pup pointed out-- they really should have somehow been more concrete in some way, shape or form by now

and

b.) once again, that this whole thing would have kept going for 6 pages.

There's really nothing wrong with just wanting to keep an argument going, but couldn't it be about something more worthy of discussion than this? Something more clearly defined?

[BobG]

:)

[blue sock monkey]

It may be time to post a photo of a kitten here and move on. :c1:

[shuttlt]

Look, I'm sorry, but I have to say it... Now, there's nothing wrong with this. It's a perfectly okay motive. It doesn't mean that anyone is not a nice person. But quite honestly, I think that what Bob really wants is to start an argument and keep it going. It could be about anything. It could be on the topic of the perfect peanut-butter sandwich recipe. But if this wasn't the motive, it is just awfully hard to believe that


a.) the answers wouldn't have kept leading to dead-ends and circles, as Pup pointed out-- they really should have somehow been more concrete in some way, shape or form by now

and

b.) once again, that this whole thing would have kept going for 6 pages.

There's really nothing wrong with just wanting to keep an argument going, but couldn't it be about something more worthy of discussion than this? Something more clearly defined?
And yet as your post demonstrates, this thread is strangely compelling. I know it's not going to go anywhere, I want to escape, but I can't. There are other threads, yet I keep coming back to this one.

[BobG]

And yet as your post demonstrates, this thread is strangely compelling. I know it's not going to go anywhere, I want to escape, but I can't. There are other threads, yet I keep coming back to this one.

Why?

[Pup]

Why?

I think this thread is a reincarnation of another earlier thread. The OP is different, and the people responding are different, and the topic is different, and it's going in an entirely different direction, and actually, the other thread wasn't interesting enough to keep me coming back to it, but aside from that, both threads are the same, and I can't help coming back to this one.

:D

[Akhenaten]

Why?



Because it's a lively and friendly way to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science;


To see who can get down to less than one word responses; and


To read Maia's posts.

[Akhenaten]

I think this thread is a reincarnation of another earlier thread. The OP is different, and the people responding are different, and the topic is different, and it's going in an entirely different direction, and actually, the other thread wasn't interesting enough to keep me coming back to it, but aside from that, both threads are the same, and I can't help coming back to this one.

:D

I remember that thread. Wasn't it a turkey last time around though? Or a dog? My ka is very forgetful sometimes.

[Maia]

Aww, you're so sweet. :)

I'm not going to pretend I'm totally happy with this, because it was done in about ten minutes, but it's my little contribution towards raising the happiness level in this thread... I've entitled it "Unbearably Cute"...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/335544a84bde8b0ab5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17232)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Give it a rest! You're starting to look foolish!

:id:

[Pup]

2. To see who can get down to less than one word responses;

?!

[blue sock monkey]

:dragon:

[arthwollipot]

I think this thread is a reincarnation of another earlier thread. The OP is different, and the people responding are different, and the topic is different, and it's going in an entirely different direction, and actually, the other thread wasn't interesting enough to keep me coming back to it, but aside from that, both threads are the same, and I can't help coming back to this one.I think you're right. This thread shares the same blank state as the previous one though. It's just that everything else is different.

[Apology]

Apology,

I'm sorry but I am no longer commenting on ESP or Reincarnation. I've explained my position and I cannot keep repeating myself!

Bob Guercio

I'm sorry, Bob, I don't see where you DID actually answer my question as to why, if there's no difference between reincarnation and a new incarnation, why it's worth believing in, and why it's worth defending your belief.

You said that you spent years thinking it over and came to the conclusion that reincarnation existed (though rare). Many people have asked you WHY you formed this belief, but you haven't really answered WHY, you just re-assert your belief.

I DID study critical thinking, so let me explain to you how it works. A person has a few premises and a conclusion based on those premises. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is correct. A classic critical thinking example is this:

(premise) If A = B, and
(premise) if B = C, then
(conclusion) A = C

Naturally, you can have other premises, and there are more complicated structures for problems than this very simple construct, but it's a beginning.

The problem that we're all having is that you have stated a conclusion (reincarnation exists) and given us many details of your conclusion (it's rare, it's like a blank slate, etc.), but you haven't provided us with any premises. The premises would help us understand how you reached your conclusion, and if there is a fault in one of your premises, then we could help you correct it. Here's an example of an incorrect conclusion due to a faulty premise:

(premise) If a dog is an animal and
(premise) if a cat is an animal and
(premise) all animals are the same, then
(conclusion) A dog is a cat.

You can clearly see in this very simple example that the third premise (all animals are the same) is incorrect, therefore the conclusion (a dog is a cat) is also incorrect. If you could just tell us your premises for reaching the conclusion that reincarnation exists, we'd have more to discuss.

You've said you've spent years thinking about it, so it's hard to imagine that the sum and total of your years of thought has been "Reincarnation exists...yup, that reincarnation, it's gotta be true..." What were the pros and cons you considered before reaching your conclusion? What were your reasons for believing it might NOT exist, that you later set aside? What was the most compelling argument in favor of reincarnation that made you decide that it must be true after all?

Help us out a little here, Bob.