PDA

View Full Version : Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot


shemp
2nd July 2005, 07:35 AM
Could a Little Boy Be Proof of Reincarnation? (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/story?id=894217&page=1)

June 30, 2005 -- Six decades ago, a 21-year-old Navy fighter pilot on a mission over the Pacific was shot down by Japanese artillery. His name might have been forgotten, were it not for 6-year-old James Leininger.

Quite a few people — including those who knew the fighter pilot — think James is the pilot, reincarnated.

James' parents, Andrea and Bruce, a highly educated, modern couple, say they are "probably the people least likely to have a scenario like this pop up in their lives."

But over time, they have become convinced their little son has had a former life.

Yeah, it's pretty convincing stuff... if you're a delusional idiot.

At least the skeptics get thrown a bone near the end:

But professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who heads an organization that investigates claims of the paranormal, says he thinks the parents are "self-deceived."

"They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale," he said.

They could have given some space to an explanation of how people become self-deceived, but they dropped the ball.

The Central Scrutinizer
2nd July 2005, 07:44 AM
That Paul Kurtz is such a spoil sport.

Nucular
2nd July 2005, 08:23 AM
Why do parents think they know exactly which knowledge has entered their child's consciousness?

This story should be headlined "Little Boy Knows More About Aeroplanes Than His Mum"Then James' violent nightmares got worse, occurring three and four times a week. Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.Oh for pity's sake :mad:

Nucular
2nd July 2005, 08:39 AM
This made me go and scowl through Bowman's book again (Children's Past Lives: How Past Life Memories can Affect your Child).

From there, her tale of her defeat of that nagging sceptical instinct:The skeptical voice in my mind interrupted, chiding, "You're just making this up." But the compelling images and emotions were stronger than my doubting mind. This skeptical voice soon quieted and disappeared as I was pulled deeper into the experience ..."Wow, what a hero.

It's annoying enough that some people choose to take money for giving adults delusions, but it's this quack's job to give children delusions, whole families too.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
2nd July 2005, 12:22 PM
I know a kid who talks about nothing but automobiles. He must be the reincarnation of Ettore Bugatti.

~~ Paul

RichardR
2nd July 2005, 01:32 PM
Look at this "Children's Past Lives" discussion forum: (http://www.childpastlives.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=5250&page=1&pp=35) The little boy's Mom and Dad have been contributing. Lots of comments about skeptics being "closed minded" etc - anyone want to go over there?

I also found this news article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/news/s_189477.html) which says:

At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft.

A few months later, the nightmares began.

Anyone see a connection here that doesn't involve reincarnation?

CFLarsen
2nd July 2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
Anyone see a connection here that doesn't involve reincarnation?

Of course not....How close-minded of you to suggest a natural explanation!!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
2nd July 2005, 05:00 PM
child abuse

Open Mind
2nd July 2005, 08:36 PM
But professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who heads an organization that investigates claims of the paranormal, says he thinks the parents are "self-deceived."

"They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale," he said.


Kurtz’s claims on the CSICOP website is that his organization ’ Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully’ …. Hmm…. Did Paul Kurtz investigate this case before commenting it is a ‘fairy tale’ ?

These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_stevenson.pdf

Some skeptics in here have implied a ‘quack’ put these ideas in the child’s mind . At 3 years old? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Or you could argue that all these 3 year old infants invented a phoney previous lives with a common feature of a violent death just to fool their parents? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Paul Kurtz thinks the parents are self deceived? So a parent somehow interacts with a their 3 year old child, accidentally convincing the child it was an adult who suffered a violent death and had other parents, etc. ......Does Paul Kurtz think this is a good explanation?

If we assume that somehow, someone, indeed anyone put an idea of previously being an adult + a violent death into the mind of an infant … why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? Any chance the developing brain shuts down PSI? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

Nor am I arguing these prove reincarnation, even in cases where there is reportedly accurate information given by the child ….it is still too quick to assume it proves reincarnation, it could be (a) Reincarnation (b) Confused earthbound spirits influencing infants minds - Note: ghosts, poltergeists, hauntings
etc. also are often associated with violent deaths (c) Human memories are collectively stored somewhere and at times people can pick these up (super PSI theory) .......

RichardR
2nd July 2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
Kurtz’s claims on the CSICOP website is that his organization ’ Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully’ …. Hmm…. Did Paul Kurtz investigate this case before commenting it is a ‘fairy tale’ ?

Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

Originally posted by Open Mind
These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_stevenson.pdf

Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-book.htm)and here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-belief.htm)

Originally posted by Open Mind
Some skeptics in here have implied a ‘quack’ put these ideas in the child’s mind . At 3 years old? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Straw Man

Originally posted by Open Mind
Or you could argue that all these 3 year old infants invented a phoney previous lives with a common feature of a violent death just to fool their parents? Are you sure that is a good explanation?

Straw Man

Originally posted by Open Mind
Paul Kurtz thinks the parents are self deceived? So a parent somehow interacts with a their 3 year old child, accidentally convincing the child it was an adult who suffered a violent death and had other parents, etc. ......Does Paul Kurtz think this is a good explanation?

Straw Man

Originally posted by Open Mind
If we assume that somehow, someone, indeed anyone put an idea of previously being an adult + a violent death into the mind of an infant … why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? Any chance the developing brain shuts down PSI? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

If we assume that somehow, this child really was reincarnated. Why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)

Originally posted by Open Mind
Nor am I arguing these prove reincarnation, even in cases where there is reportedly accurate information given by the child ….it is still too quick to assume it proves reincarnation, it could be (a) Reincarnation (b) Confused earthbound spirits influencing infants minds - Note: ghosts, poltergeists, hauntings
etc. also are often associated with violent deaths (c) Human memories are collectively stored somewhere and at times people can pick these up (super PSI theory) .......

Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first.

Open Mind
3rd July 2005, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by RichardR
Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.



Fine, you have faith in this principle, what happens when CSICOP claims to be the Committee for the 'Scientific Investigation' of Claims of the Paranormal' .... where is the evidence they have done any proper 'scientific investigation' ..... where is the evidence one can offer revisionism without any proper scientific experimentation not based on a-priori belief?



Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first. [/B]

Fine, you have faith in Occams Razor.


Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-book.htm)and here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-belief.htm)


So you are claiming (and the burden of proof is on the claimant)
Stevenson investigates claims for 40 years = incedulous fool ...... Richard Rockley comments from armchair = wise dude.

Should we apply Occam's Razor to this too?

Zep
3rd July 2005, 04:59 AM
The "investigative process" Bowman used with the boy probably ran like this:

Is this a picture of the pilot you were in a past life? This man here in the photograph?

Yes!

And is this a picture of the plane in which you were shot down by Japanese artillery over the Pacific? Just like the one in the museum?

Yes!

And is this what you are dreaming about? Getting shot down and crashing and dying? Is that making you dream bad dreams?

Yes.

Case proven!






Umm, objection, m'lud - leading the witness???

RichardR
3rd July 2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Open Mind
Fine, you have faith in this principle, what happens when CSICOP claims to be the Committee for the 'Scientific Investigation' of Claims of the Paranormal' .... where is the evidence they have done any proper 'scientific investigation' ..... where is the evidence one can offer revisionism without any proper scientific experimentation not based on a-priori belief?

I have no faith – that is belief without evidence which is stupid. But it should be obvious the person making the claim should back up that claim. Since there is no real back-up for this extraordinary claim (other than anecdotes), there is nothing really to investigate.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Fine, you have faith in Occams Razor.

Again, no faith in anything. But Occam’s razor says don’t invent unnecessary explanations – and why would you want to invent extraordinary explanations when a prosaic one fits?

Originally posted by Open Mind
So you are claiming (and the burden of proof is on the claimant)
Stevenson investigates claims for 40 years = incedulous fool ...... Richard Rockley comments from armchair = wise dude.

Should we apply Occam's Razor to this too?

No because Occam’s razor does not apply here – you clearly don’t understand Occam’s razor.

I backed up my claim about Stevenson with a detailed analysis of what is wrong with his work. So if you want to disagree with that you will need to find faults in my analysis, as I did with Stevenson’s. So I suggest you find something wrong with my analysis or go away.

sophia8
3rd July 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I know a kid who talks about nothing but automobiles. He must be the reincarnation of Ettore Bugatti.

~~ Paul
Oh no he's not! I know, because my son is. His very first word, at nine months old, wasn't "Mum" or even "Dad" - it was "CAR!!!!!" He was pointing at one too! In fact, it was the only word he would say for the next three weeks - every time we took him out, he would unerringly point at a car and shout "CAR!!!!" And he was correct every single time!
Twenty years later, he'll point at a car and say "Oooh look! A 6-cylinder overhead cam 2000zigzfrop Porshe 911XXL - and take a look at those double furled rear doodads! You don't see many of those around!"

