Reincarnation: A response to Anders W. Bonde

[Interesting Ian]

This thread is a continuation of the discussion concerning reincarnation started in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57378&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) thread. The reincarnation debate is off topic in that thread.


Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde

All of this, of course, presupposes that we ‘don’t die when we die’, which, in turn, presupposes the possibility of the mind existing independently of the body. That, in itself, is in sharp contradiction with what we know not only about the biological evolution of the body and the brain, but pretty much everything we know about biology and many other branches of science, and can actually demonstrate and predict using a broad range of well-established scientific theories.



People keep saying this on here, but yet never supply any details. You would think that skeptics would jump at the chance to convince a believer . .but they don't :confused:

I know of course about the correlations and I've explained how they are consistent with the notion of a substantial self. So what other reasons?



If it were indeed possible to ‘store’ a person’s experiences independently of the brain, nature would surely not have ‘wasted’ its evolutionary efforts, material and energy on such a grand scale as it has on the development of the brain from a few sensory cells to the magnificent organ it is today,



I've also explained why we need brains many times in the past on this board.





and on the extensive, tough, dangerous (in survival terms) learning process from infant to corpse – also, just think of the extent to which we associate ourselves with our bodies and sensory inputs,



I don't at all. I consider my body and sensory input are absolutely distinct from my self. Even the qualia I experience are. Qualia actually constitute the external world, they do not constitute the self.



We also lack any semblance of an explanatory model for how sensory experiences and thoughts could be transmitted from the brain and body to a, so far, completely undetectable storage medium, using, a so far completely undetectable method of information transfer, and how this stored experience and body of thoughts and memories would, so far completely undetected, be transmitted back to a fetus’ brain, which is not yet fully developed but doing so on the basis on its own sensory input and experiences.



This is all just vacuous meaningless gibberish. How could experiences and thoughts be transmitted from the brain?? Experiences and thoughts don't come from the brain. Moreover they are not physical so the word "transmitted" seems to be inappropriate.

"Storage medium"?? :eek: What storage medium?? You're just not getting it. You're thinking about the whole notion of a disembodiued self in mechanistic material terms which of course presupposes your worldview. Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. There is no storage midium for consciousness. Consciousness is *NOT* information. It has *NO* location. It is *NOT* physical.



Information transfer?? What information. Information is what the physical is. neither minds, consciousnesses, or selves are information. That is the materialist error and you cannot presume the correctness of materialism when arguing against a "life after death" or reincarnation.

Completely undetected?? Consciousness or selves cannot be directly physically detected, otherwise they would be physical.

It seems you are after some sort of mechanism i.e explanation akin to that which we utilise in physics. But this is totally inappropriate.



Considering the poor quality of evidence in support of ‘life after death’, ‘reincarnation’ (which are necessarily two sides of the same coin) and ‘mediumship’ (the third side of the same coin)



You've read all the references I've provided in the other thread have you?? You're going to have to produce a hell of a lot of compelling arguments in order to persuade me that it's all poor evidence.




in the light of accumulated human knowledge and the existence of perfectly mundane explanations for these alleged phenomena,



I'm afraid you'll have a great deal of difficulty in producing mundane explanations for apparent reincarnation memories, NDEs, deathbed visions and apparently genuine mediumship.



parsimony and simply common sense seem to favour the concept of “just one life�.



On the contrary, parsimony and simple common sense seem to favour the survival hypothesis.



There is simply too much unsupported speculation and too little substance involved in 'life after death' scenarios.



What unsupported speculation have I uttered?



I apologize for the derail – and agree with Ian that we should defer this to an independent thread.

Ah yes, better start a new thread with this post.

[Odin]

So the self is external from the body?

How does the self react with the body?

and how does reincarnation work?

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, let's start there. According to you, II:

Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. If, as you also say,

This is all just vacuous meaningless gibberish. How could experiences and thoughts be transmitted from the brain?? Experiences and thoughts don't come from the brain. Moreover they are not physical so the word "transmitted" seems to be inappropriate.Then how does the interaction between the physical brain and thoughts happen? How does the brain manage to limit those non-physical thoughts?

Hans

[Traveller]

Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never [i]in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. There is no storage midium for consciousness. Consciousness is *NOT* information. It has *NO* location. It is *NOT* physical.


Information transfer?? What information. Information is what the physical is. neither minds, consciousnesses, or selves are information. That is the materialist error and you cannot presume the correctness of materialism when arguing against a "life after death" or reincarnation.

Completely undetected?? Consciousness or selves cannot be directly physically detected, otherwise they would be physical.

It seems you are after some sort of mechanism i.e explanation akin to that which we utilise in physics. But this is totally inappropriate. [/B]

Ian, could you explain this a little further? I take your point that consciousness is not physical, although I am not sure about it having no location, but surely, just because it is immaterial does not mean that there can be no explanation for how it operates, accessess memories, interacts with the physical.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm afraid you'll have a great deal of difficulty in producing mundane explanations for apparent reincarnation memories, NDEs, deathbed visions and apparently genuine mediumship.
Imagination, hallucination*2, fraud and delusion. Thank you, and goodnight.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by bjornart
Imagination, hallucination*2, fraud and delusion. Thank you, and goodnight.

Don't forget the usual suspects for the topic of "apparently genuine mediumship": Hot reading, warm reading, cold reading, shoehorning, confirmation bias, confabulation, cryptomnesia (sp?), subjective validation, and probably dozens of others I missed.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde in other thread
Mediumship, i.e. the ability to communicate with dead ancestors or other deceased individuals or groups, would be such a huge evolutionary advantage that this faculty would have evolved to the strength and functional level of such as the senses of smell, hearing and sight. In the earlier stages of evolution and for a very long time, it would have been such an enormous advantage to be able to gain prior information about the threats and dangers that killed your ancestors, about sources of mates, food (and later on, wealth), and about hereditary deficiencies. It could, of course, be argued that ‘mediumship’ is just an emerging faculty, but it must then be borne in mind that claims suggesting the existing of mediumship were not less prevalent prior to advances in science and rationality. Also, in times prior to the invention of written records, the ability to access the experience of generations of deceased ancestors would be comparable to the advantage of having internet access for an insulated jungle tribe – and knowing how to use it. In short, the genes favouring the ability to communicate with the dead, or merely the genes for learning such an ability, should dominate by now. They don’t – ‘mediums’ do not, and have never, dominated human intellectual or other human development. It is, I think, therefore, if not inconceivable, then certainly very unlikely and highly inconsistent with the otherwise extremely well-supported theory of evolution that such a survival advantage would not have come to the fore. I also find it very unlikely that the huge body of knowledge and experience of the departed generations would not have enabled development of a much more efficient method of communicating with descendants than “Do I hear a name starting with an M? An M, please? Michael or Michelle? “ - readily emulated by even the most mediocre of cold readers, not to mention warm and hot readers – even if the ‘departed’ all stayed isolated from one another.