He likes cars. Just like this child likes airplanes.

Anders W. Bonde
3rd July 2005, 03:52 PM
"Open Mind",

Do you have children? If so, you should know how utterly easy it is to make small kids belive and expand upon any old nutty story you cook up and feed them with. It's one of the reasons nonsense (including religion) is so readily perpetuated from generation to generation - children are very gullible and suggestible because it's a very necessary evolutionary survival trait related to their incredible ability to learn and absorb the World...

Dredred
3rd July 2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
children are very gullible and suggestible because it's a very necessary evolutionary survival trait related to their incredible ability to learn and absorb the World...

Yes, and it would be so nice to use this impressionability to teach them critical thinking. Today i really had some explaining to do to convince my kid that you can NOT make diamonds out of pieces of broken glass. Apparently someone told her that, and now she wanted to pick up every piece of broken glass on the streets.

Open Mind
3rd July 2005, 09:15 PM
No because Occam’s razor does not apply here – you clearly don’t understand Occam’s razor.


But it seems to me you don’t understand it …… the true value of Occam’s Razor is in choosing which hypothesis to test first when several hypothesis can explain an observation…….One is suppose to test and challenge the least contrived hypothesis to see if it can be falsified, if it doesn't fit perfectly the next simplest is tested and so on….. but you are not doing this, you are using Occam’s Razor as a faith that your opinion on what is the least contrived solution is the correct one, ~The End ~ ...... but there is doubt (or should be) and you don't seem to be trying to test it or falsify your hypothesis

……. Have you investigated actual cases? The problem with indirectly reading about these is that to prevent your hypothesis being falsified requires Professor Ian Stevenson (and Professor Erlander Haraldsson) to be an ‘credulous fool’ such an idiot he unaware that children are very impressionable and such an idiot he did not even consider such an obvious hypothesis? Have you considered the possibility he investigated it and he is of the opinion a more complex explanation is required?

Professor Ian Stevenson does not argue his research proves reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you are calling him an ‘credulous fool’ ….. he points out the problems, the flaws and the weak cases too.


I backed up my claim about Stevenson with a detailed analysis of what is wrong with his work. So if you want to disagree with that you will need to find faults in my analysis, as I did with Stevenson’s. So I suggest you find something wrong with my analysis or go away.


Stevenson has investigated over a 1000 cases, your article did not seem very detailed to me. ……. But you are entitled to your opinion.

As for me to ‘go away’ your wish may be granted shortly :)

KelvinG
3rd July 2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
As for me to ‘go away’ your wish may be granted shortly :)

If this is true, please promise me that you'll spare us one of those dramatic, self serving, arrogant "I'm leaving this forum forever" threads where you decry all the evil skeptics and how you feel sorry for us, blah, blah, blah.

It's mean, it's been done to death. I think leaving without saying a word and never coming back is much more original.

Open Mind
3rd July 2005, 09:26 PM
I was actually referring to leaving this one topic :) ...... it seems another wants me to leave the forum? :eek:

It is nice to be popular here :)

KelvinG
3rd July 2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
I was actually referring to leaving this one topic :) ...... it seems another wants me to leave the forum? :eek:

It is nice to be popular here :)

If you're referring to me, I never said I wanted you to leave this forum. I will be ever so happy if you stick around and grow old with the rest of us.

When you said you might "go away" I thought you meant from this forum. I had a hunch you were dropping a hint, that would prepare us for a grand exit, not unlike we've seen from other posters who seem to think their leaving actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of "Goodbye forever" threads.

But, it would appear I misunderstood your post. It happens.

RichardR
3rd July 2005, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
But it seems to me you don’t understand it …… the true value of Occam’s Razor is in choosing which hypothesis to test first when several hypothesis can explain an observation…….

No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/occamsrazor.htm)

Originally posted by Open Mind
One is suppose to test and challenge the least contrived hypothesis to see if it can be falsified, if it doesn't fit perfectly the next simplest is tested and so on….. but you are not doing this, you are using Occam’s Razor as a faith that your opinion on what is the least contrived solution is the correct one, ~The End ~ ...... but there is doubt (or should be) and you don't seem to be trying to test it or falsify your hypothesis

As I explained in my write up, the parsimonious hypotheses were not falsified, and so less parsimonious ones are not required.

Oh, and nice try with the faith thing. It’s an old argument that is as flawed as Stevenson’s book.