I would just like to comment on this argument which I've heard many times. It's all very good but nobody mentions the possibility that if psi were real there might be factors that limit its expression and manifestations. The evolutionary argument assumes that telepathy, precognition or whatever is a genetically detemined trait and that there would be little to no environmental constraints on the level of its phenotypic expression. Since we don't know what psi is yet, its naive to assume those things.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I would just like to comment on this argument which I've heard many times. It's all very good but nobody mentions the possibility that if psi were real there might be factors that limit its expression and manifestations. The evolutionary argument assumes that telepathy, precognition or whatever is a genetically detemined trait and that there would be little to no environmental constraints on the level of its phenotypic expression. Since we don't know what psi is yet, its naive to assume those things. No, it just assumes that psi is connected to the physical world and is somehow dependent on physical traits. That is probably naive, but the naivité is that of the proponents. They are the ones claiming that this non-physical power is something certain people can wield better than others, and that it has an effect on the physical world. The skeptics are just pointing out the logical implications of this claim.

Hans

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No, it just assumes that psi is connected to the physical world and is somehow dependent on physical traits.

You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions. Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions.

How big, exactly, can an animal be, before it is too big to fly?

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is.

Emphasis on "might".

Don't you agree that having psi abilities would be an enormous evolutionary advantage?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You don't see elephants with wings because they simply wouldn't work. Elephants are too big. This is a developmental constraint on the developing organism that is dictated by physical interactions. Similarly there might be developmental contraints on the development of psi due to some physical interaction or other. You simply can't assume that if psi is real, there will be no contraints on its phenotypic expression because we don't know what psi is. I do see birds with wings, and they work excellently. Nobody said anything about elephants. Sure we can postulate that it is limited, in fact we can postulate anything we will about it, but the present postulate is that it exists, and even the weakest, most limited effect would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, so just as we have evolved ears that can hear remarkably weak vibrations (even if our ears are dull instruments compared t othose of some animals), etc, we would have evolved out ability to sense those weak and possibly erratical signals to the outmost, if it could save us from that falling rock, that lurking lion, or could have enabled our caring ancestor to warn us of that fatal mistake.

Ooops! Seems we are derailing II's thread to avoid derailing. Sorry! Back to the program, folks.

Hans

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How big, exactly, can an animal be, before it is too big to fly?

I don't know. The point is that not everything is possible in the evolution of specific traits.


Don't you agree that having psi abilities would be an enormous evolutionary advantage?

Yes. But does it logically follow that it should have evolved to the strength and function of sight, hearing or smell? No, because we don't know what it is. The strength of the trait may be limited by physical factors we don't understand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't know. The point is that not everything is possible in the evolution of specific traits.

If you don't know, then your analogy is invalid.

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Yes. But does it logically follow that it should have evolved to the strength and function of sight, hearing or smell? No, because we don't know what it is. The strength of the trait may be limited by physical factors we don't understand.

You say that a lot: "I don't know".

It would be very likely that e.g. the ability to Remote View where your enemies and prey are would substantially be stronger than the non-existing psi abilities we see today. That's how evolution works.

Do you see psi abilities as having a more negative than positive effect? What would those negative effects be?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I do see birds with wings, and they work excellently. Nobody said anything about elephants. Sure we can postulate that it is limited, in fact we can postulate anything we will about it, but the present postulate is that it exists, and even the weakest, most limited effect would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, so just as we have evolved ears that can hear remarkably weak vibrations (even if our ears are dull instruments compared t othose of some animals), etc, we would have evolved out ability to sense those weak and possibly erratical signals to the outmost, if it could save us from that falling rock, that lurking lion, or could have enabled our caring ancestor to warn us of that fatal mistake.


Again, you are assuming that the development and sensitivity of an organisms "psi detecting" equipment is not limited by any environmental constraints, even by whatever is responsible for psi itself. Thats a huge assumption to make considering we know very little about psi. The argument also makes the assumption that psi or any postulated "psi detection system" is an inheritable, genetically determined trait.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Again, you are assuming that the development and sensitivity of an organisms "psi detecting" equipment is not limited by any environmental constraints, even by whatever is responsible for psi itself. Thats a huge assumption to make considering we know very little about psi. The argument also makes the assumption that psi or any postulated "psi detection system" is an inheritable, genetically determined trait.

Look, you are the one starting with the assumption that psi exists in the first place.

That's the biggest assumption altogether.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you don't know, then your analogy is invalid.

I don't expect you to just take my word for it. Here's a link

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6bConstraints.shtml


You say that a lot: "I don't know".

Hey, I'm a sceptic. I can't help it.


It would be very likely that e.g. the ability to Remote View where your enemies and prey are would substantially be stronger than the non-existing psi abilities we see today. That's how evolution works.

You are making the same assumptions about the hypothesised genetic expression of psi ability and the lack of contraints on this expression.


Do you see psi abilities as having a more negative than positive effect? What would those negative effects be?

I don't understand your question

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Look, you are the one starting with the assumption that psi exists in the first place.

That's the biggest assumption altogether.

LOL!

I'm answering Anders W. Bonde and his argument about the consequences of the existence of psi on its evolutionary development. Call me old fashioned but I think I need to assume psi exists in order to counter his argument.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't expect you to just take my word for it. Here's a link

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6bConstraints.shtml

You need to read your own links. Elephants don't have wings because its phenotype doesn't have wings. It has nothing to do with size.

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Hey, I'm a sceptic. I can't help it.

That's not what skepticism is about. Skepticism is not merely saying "I don't know".

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You are making the same assumptions about the hypothesised genetic expression of psi ability and the lack of contraints on this expression.

No, I am referring to how evolution works. It is not an assumption that it works or how it works.

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't understand your question

If a psi ability is more harmful than beneficial, then you would be right: Psi abilities would not be strong traits. So, can you think of psi abilities that are more harmful than beneficial?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
LOL!