Originally posted by Open Mind
……. Have you investigated actual cases? The problem with indirectly reading about these is that to prevent your hypothesis being falsified requires Professor Ian Stevenson (and Professor Erlander Haraldsson) to be an ‘credulous fool’ such an idiot he unaware that children are very impressionable and such an idiot he did not even consider such an obvious hypothesis? Have you considered the possibility he investigated it and he is of the opinion a more complex explanation is required?

He is extremely credulous, and even his researchers thought so in some cases (as you would know if you had read his book). Can you find flaws in the case I presented or not? Because if not, my case stands.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Professor Ian Stevenson does not argue his research proves reincarnation, so I’m not sure why you are calling him an ‘credulous fool’ ….. he points out the problems, the flaws and the weak cases too.

He does argue for reincarnation. Don’t be disingenuous.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Stevenson has investigated over a 1000 cases, your article did not seem very detailed to me. ……. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Not an opinion, although nice try again. As I wrote, this book was supposed to be his best cases. They were flawed – deeply so – ans so I don’t feel a need to read the rest. Now, I have written a detailed rebuttal of Stevenson. Do you have any counterpoints, yes or no?

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by RichardR
Irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.



OK, are you making the claim that reincarnation does not exist?




Stevenson is a well meaning but credulous fool. I wrote about him here (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-book.htm)and here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-belief.htm)



WOW! Your second link's a complete joke isn't it? :eek:

I've read a couple of Ian's books, but not that one so I can't really comment upon your impressions. I will say though that your "analysis" is hopelessly shallow. And what's this about the birth marks having moved?? Of course they move! Ones body stretches out as one grows! Ian takes this into account even if you don't.





If we assume that somehow, this child really was reincarnated. Why are these much rarer after 6 years old and why do vivid memories tend to have stopped altogether by teenage years? (Parapsychology trials on children under 5 have never been properly done)



The same reason as we forget the vast majority of what's happened prior to 6 years old. The very fact that they all share this feature adds more to the plausibility of these accounts.



Occam’s Razor indicates we should look for prosaic explanations first.

No it doesn't. Occam's razor tells us that we should look for the more parsimonious explanations. Reincarnation fits that bill.

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by RichardR
[B]No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/occamsrazor.htm)



People would be ill advised to read up on it on that squalid web site. After making about 13,000 posts on this board I feel I can confidently say that neither you, or any other skeptic who appeals to Occam's razor, has a clue what it means.

It's whole point is that one should not propose convoluted implausible explanations to explain a phenomenon. But this is precisely what skeptics damn well do!! :mad:

Jeez.

Nucular
4th July 2005, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No it doesn't. Occam's razor tells us that we should look for the more parsimonious explanations. Reincarnation fits that bill. Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?

Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence; we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up. Do anecdotes of people confabulating or children playing along count as pretty sturdy evidence to you?

Or do you have anything more sturdy?

Giz
4th July 2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Open Mind


These truly strange cases of young children who on average are under 3 years old! telling parents about vivid memories of being an adult in previous life, with 70-80% of these infants including a recall of a violent death ……. are curious to say the least

Perhaps he saw Pearl Harbour on DVD. A mental age of three was probably the target audience.

They should have held an image of Ben Affleck up to the kid - "Is this the pilot you were?"

Darat
4th July 2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Nucular
Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?

Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence; we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up. Do anecdotes of people confabulating or children playing along count as pretty sturdy evidence to you?

Or do you have anything more sturdy?

For Ian he does have something sturdier – faith - and like all faiths it does not come from knowledge or reasoning:

Originally By Interesting Ian

...snip...

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known :)

...snip...


Obviously just because he holds a belief in reincarnation through nothing more then a faith doesn't means he is wrong however it does mean that his view of the matter is always subjective.


(Edited to add a rather important "doesn't".)

Open Mind
4th July 2005, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by RichardR
No, it means that if you have a hypothesis that explains the observations, you don’t need to add additional unfalsifiable entities to the explanation. Perhaps you should read up on it a bit (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/occamsrazor.htm)



An inferior interpretation, the preferred hypothesis should always be tested since there is reasonable doubt over the correct explanation in many paranormal claims. Yet you offer an example in which there is little reasonable doubt…….

‘Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:
1. The cat drank it
or
2. The milk fairy drank it
Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. ‘


I’m not convinced even the most gullible of paranormal believers would go for the milk fairy theory, so what does this really mean? ……yet you accused my words earlier of being a strawman! Gosh :)

If you think all paranormal claims fall into this type of scenario you are badly mistaken .. yes there are silly people out there who are obscuring the more interesting cases …… But many paranormal claims are NOT easy to explain away, unless you assume fraud, lying, conspiracy, group delusion, etc.

Instead of your fictitious example, here is an experience I had several years ago. A small, plastic brush was kept on a window ledge in a kitchen ……. One morning the small plastic brush is found still on the ledge but smashed into small pieces as if hit by a hammer many times … the family members all swear they never did it and were puzzled at how it could have occurred. (As the brush was worthless in value, there was little reason to deny it, in fact they could have placed it in a bin and no one would have given it much thought) . Here are several hypothesis ……

(a) One family member secretly smashed it into small pieces in the middle of the night, placed it back in it’s position and for a decade since has denied doing so.

(b) The morning sunshine exploded a tough plastic brush into small pieces

(c) A hoaxer broke into the house, stole nothing, left no trace but smashed the brush,

(d) Paranormal explanation.


Now using Occam’s Razor which one do you choose?

The point is most pararnormal skeptics will consider (d) last of all ……. The other 3 and any other they can possibly think off is likely to be considered less contrived than the (d) option ……. But there is another problem, the skeptic will assume the person telling the account is lying and it never occurred and it is purely anecdotal. So (d) is never reached …… this is why it is vital skeptics actually research the paranormal for themselves, if they merely read CSICOP revisionism, they are displaying faith much like a believer

Now, you may wish to label me also a 'credulous fool' ... but I did not regard the above event as paranormal (although I cannot explain it) .... and if it was paranormal it wasn't pleasant one ..... so I came up with the theory (b) at the time and forgot about it .... however I don't know of the mechanism of how sunlight can shatter plastic, I'm not sure the sun was shining that morning and why didn't it just break when regularly under use? ......... the point is the only way to find out is to try and test the hypothesis, I cannot unfortuntely and it was thrown in the bin. :)

Which is what pseudo skeptics are doing, prematurely confining paranormal claims to the bin with an unproven hypothesis defended with the faulty use of Occam's Razor ....

Ashles
4th July 2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Open Mind
Instead of your fictitious example, here is an experience I had several years ago. A small, plastic brush was kept on a window ledge in a kitchen …….
So what you have done with your explanation is reject explanations that you know to be possible in favour of one that you do not know if it is possible.

Why? Because you find the alternative unpleasant.

But is it really more likely that the sun caused the damage, or that it was deliberate damage by family or persons unknown?
Or even something that may have fallen on it but now been removed for some reason?

Why is 'people lying' always rejected as a possible explanation?

We know lying happens all the time every day and we do it ourselves. Yet there seems to be some kind of weird stigma attached to saying that other ever people do it.

The fact that you asked all your family about it (and still remember it after all these years) implies that, although the brush may have been worthless in value, it meant something to you.
If a member of your family knew this and had accidentally damaged it then maybe they would lie.
Or maybe you had annoyed one of them and they took it out on the plant.
Who knows.

But isn't it sensible to assume the most likely explanation first, or at least the one you know is possible?

Is it sensible to reject possible and likely explanations simply because they might be unpleasant?

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Nucular
[B]Occam's Razor does tell us that, yes, but how can reincarnation be a more parsimonious explanation than 'people are mistaken'?


It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?



Reincarnation brings with it a whole mess of necessary metaphysical processes and supernatural existence;



I don't know what supernatural existence means, but consciousness is quite definitely not physical. Look, if I can be conscious in this body, why can't I be conscious in another body?? Even materialists have to admit this is possible.



we'd need some pretty sturdy evidence to hold that whole castle in the sky up.

You might do, but I don't. And besides, all the evidence that Ian Stevenson has collected is all consistent with the reincarnation hypothesis but inconsistent with other hypotheses.

richardm
4th July 2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Open Mind
(a) One family member secretly smashed it into small pieces in the middle of the night, placed it back in it’s position and for a decade since has denied doing so.


We know that people do strange things and lie about them afterwards. If there were young kids (and sometimes not so young) in the house, we know that they do things that they think might get them in trouble then swear blind that it wasn't them. Simple but mundane explanation.


(b) The morning sunshine exploded a tough plastic brush into small pieces


We know that heating some things up can make them shatter. Simple and potentially interesting explanation.