I'm answering Anders W. Bonde and his argument about the consequences of the existence of psi on its evolutionary development. Call me old fashioned but I think I need to assume psi exists in order to counter his argument.

As long as you assume and don't state that it does exist.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
As long as you assume and don't state that it does exist.

For the purposes of this argument, I don't need to state that it does exist.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you don't know, then your analogy is invalid.

It would be very likely that e.g. the ability to Remote View where your enemies and prey are would substantially be stronger than the non-existing psi abilities we see today. That's how evolution works.



Not sure about that, Claus. If we suppose that psi ability is itself an artifact of the brain, we must remember that the brain is itself an evolutionary newcomer.
We all know the stories about an eye evolving from a light sensitive cell. Possibly psi today might be at the light sensitive cell level of evolution?

However, this only applies if psi is a function of the brain, which I believe Ian would dispute.

[Interesting Ian]

Odin

How does the self react with the body?

and how does reincarnation work?

Hans
how does the interaction between the physical brain and thoughts happen? How does the brain manage to limit those non-physical thoughts?

Traveller
just because it (i.e the self or consciousness) is immaterial does not mean that there can be no explanation for how it operates, accessess memories, interacts with the physical.



I see that people simply do not understand the point I was making about mechanistic thinking.

In a strict sense science does not explain why things happen. All it does is describe. We find that all change in the Universe appears to be governed by laws and that these can be described by mathematics. But we do not know why physical laws are as they are, or why physical laws exist at all, or why they can be described by mathematics.

So we cannot give answers to why objects continue in a straight line at uniform velocity unless acted upon by a force, or indeed why anything in the Universe behaves as it does* -- all we can do is describe and predict what happens.

Now it's the same when dealing with the self and its interactions with the world. Questions such as "how does the interaction between the physical brain and thoughts happen?" is analogically akin to asking how does a pool ball move after another collides with it. But of course we don't know how, or even whether the question is meaningful. All we can do is describe the respective motions of the 2 balls. Likewise all we can do with questions as to how the self affects ones body is to note it does happen and we can move our limbs -- within the obvious limits -- according to our desires and intentions.

The same goes for all the other "how" questions. It would be as absurd to conclude that objects can't fall down because nobody is able provide an explanation of why they fall down, as it would be to conclude that reincarnation can't possibly occur because we can't provide explanations. The world is just given and we might be able to describe its processes, and even be able to model these processes using mathematics, but no-one is able to say why anything happens as it does. Indeed, if anything, the behaviour of conscious being such as ourselves is arguably not as inexplicable as non-sentient existents, as at least we can explain why we behave as we do with reference to our intentions. But asking how can the self move its body is not something I can answer -- just as I cannot answer why a ball moves when another impacts on it.

Now I can repeat my hypothesis about why we need brains. As I have said before:

If the brain only modifies consciousness or minds, rather than being the progenitor of the mind, the question then arises as to why we need brains at all.

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channelled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.






*with the exception of conscious beings who behave in such a way to fulfil intentions or desires.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Not sure about that, Claus. If we suppose that psi ability is itself an artifact of the brain, we must remember that the brain is itself an evolutionary newcomer.
We all know the stories about an eye evolving from a light sensitive cell. Possibly psi today might be at the light sensitive cell level of evolution?

There are a lot of "if"s in this scenario, that's for sure.

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
However, this only applies if psi is a function of the brain, which I believe Ian would dispute.

Ian would dispute his own existence. In fact, I think he does.

[Odin]

Am I right in assuming that you are saying you don't know how reincarnation works?

Do you know how many selfs there are? One per body?

Does the self change bodies when or around the time the body dies?

Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Odin
Am I right in assuming that you are saying you don't know how reincarnation works?



Read my post. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you bacause I've explained it in as simple a way as prepared to do. I'm not prepared to give people free lessons in the philosophy of science and write 1000's of words on the subject.

If you want to say that reincarnation is impossible you ought to get yourself the necessary education required to understand the counter arguments -- especially when I go into some detail.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not prepared to give people free lessons in the philosophy of science and write 1000's of words on the subject.

Pardon me, but isn't that what you have been doing here, all the time?

If not, what have you been doing here?

Almost 6000 posts, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Pardon me, but isn't that what you have been doing here, all the time?

If not, what have you been doing here?

Almost 6000 posts, Ian.

Ummm . .what about the 6500 posts that got wiped off my tally? My total post count should be around 12,500.

I might go into a lot of detail on my website, but I'm not prepared to do so on here. People on here just don't ever understand anything anyway. I just completely despair.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... But we do not know why physical laws are as they are, or why physical laws exist at all, or why they can be described by mathematics. ....
Ian, even with my (extremely) limited knowledge of philosophy I think I can see part of the problem right here in your various discussions and arguments and why you and some of your protagonists appear to be talking past each other. I suppose it's an issue of semantics as much as philosophy - but when you ask the "why?" questions I think you are assuming, or proposing, that there is a purpose to the existence of physical laws and some sort of intentionality to the universe. Am I right?
And would you call the position that there is no such purpose or intentionality "mechanistic"?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I might go into a lot of detail on my website, but I'm not prepared to do so on here. People on here just don't ever understand anything anyway. I just completely despair.

Sentences like this are why I'm constantly expecting to hear Ian start a post with, "here I am, brain the size of a planet..."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragon
Ian, even with my (extremely) limited knowledge of philosophy I think I can see part of the problem right here in your various discussions and arguments and why you and some of your protagonists appear to be talking past each other. I suppose it's an issue of semantics as much as philosophy - but when you ask the "why?" questions I think you are assuming, or proposing, that there is a purpose to the existence of physical laws and some sort of intentionality to the universe. Am I right?
And would you call the position that there is no such purpose or intentionality "mechanistic"?

Asking why physical laws exist is a metaphysical question. But it need not entail the notion of purpose and intentionality. You could, for example, say their existence is a brute fact, or just happenstance or whatever.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . .what about the 6500 posts that got wiped off my tally? My total post count should be around 12,500.

Yeah, like everyone else. Count yourself lucky that it doesn't just tally your posts with real substance.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I might go into a lot of detail on my website, but I'm not prepared to do so on here. People on here just don't ever understand anything anyway. I just completely despair.

That is manure, and you know it. If you spent a tenth of the time you write here on your website (now several years in the making), you would have an encyclopedia by now.

Now, what have you been doing here, if not giving people free lessons in the philosophy of science and write 1000's of words on the subject?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragon

And would you call the position that there is no such purpose or intentionality "mechanistic"? [/B]

A mechanistic philosophy suggests the idea that there are real generative causes in nature i.e that when an object hits another it's because of the innate power of the first object. In other words we don't simply have a succession of events which we describe. It also involves the notion that if a object affects another, the 2 objects have to be connected in some manner. You can't have one object affecting another if the 2 respective objects are on different sides of a galaxy and there is no influence travelling between them.

It's the philosophy proposed in the 17th century which brought about modern science. But which of course I reject.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channelled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.
But if I've understood anything you've said these past few years, my brain, like everything else other than my mind, is simply an illusion played upon my senses by the universal Mind. It is no more a fundamental part of me than that tree over there. Why would the universal Mind go to all the bother to give me the illusion of a brain that has the power to limit my mind's processing?

I will be pleasantly surprised if you answer this question.

~~ Paul

[Odin]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


So we cannot give answers to why objects continue in a straight line at uniform velocity unless acted upon by a force, or indeed why anything in the Universe behaves as it does* -- all we can do is describe and predict what happens.

Now it's the same when dealing with the self and its interactions with the world. Questions such as "how does the interaction between the physical brain and thoughts happen?" is analogically akin to asking how does a pool ball move after another collides with it. But of course we don't know how, or even whether the question is meaningful. All we can do is describe the respective motions of the 2 balls. Likewise all we can do with questions as to how the self affects ones body is to note it does happen and we can move our limbs -- within the obvious limits -- according to our desires and intentions.

The same goes for all the other "how" questions. It would be as absurd to conclude that objects can't fall down because nobody is able provide an explanation of why they fall down, as it would be to conclude that reincarnation can't possibly occur because we can't provide explanations.
So your saying you don't know how, but that in it's self doesn't mean it can't occur.
Fine.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Read my post. If you can't understand it, then I can't help you bacause I've explained it in as simple a way as prepared to do. I'm not prepared to give people free lessons in the philosophy of science and write 1000's of words on the subject.

If you want to say that reincarnation is impossible you ought to get yourself the necessary education required to understand the counter arguments -- especially when I go into some detail.

Isn't this Dr Mas's job? Claiming people are not qualified enough to understand?:D

My point in the celebs thread concerned reincarnation as it is commonly understood, that a soul inhabits a body, the body dies and the soul moves to a new body. This has the simple problem of the fact there are more people alive now than in the past so the souls are either part of a bigger network, or new souls are created, or reincarnation is independant of time. The evidence for reincarnation does not appear to show this. I am not commenting on whether or not reincarnation is genuine, I am suggesting a problem for it as it is commonly understood. Since we don't know how reincarnation works, there is no point asking it, but it is still a problem.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.
It’s the middle sentence of the above that throws me because of its circularity.

You say that the brain limits the mind to that which is regular and familiar.

But the only reason anything would be regular and familiar is because we have the brain limiting us.

I think you’ve explained nothing at all, Ian.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Asking why physical laws exist is a metaphysical question. But it need not entail the notion of purpose and intentionality. You could, for example, say their existence is a brute fact, or just happenstance or whatever. Quite. But what do you say?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Don't forget the usual suspects for the topic of "apparently genuine mediumship": Hot reading, warm reading, cold reading, shoehorning, confirmation bias, confabulation, cryptomnesia (sp?), subjective validation, and probably dozens of others I missed.

All those are nicely covered by my last two points. If it's apparent to _you_ that your a genuine medium, you're delusional, if it is apparent to others, but not you, you're a fraud.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Again, you are assuming that the development and sensitivity of an organisms "psi detecting" equipment is not limited by any environmental constraints, even by whatever is responsible for psi itself. *snip* Do you know what pisses me off? An otherwise reasonably coherent poster who posts "you do not take into account.." Then I explain how I take that into a account, and he/she posts back: "you don't take into account..[just the same]"

READ my [rule 8] posts, OK? Or don't, I don't care; I'm outta here.

Hans

[Anders W. Bonde]

Ian,

Does a dead body replicate or interact with its surroundings as other than food?

Originally posted by Ian:
I don't at all. I consider my body and sensory input are absolutely distinct from my self. Even the qualia I experience are. Qualia actually constitute the external world, they do not constitute the self.

I think you need to define what you mean by 'self' - I cannot understand your philosophy at all without your definition of 'self'.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe that what goes on in the mind and the body and sensory input is independent of each other?

Originally posted by Ian:
"Storage medium"?? What storage medium?? You're just not getting it. You're thinking about the whole notion of a disembodiued self in mechanistic material terms which of course presupposes your worldview. Nothing is transmitted from the brain, because the self is never in the brain in the first place. The self has potential access to all memories that it has ever experienced; it is the brain which limits access to these memories. There is no storage midium for consciousness. Consciousness is *NOT* information. It has *NO* location. It is *NOT* physical..

I readily admit I do not understand your philosophy, not least because you have perhaps not been very well able to convey it to others (perhaps because it is not coherent or consistent with the real World), but I don’t really care as I find it useless as an explanation for anything – it smacks of solipsism. Life is too short for trying to grasp Ian’s worldview. And I don’t care for your condescending and mud-slinging attitude simply because you do not agree with me and have come to different conclusions than I. I also don’t much care for your speculations about my worldview either, because I don’t find them relevant to the discussion about the existence as other than figments of imagination of ‘life after death’ and ‘ability to communicate with the dead’.

Anyway, your assumption appears to me to be that when someone's brain is destroyed, then that someone’s consciousness is unaffected, but that does not match what we observe. I predict that when your brain is destroyed then you no longer have conscience. Same applies to me. Conscience relies on the neurons and synapses of the brain, and the brain relies on the body for its physical sustenance, sensory input and tools for interaction with its surroundings. When these are gone, all is lost. Consciousness requires exchange of information. It has a location. It requires a physical world for its existence.

Would we, with your philosophy, ‘have access to all memories’ without the brain?

Completely undetected?? Consciousness or selves cannot be directly physically detected, otherwise they would be physical.

I think you are mistaking ‘physical’ for tangible’. If we cannot detect ‘consciousness or selves’ even indirectly why would we even care about them? The effects and actions of ‘consciousness or selves’ involve physical interaction and are thus detectable.