(c) A hoaxer broke into the house, stole nothing, left no trace but smashed the brush,


We know that hoaxers exist. Simple and potentially worrying explanation ;)


(d) Paranormal explanation.
...
The point is most pararnormal skeptics will consider (d) last of all ……

Yes, of course, because (d) is another way of saying "I can't think of how this could have happened, so I'm just going to say it must be something we don't understand." Even though you have yourself outlined two or three physical ways that could possibly explain what happened, you choose something that requires the intervention of a huge framework that stands outside of everything we understand about science - i.e. the paranormal. This is the bit that Occam's razor is supposed to cut away. There is no need to propose such a mechanism because we can explain it quite simply with much more mundane suggestions.


the point is the only way to find out is to try and test the hypothesis, I cannot unfortuntely and it was thrown in the bin.

You might be able to, because it's quite possible that the same type of brush is still made today. Of course, they might have changed the makeup of the plastic to overcome this problem. But you could have a go.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?
There's no upper limit.

How many people must be fooled by David Copperfield's illusions before we accept them as real magic? 100? 200? Thousands?

If people are fooled because they share the same brain chemistry and lack of knowledge about their own perceptions then it stands to reason that people will be consistently fooled in the same ways by the same things.

You still harbour under this delusion that evry additional anecdotal story adds some theoretical tiny, but, significant weight to a theory or claim.

This is not the case.

A billion people may believe an incorrect thing. But that thing will still be incorrect.

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
[B]So what you have done with your explanation is reject explanations that you know to be possible in favour of one that you do not know if it is possible.

Why? Because you find the alternative unpleasant.

But is it really more likely that the sun caused the damage, or that it was deliberate damage by family or persons unknown?
Or even something that may have fallen on it but now been removed for some reason?

Why is 'people lying' always rejected as a possible explanation?


By whom? Non-skeptics? False because I would have chosen "a". The point here is that skeptics dismiss the possibility of "d" out of hand. That is not rational.

Nucular
4th July 2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It can quite easily. How many mistakes must people have to make before that hypothesis becomes implausible?I don't know, what would your guess be? In this particular scenario, four people (boy, boy's parents, boy's therapist) encourage each other into making the same mistake as one another: mistaking a small child's interests for evidence of reincarnation.I don't know what supernatural existence means, but consciousness is quite definitely not physical. Look, if I can be conscious in this body, why can't I be conscious in another body?? Even materialists have to admit this is possible.This doesn't make sense: most materialists would say that you are your body. What makes you think that consciousness isn't physical?You might do, but I don't.Clearly. Because you haven't got any, but still want to believe, so you've decided that you're allowed to believe without any evidence, and that others should too.And besides, all the evidence that Ian Stevenson has collected is all consistent with the reincarnation hypothesis but inconsistent with other hypotheses. I'll be reading Stevenson's stuff when I get a minute, but I hope it's not just the same old "here are lots of anecdotes, the plural of which I hereby assert is evidence" nonsense.

Ian, it's not being claimed that Occam's Razor always seeks out the truth, but that the explanation which takes into account all the evidence whilst inventing the fewest entities, is more likely.

Do you at least agree that
1) Hearsay and anecdote are not very good evidence
2) IF the possibility of human error as an explanation for apparent reincarnation DID take into account all of the available good evidence, Occam's Razor would suggest it to be a more likely explanation than reincarnation itself?

Edited for formatting

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by richardm


Yes, of course, because (d) is another way of saying "I can't think of how this could have happened, so I'm just going to say it must be something we don't understand." Even though you have yourself outlined two or three physical ways that could possibly explain what happened, you choose something that requires the intervention of a huge framework that stands outside of everything we understand about science - i.e. the paranormal. This is the bit that Occam's razor is supposed to cut away. There is no need to propose such a mechanism because we can explain it quite simply with much more mundane suggestions.



There's absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with supposing a phenomenon has an explanation which resides outside current scientific laws. In the year 1600 would you think the appearance of the moon must be an illusion since it was disobeying the law that all objects fall?

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
[B]There's no upper limit.

How many people must be fooled by David Copperfield's illusions before we accept them as real magic? 100? 200? Thousands?



OK, so your hypothesis that it is people making mistakes is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence would therefore remotely suggest reincarnation since mistakes can always be made. I knew this is the way that skeptics think. And, as I've said before, this is highly irrational.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, so your hypothesis that it is people making mistakes is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence would therefore remotely suggest reincarnation since mistakes can always be made. I knew this is the way that skeptics think. And, as I've said before, this is highly irrational.
Really?