It seems you are after some sort of mechanism i.e explanation akin to that which we utilise in physics. But this is totally inappropriate.

Why?

You've read all the references I've provided in the other thread have you?? You're going to have to produce a hell of a lot of compelling arguments in order to persuade me that it's all poor evidence.

I’ve read some of them, and some of them before. They are all difficult-or-impossible-to-verify anecdotes for one thing – and they seem to prevail in cultures that have a strong belief in reincarnation, less so or not at all in cultures that don’t. It is also well-known that kids are poor witnesses because they are so suggestible – if you want to, you can make a kid believe they’ve been sexually abused by their parents, even though no such thing ever occurred. Heck, you can even make adults believe they’ve been abducted by aliens! The bits I've read don’t make it clear either how the kids were interviewed – an interviewer that wants to believe in reincarnation will enforce the viewpoint. Not being able to explain why someone says unexpected things or displays an unusual behaviour does not automatically imply “then they must have lived before� – that is a leap of faith.

I'm afraid you'll have a great deal of difficulty in producing mundane explanations for apparent reincarnation memories, NDEs, deathbed visions and apparently genuine mediumship.

First off, let’s find reliable, repeatable, verifiable ‘reincarnation’ accounts before we begin to speculate. NDE’s and deathbed visions are well explained by, as they can be induced by, effects of oxygen deprivation and hallucinogens on the brain. Genuine mediumship? Find me a genuine medium and we’ll discuss it then.

On the contrary, parsimony and simple common sense seem to favour the survival hypothesis.

If you think so, Ian. I think the survival hypothesis, being unfaslisifiable to boot, is as useless as any other paranormal hypothesis – they don’t explain anything and they are unnecessary.

What unsupported speculation have I uttered?

Genuine mediumship for one, survival hypothesis for another.

My total post count should be around 12,500.

Ian, get a life…

I might go into a lot of detail on my website, but I'm not prepared to do so on here. People on here just don't ever understand anything anyway. I just completely despair.

Ian, have you ever considered the possibility that either a) you are simply not making sense b) you are simply wrong? It must be tough being the smartest mind on Earth and then being limited to post to morons on an internet forum.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Do you know what pisses me off? An otherwise reasonably coherent poster who posts "you do not take into account.." Then I explain how I take that into a account, and he/she posts back: "you don't take into account..[just the same]"

READ my [rule 8] posts, OK? Or don't, I don't care; I'm outta here.

Hans

No Hans, you in no way took that into account.

you said:
we would have evolved out ability to sense those weak and possibly erratical signals to the outmost,

This is the assumption that you repeated. Like I said, you assume that there are no developmental constraints on how well your hypothesised "psi detecting organ" would be able to function. I can say this because we don't know how psi works (assuming it exists). I notice how you make no attempt to show me how I'm wrong. Oh well I suppose you're "outta here" anyway.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channelled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.

But if I've understood anything you've said these past few years, my brain, like everything else other than my mind, is simply an illusion played upon my senses by the universal Mind. It is no more a fundamental part of me than that tree over there. Why would the universal Mind go to all the bother to give me the illusion of a brain that has the power to limit my mind's processing?

I will be pleasantly surprised if you answer this question.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But if I've understood anything you've said these past few years, my brain, like everything else other than my mind, is simply an illusion played upon my senses by the universal Mind.



No the brain is no more illusionary than any other object.



It is no more a fundamental part of me than that tree over there. Why would the universal Mind go to all the bother to give me the illusion of a brain that has the power to limit my mind's processing?



The world operates according to physical laws. My mental state must be affected with any interaction with the environment, otherwise I could never know about the environment! It's just that the brain effects us more.

We are in a reduced mental state whilst living in this empirical reality. I don't know why we are but I suppose it will have something to do with learning lessons whilst in this life.



I will be pleasantly surprised if you answer this question.

~~ Paul

I can feel the glow from here.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
No the brain is no more illusionary than any other object.
You're avoiding my point: Is my brain different from any other non-mind object?

The world operates according to physical laws.
Not yours. It operates according to the laws of the universal Mind, apparently.

My mental state must be affected with any interaction with the environment, otherwise I could never know about the environment! It's just that the brain effects us more.
Why does the Mind bother with the environment?

We are in a reduced mental state whilst living in this empirical reality. I don't know why we are but I suppose it will have something to do with learning lessons whilst in this life.
Aha! Okay, as long as we don't know what is the point of this almost-dualistic schism between the mind and everything else, I'm happy. Although why this state of affairs makes you so happy not to be a materialist I cannot fathom.

I can feel the glow from here.
It's the glow of confusion, as usual.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

I see no more reason to presume physical evolution would improve psi ability, than to presume physical evolution would close down psi. In fact the latter would explain some mysteries

For example, the result (purpose?) of earthy life could be a birth of individual consciousness/awareness from within a greater collective consciousness .... if we all had perfect PSI telepathy with no established sense of individuality, how individual would be our minds? Not at all, in my opinion. So perhaps once we have established an identity that evolves through a sense of space and time that occurs as a result of being trapped in the limitations of the body/brain, a sense/experience of individuality is born. Space, time could mean individuality, a sense of separate things of objects and things. Upon brain death would individual consciousness be lost? Not necessarily, once a awareness of space, time, individuality has started it could just begin to evolve ...... evolution could mean increased individuality as there is a tendency for more evolved creatures to behave in a individual rather than collective species manner.

What about reincarnation? Perhaps consciousness keeps splitting just like we have offspring ..... the new individual has some awareness of it's source but this diminishes as it develops it's own individuality and starts to evolve. Our individual consciousness could have come from what is now a group consciousness, that came from a collective human consciousness, that eventually links back to one single consciousness - God ;)

PSI, could be a threat to both developing individual consciousness and also a disruption of the brains focus on physical reality for earthly survival. Some skeptics seem to be defining PSI as something that would necessarily be controllable by the human brain, a sort of private telepathic telephone channel that can be dominated by an individual or species so therefore would offer some advantage through evolution ……but what if when trapped in a physical body PSI is fairly useless?

Instead of viewing psi as a super human power that parapsychologist have been looking for (and finding only weak effects) , perhaps we should consider PSI more along the lines of what their much earlier psychical researchers suspected. That PSI is controlled by external consciousness, not human consciousness of those on earth.

PSI might not just be uncontrollable to humans, it might be risky too. Look at the evolution of the internet, it is not just positive, the human monkeys have decided to invent viruses, spam, immoral / criminal activities, deception (pretending to be another identity on –line) … ..of course th internet is useful and it is controllable ... but we cannot assume that anyone can dominate psi.

Religions have long believed PSI communication could have its spammers, undesired, incoherent information leading to some cases of schizophrenia? Or what about a PSI virus, thoughts that live and seek to inhabit the human mind? Or possession (parasitic entities?) Or what about deception, a spirit person deliberately giving wrong information to deceive for mischievous purpose? What about of non humans surviving too, other rival species using psi to deceive? :eek: :D

Well actually I doubt psi is anywhere near that dangerous, but then again I would question the unknown stranger entering my house .. so perhaps those investigating psychic phenomena should question the unknown stranger entering their minds ;)

OK, I am heading into the realms of fantasy :D but perhaps that is what life after death is ... fantasy ........we all have this idea that logic is wonderful because it is essential to our reality and physical survival ..and because PSI doesn't seem logical we reject it ..... frankly logic and calculation are often mundane ....... we seek the things that give us greatest pleasure like are happiness, love, art, music, cinema, etc. ...... even our science goal is often to try an create new fantasies, more emotional happiness ....... whose heaven would completely resemble earth?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I see no more reason to presume physical evolution would improve psi ability, than to presume physical evolution would close down psi. In fact the latter would explain some mysteries

For example, the result (purpose?) of earthy life could be a birth of individual consciousness/awareness from within a greater collective consciousness .... if we all had perfect PSI telepathy with no established sense of individuality, how individual would be our minds? Not at all, in my opinion. So perhaps once we have established an identity that evolves through a sense of space and time that occurs as a result of being trapped in the limitations of the body/brain, a sense/experience of individuality is born. Space, time could mean individuality, a sense of separate things of objects and things. Upon brain death would individual consciousness be lost? Not necessarily, once a awareness of space, time, individuality has started it could just begin to evolve ...... evolution could mean increased individuality as there is a tendency for more evolved creatures to behave in a individual rather than collective species manner.

What about reincarnation? Perhaps consciousness keeps splitting just like we have offspring ..... the new individual has some awareness of it's source but this diminishes as it develops it's own individuality and starts to evolve. Our individual consciousness could have come from what is now a group consciousness, that came from a collective human consciousness, that eventually links back to one single consciousness - God ;)

PSI, could be a threat to both developing individual consciousness and also a disruption of the brains focus on physical reality for earthly survival. Some skeptics seem to be defining PSI as something that would necessarily be controllable by the human brain, a sort of private telepathic telephone channel that can be dominated by an individual or species so therefore would offer some advantage through evolution ……but what if when trapped in a physical body PSI is fairly useless?

Instead of viewing psi as a super human power that parapsychologist have been looking for (and finding only weak effects) , perhaps we should consider PSI more along the lines of what their much earlier psychical researchers suspected. That PSI is controlled by external consciousness, not human consciousness of those on earth.

PSI might not just be uncontrollable to humans, it might be risky too. Look at the evolution of the internet, it is not just positive, the human monkeys have decided to invent viruses, spam, immoral / criminal activities, deception (pretending to be another identity on –line) … ..of course th internet is useful and it is controllable ... but we cannot assume that anyone can dominate psi.

Religions have long believed PSI communication could have its spammers, undesired, incoherent information leading to some cases of schizophrenia? Or what about a PSI virus, thoughts that live and seek to inhabit the human mind? Or possession (parasitic entities?) Or what about deception, a spirit person deliberately giving wrong information to deceive for mischievous purpose? What about of non humans surviving too, other rival species using psi to deceive? :eek: :D

Well actually I doubt psi is anywhere near that dangerous, but then again I would question the unknown stranger entering my house .. so perhaps those investigating psychic phenomena should question the unknown stranger entering their minds ;)

OK, I am heading into the realms of fantasy :D but perhaps that is what life after death is ... fantasy ........we all have this idea that logic is wonderful because it is essential to our reality and physical survival ..and because PSI doesn't seem logical we reject it ..... frankly logic and calculation are often mundane ....... we seek the things that give us greatest pleasure like are happiness, love, art, music, cinema, etc. ...... even our science goal is often to try an create new fantasies, more emotional happiness ....... whose heaven would completely resemble earth?

What a bunch of hooey.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What a bunch of hooey.

Oh goody :) That should mean you will want to publish it on Skeptic Report. :D

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I see no more reason to presume physical evolution would improve psi ability, than to presume physical evolution would close down psi. In fact the latter would explain some mysteries

For example, the result (purpose?) of earthy life could be a birth of individual consciousness/awareness from within a greater collective consciousness .... if we all had perfect PSI telepathy with no established sense of individuality, how individual would be our minds? Not at all, in my opinion.

That’s an intriguing idea. I reckon that such an idea must be based on some kind of mental monist view of reality though. If you can figure out how two separate streams of consciousness can emerge from a single one then perhaps you have the basis for explaining why we seem to have private experiences. You could even perhaps explain how physical reality is constucted by this process. An immense task indeed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Oh goody :) That should mean you will want to publish it on Skeptic Report. :D

I certainly think he should. It's vastly more interesting and insightful than any of the other cr@p he puts in there (the little I've read anyway).

So how about it Claus??

[Garrette]

All quotations originally posted by Open Mind:

I see no more reason to presume physical evolution would improve psi ability, than to presume physical evolution would close down psi. In fact the latter would explain some mysteries.
For psi to be “closed down� it would have to be there to begin with.

So unless you’re positing that psi was present with the first organism then it had to evolve which means it had an evolutionary advantage.

For example, the result (purpose?) of earthy life could be a birth of individual consciousness/awareness from within a greater collective consciousness ....
1. This assumes there is a purpose. There is no indication that there is one. Evolution certainly does not work toward a purpose at all, regardless if an external one exists.

2. If there is a purpose about which we are to speculate, then why stop at this one.

3. Regarding your postulated purpose, what possible good is it? How would a “greater collective consciousness� be improved through acquisition of an individual consciousness?

4. You are, again, assuming that the greater collective consciousness existed prior to the first organism or sprang into being with the first organism.
if we all had perfect PSI telepathy with no established sense of individuality, how individual would be our minds? Not at all, in my opinion. So perhaps once we have established an identity that evolves through a sense of space and time that occurs as a result of being trapped in the limitations of the body/brain, a sense/experience of individuality is born.
To what purpose?