It is 'irrational' to reject as unlikely the existence of something which:
A) Has no physical evidence
B) Has alternative mundane explanations
C) Has never stood up to any kind of serious study

Again Ian creates a new definition for a word.

Maybe we should invent a new term instead. How about:

Irratianal

Ian do you believe in fairies?

Wouldn't it be Irratianal to reject their existence? After all we've all heard lots of stories about them.
There are even some photos.

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Nucular
This doesn't make sense: most materialists would say that you are your body.



No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.



What makes you think that consciousness isn't physical?



I don't want to get into that right now. You can read my web site once it's finished.


Ian, it's not being claimed that Occam's Razor always seeks out the truth, but that the explanation which takes into account all the evidence whilst inventing the fewest entities, is more likely.



I don't believe Occam's razor states that. But if it does it is wrong. Fewer entities might explain some phenomenon but only at the expense of being incredibly contrived and implausible. If Occam's razor states that sometimes incredibly contrived hypotheses are the most likely explanation, then we should dispense with this principle forthwith.



Do you at least agree that
1) Hearsay and anecdote are not very good evidence



Hearsay certainly isn't. Carefully collecting anecdotal reports and sifting through such reports and checking on the statements of other individuals etc etc, could amount to fairly suggestive evidence.



2) IF the possibility of human error as an explanation for apparent reincarnation DID take into account all of the available good evidence, Occam's Razor would suggest it to be a more likely explanation than reincarnation itself?


I have no idea if it would or not. If Occam's razor suggests that the possibility of human error, no matter how small, can trump very good evidence, then we should not pay any heed to such a principle.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.
Why? Of course it wouldn't be you any more than an exact photocpy of a letter is the original letter.

It may be indistinguishable, but it is different.

And the two personalities and consciousnesses would soon diverge.

Aside from the fact that they would have to be physically different due to being made of different physical material.

And further aside from the points you made yourself about chaos theory - the initial state of the systems could never be matched so how could they ever be identical.

Nucular
4th July 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.Accurate, but irrelevant, unless you're claiming that reincarnated persons are bodily duplications of dead people.I don't want to get into that right now. You can read my web site once it's finished.Look forward to it. Hope you put a link in your sig.


Ian, I'm just not following your objection to the application of Occam's Razor in this case. Are you really stating that self-delusion of a type we know can occur, and human error as again has happened countless times, are more contrived notions than a mystical recycling of the soul, with all of the attendant problems the notion brings, with no real evidence and no point that we can understand?

Occam's Razor would state that, if the evidence is equally explicable in terms of human mistakes or reincarnation, the simpler option is more likely to be correct. Not is correct, but is more likely to be. Pending further evidence of a type intended to test the hypotheses.

Human error is not as contrived a notion as reincarnation.

LFTKBS
4th July 2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's whole point is that one should not propose convoluted implausible explanations to explain a phenomenon.


Hey Ian, is there anything that you don't believe? This is a serious & legit question. Like, is there any "paranormal" phenomenon that you think is just hogwash? Start with this list and let me know which of these you think are false:

1) Dead humans are sometimes reincarnated in new bodies
2) Extraterrestrial visitors in spacecraft have visted earth and been captured on film and video
3) Small humanoids commonly called 'fairies' exist
4) There are people who can affect physical reality simply by thinking of it and performing no other action; this ability is commmonly called telekinesis
5) There are people who can predict the future in a way that surpasses what you would expect by chance; commonly called precognition
6) Consciousness does not reside solely in the brain

Just let me know which of those statements if any you think are false.

thanks

in

advance

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by LFTKBS
Hey Ian, is there anything that you don't believe? This is a serious & legit question. Like, is there any "paranormal" phenomenon that you think is just hogwash? Start with this list and let me know which of these you think are false:

1) Dead humans are sometimes reincarnated in new bodies



What's a dead human? A corpse? I believe the self is reincarnated into another body.




2) Extraterrestrial visitors in spacecraft have visted earth and been captured on film and video



I don't know anything about it although I would doubt it.



3) Small humanoids commonly called 'fairies' exist



I don't know anything about fairies although I would doubt it.




4) There are people who can affect physical reality simply by thinking of it and performing no other action; this ability is commmonly called telekinesis



Of course. We voluntarily move our bodies all the time.