My experience is that believers (including you and Ian) believe it a positive thing to tap back into the greater collective consciousness and that failure to do so is limiting (you even call the body/brain a “limitation� in this post).

So you’re saying something that was better voluntarily morphed at least partially into something more limited so that the something more limited can try to get back as part of the something better.
Space, time could mean individuality, a sense of separate things of objects and things.
And it could mean pink fluffy things.

But I’ll turn off the sarcastic mode for a moment:

You’re saying the greater collective consciousness has no sense of separate physical objects. That its very collectiveness is a limitation.

If that is the case, then what credence should we give to any claim that invokes it?

Nina Kulagina, for instance: if real, her powers must come from the greater collective consciousness, but you’ve just indicated that the GCC has no sense of physical things, so it can’t be the source of her power. Since it’s not the source of her power, she can have no such power because she must rely on the purely physical.
Upon brain death would individual consciousness be lost? Not necessarily, once a awareness of space, time, individuality has started it could just begin to evolve ...... evolution could mean increased individuality as there is a tendency for more evolved creatures to behave in a individual rather than collective species manner.
Then I don’t need the GCC. I can act extremely individually now.

What about reincarnation? Perhaps consciousness keeps splitting just like we have offspring ..... the new individual has some awareness of it's source but this diminishes as it develops it's own individuality and starts to evolve.
This argues against the oft-heard claim that the ancients were better.

Individuality is the goal and is better, so stop trying to tap into that old stuff.
Our individual consciousness could have come from what is now a group consciousness, that came from a collective human consciousness, that eventually links back to one single consciousness - God
This makes no sense whatsoever.

PSI, could be a threat to both developing individual consciousness and also a disruption of the brains focus on physical reality for earthly survival. Some skeptics seem to be defining PSI as something that would necessarily be controllable by the human brain, a sort of private telepathic telephone channel that can be dominated by an individual or species so therefore would offer some advantage through evolution ……but what if when trapped in a physical body PSI is fairly useless?
I think it’s quite obvious that—if it exists—it’s fairly useless. No one’s used it for anything of use.

Let me make sure I understand, though.

You’re suggesting PSI is a sort of vestigial tail that gets in the way when we metaphorically walk?

If you believe this to be the case, I suggest your efforts to convince others PSI exists are detrimental to the stated purpose. You should convince everyone it doesn’t exist and that any attempts to prove it or develop it are fruitless. Otherwise we’ll never continue our evolution toward a greater individual consciousness.
Instead of viewing psi as a super human power that parapsychologist have been looking for (and finding only weak effects) , perhaps we should consider PSI more along the lines of what their much earlier psychical researchers suspected. That PSI is controlled by external consciousness, not human consciousness of those on earth.
But you’ve already shown that the GCC has no sense of physical objects so how could it possibly manipulate the GIC to do so?
PSI might not just be uncontrollable to humans, it might be risky too. Look at the evolution of the internet, it is not just positive, the human monkeys have decided to invent viruses, spam, immoral / criminal activities, deception (pretending to be another identity on –line) … ..of course th internet is useful and it is controllable ... but we cannot assume that anyone can dominate psi.
I don’t think anyone has suggested that PSI is either all good or all bad.

Plus, you’re using “evolution� incorrectly when applying it to the internet.
Religions have long believed PSI communication could have its spammers, undesired, incoherent information leading to some cases of schizophrenia?
What religions?
Or what about a PSI virus, thoughts that live and seek to inhabit the human mind? Or possession (parasitic entities?) Or what about deception, a spirit person deliberately giving wrong information to deceive for mischievous purpose? What about of non humans surviving too, other rival species using psi to deceive?
What about them?

You are, again, suggesting the existence of something prior to the existence of the first organism. Further, you are suggesting multiple somethings. A GCC, parasitic entities, spirit people, psi virus.

What do you have besides wild conjecture to lend credence to this hypothesis?
Well actually I doubt psi is anywhere near that dangerous, but then again I would question the unknown stranger entering my house .. so perhaps those investigating psychic phenomena should question the unknown stranger entering their minds
There’s usually evidence of the stranger trying to enter the house.
OK, I am heading into the realms of fantasy
Clearly.
but perhaps that is what life after death is ... fantasy .......
Or perhaps it doesn’t exist.
.we all have this idea that logic is wonderful because it is essential to our reality and physical survival
Close enough.
..and because PSI doesn't seem logical we reject it
No.

It is rejected because the evidence is not in its favor. By a very very long shot.
..... frankly logic and calculation are often mundane
Oh, yes.
....... we seek the things that give us greatest pleasure like are happiness, love, art, music, cinema, etc.
Yes, but this is irrelevant to your point.
...... even our science goal is often to try an create new fantasies, more emotional happiness .......
Poppycock.
whose heaven would completely resemble earth?
So you’re saying: I want something more therefore PSI exists?
I don’t have my personal heaven yet, but it’s not that far off.

Give me a comfortable world in which my children are safe and guaranteed of an excellent and prosperous future and I will.

That does not require psi.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I someone could consistently read my mind, I would kill them. The rest is up to evolution.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Garrette,


For psi to be “closed down� it would have to be there to begin with.

So unless you’re positing that psi was present with the first organism then it had to evolve which means it had an evolutionary advantage.

Yes either to some degree, if consciousness is outside the brain, PSI could be from consciousness to consciousness, not so much the brain evolving telepathy, perhaps more like leakage rather than controlled solely by physical evolution

Also an evolutionary advantage can become an evolutionary disadvantage depending on the environment. If the hypothesis the brain is closing down psi in more individualized creatures is true, I suggest this would probably predict less competitive more cooperative creatures have more psi ability ….. to test this might involve testing social insects or perhaps psi trials on tribal communities, if less competitive groups exist. This reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake who also thinks friends and close family do a bit better in telepathy trials, of course to a skeptic this increases suspicion of cheating.

I think competitiveness (which increases individuality and intelligence too) might spoil psi. For example would a rival creature want to psi another creature to know where food is? It is possibly more likely to be used to deceptively entice the rival there to make a meal of it? :) I’m just questioning how effective psi could evolve in our physical competitive environment.

Also if PSI can be evolved I would suggest anti-psi would evolve too. (This might also question the wisdom of Mr Randi testing people claiming psi with an adversarial tone, as his 1 million challenge website acknowledges an adversarial tone is very likely to be adopted, it is a challenge that I would sum up as ‘we don’t believe you, we will show you and others, you cannot do what you think you can do’


1. This assumes there is a purpose. There is no indication that there is one. Evolution certainly does not work toward a purpose at all, regardless if an external one exists.

But Garrette, old pal, I put ‘purpose’ in brackets with a question mark, that is only one option, the birth of individual consciousness doesn’t necessarily have to be of great planned purpose ….. just like the physical eye could be said to have a 'purpose' and it does after it exists, the process leading to the purpose was not necessarily preplanned according to materialists ……

..... Similar could apply to evolution of consciousness, a purpose is seen but the evolution of consciousness is really the evolution of consciousness evolving towards the more pleasant and learning to avoid the unpleasant. To the religious this would appear a plan of good winning over evil - they see a purpose and there is one after it exists and imagine an old guy with a white beard is controlling the universe arbitrarily.

But how do you know ‘Evolution certainly does not work toward a purpose at all’ … why does evolution exist at all? …….we need to remember ‘evolutionary advantage’ is a theory, a good one but is it partial or complete explanation of evolution? The idea of a soul evolving , long predates Darwinian physical evolution (I think co-discoverer, co publisher Alfred Wallace Russell later argued the case for soul evolution and psi)

Being a fair chap, Garrette, we can test this, I will award you $1million in 50,000 years time if consciousness is purely in the physical brain (inflation, indexed linked of course :) )


2. If there is a purpose about which we are to speculate, then why stop at this one.

No problem, feel free to carry on …


How would a “greater collective consciousness� be improved through acquisition of an individual consciousness?

For example the internet is the linking of individual information systems, the whole benefits.


4. You are, again, assuming that the greater collective consciousness existed prior to the first organism or sprang into being with the first organism.

Not really, I would suggest consciousness could be evolving, collectively and individually, in much the same chaotic manner as physical evolution or by trial and error, acquiring an awareness of what brings pleasant outcomes and avoids pain.


‘if we all had perfect PSI telepathy with no established sense of individuality, how individual would be our minds? Not at all, in my opinion. So perhaps once we have established an identity that evolves through a sense of space and time that occurs as a result of being trapped in the limitations of the body/brain, a sense/experience of individuality is born.
To what purpose?

If you are happy with the idea physical evolution doesn’t require preplanned purpose, why must evolution of consciousness require a preplanned purpose? :) I don’t know, I wish I did.


you’re saying something that was better voluntarily morphed at least partially into something more limited so that the something more limited can try to get back as part of the something better.

Not quite, the evolution of individual consciouness, within groups consciousness, within larger group consciousness .. perhaps eventually rooting to a single consciousness (God?) …. The subdivisions are evolving the groups and the whole, is God evolving? Eastern religions might say God is beyond time, therefore already perfect, but expressed in time and space imperfect and evolving.


You’re saying the greater collective consciousness has no sense of separate physical objects. That its very collectiveness is a limitation.

No, I didn’t mean that. I was trying to say to develop a new individual consciousness might occur from a separation/isolation from the source consciousness being shut off from it when in earthly incarnation. Otherwise it would remember it’s origin, previous existence.

I think individual consciousness might split. Let us imagine the death of a guy called Garrette . Garrette floats out of the body, and whooshes though a tunnel of light ….. he remains Garrette in a place that resembles his expectations, his consciousness is Garratte, he feels he is Garrette, he is indeed still Garrette …… however he begins to realize he existed before being Garrette, and has some memories of making plastic knobs for TV sets in Hong Kong ….. he then meets Miss Wong Tu Shing who also has identical memories of making the very same plastic knobs and buttons for TV sets in the same place at the same time ….. they were the same person, had the same consciousness :eek: but no longer are, Miss Wong Tu Shing did not exactly reincarnate, she continued to evolve where she was and remains Miss Wong Tu Shing ….. her consciousness split for some reason. In nature there is a splitting of cells and even humans into offsping, etc.)

Now Garrette, this might be complete nonsense but you gotta admit I have budding future in science fiction if nothing else (or perhaps an off shoot of my consciouness will have ;) )


Our individual consciousness could have come from what is now a group consciousness, that came from a collective human consciousness, that eventually links back to one single consciousness - God

This makes no sense whatsoever.

You don’t believe you are part of Miss Wong Tu Shing! :eek: I was merely suggesting consciousness might split and evolve, it is not a loss of consciousness at the split, it is just consciousness heads of two different evolutions sharing the same memory origin .... perhaps all human consciousness is another group all linked at a source level which in turn evolved from another consciousness and so on …….


Then I don’t need the GCC. I can act extremely individually now.

Tough luck Garrette, I’ve decided in this post you have a greater collective consciousness whether you like it or not!!!!!!!!!! ;)

you believe this to be the case, I suggest your efforts to convince others PSI exists are detrimental to the stated purpose. You should convince everyone it doesn’t exist and that any attempts to prove it or develop it are fruitless. Otherwise we’ll never continue our evolution toward a greater individual consciousness.

Hmm … I wonder if Miss Wong Tu Shing was also such cunning debater :)


Religions have long believed PSI communication could have its spammers, undesired, incoherent information leading to some cases of schizophrenia?

What religions?

Perhaps my wording didn’t make this clear enough. As you will know religions have regarded people hearing voices in the past as possession, performing exorcism etc. Today we call this mental illness …


Further, you are suggesting multiple somethings. A GCC, parasitic entities, spirit people, psi virus.

What do you have besides wild conjecture to lend credence to this hypothesis?

These are also old ideas Garrette, I was suggesting ideas as to why PSI ability might not evolve as expected by some skeptics, in doing so I also attempted to unify common paranormal claims .….. not because I am stating these definitely exist but to show we cannot rule these out, at least yet.

….. a few psychiatrists are re-investigating possession as cause of mental illness, such as Dr Alan Sanderson (http://www.spiritrelease.com/review_spiritrelease.htm ) claiming cases where it works when medical treatment has failed.
Now whether this is placebo or not I don't know, in my opinion, they really need to do proper clinical trials, which might cause outrage to those hold a-priori belief it is ancient superstitious nonsense .... but I think science should not feel above testing any idea, old or new ......