5) There are people who can predict the future in a way that surpasses what you would expect by chance; commonly called precognition



I think there's some evidence that precognition can occur in the dream state.



6) Consciousness does not reside solely in the brain



It doesn't reside anywhere.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course. We voluntarily move our bodies all the time.
And you know full well that is not telekinesis.

LFTKBS
4th July 2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
stuff

Thanks for the response, Ian, though the 'telekinesis' bit was really stupid. Much obliged.

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by LFTKBS
Thanks for the response, Ian, though the 'telekinesis' bit was really stupid. Much obliged.

I'm being serious. The ability of consciousness to directly affect physical reality and hence our behaviour is telekinesis/psychokinesis even though it may not normally be referred to as such. I believe a fair number of parapsychologists agree with me.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm being serious. The ability of consciousness to directly affect physical reality and hence our behaviour is telekinesis/psychokinesis even though it may not normally be referred to as such. I believe a fair number of parapsychologists agree with me.
Who?

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 11:28 AM
No they don't say that. According to materialism, if one duplicated your body then it would be conscious. And, according to the most popular form of materialism -- functionalism, creating an android whose electronic brains carry out the same functions as your brain would mean that the android would literally be you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why? Of course it wouldn't be you any more than an exact photocpy of a letter is the original letter.

It may be indistinguishable, but it is different.



Under materialism the totality of physical facts fixes you. There cannot be an unlimited number of different people with exactly the same physical configuration of the brain.

Each of the letters conveys precisely the same information. All you are is information (under materialism).



And the two personalities and consciousnesses would soon diverge.



We're talking about the second that duplication occurs.



Aside from the fact that they would have to be physically different due to being made of different physical material.



If identity theory is true, and not functionalism, then you could not be an android with an electronic brain. But if materialism should be true (which it can't) then clearly functionalism is vastly superior to identity theory.

And even if identity theory is true then a matter duplicator which scanned you and created another you would be you just as much as the original.



And further aside from the points you made yourself about chaos theory - the initial state of the systems could never be matched so how could they ever be identical.


They wouldn't need to be identical. Your brain state is not identical from second to second either.

Not that the practical implementation has any relevance.

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
Who?

You doubt the word of a gentleman?

Ashles
4th July 2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You doubt the word of a gentleman?
I know full well that you are really a 17 year old blonde girl from Ohio called Tammi.

shemp
4th July 2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You doubt the word of a gentleman?

I think your actions on this board have proven that you are not a gentleman.

LFTKBS
4th July 2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm being serious. The ability of consciousness to directly affect physical reality and hence our behaviour is telekinesis/psychokinesis even though it may not normally be referred to as such. I believe a fair number of parapsychologists agree with me.

uh that's just super but i think you know what i'm talking about when i say telekinesis

Interesting Ian
4th July 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by shemp
I think your actions on this board have proven that you are not a gentleman.

You think incorrectly -- as in many other things too.

Ripley Twenty-Nine
4th July 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hearsay certainly isn't. Carefully collecting anecdotal reports and sifting through such reports and checking on the statements of other individuals etc etc, could amount to fairly suggestive evidence.

In all seriousness, in reading many of Interesting Ian's posts, I have been trying to figure out what makes this guy tick. He obviously isn't completely uneducated, and he certainly doesn't come off as a complete whack-job.

So how could someone who is seemingly intelligent, well spoken, and is a frequent reader of JREF believe in such wooish things?

"Carefully collecting anecdotal reports and sifting through such reports and checking on the statements of other individuals etc etc, could amount to fairly suggestive evidence."

This statement answered all of my questions. Anecdotes are evidence.

RichardR
4th July 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
An inferior interpretation, the preferred hypothesis should always be tested since there is reasonable doubt over the correct explanation in many paranormal claims. Yet you offer an example in which there is little reasonable doubt…….

‘Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:
1. The cat drank it
or
2. The milk fairy drank it
Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. ‘


I’m not convinced even the most gullible of paranormal believers would go for the milk fairy theory, so what does this really mean? ……yet you accused my words earlier of being a strawman! Gosh :)

It’s an analogy to help explain Occam’s Razor. Of course, the person reading it has to want to learn and has to be not an idiot. Not sure which one of these two you don't fall under, but it is one or other (or both). Whichever it is, I have better things to do than reply to you any more. Bye.

Ashles
4th July 2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Under materialism the totality of physical facts fixes you. There cannot be an unlimited number of different people with exactly the same physical configuration of the brain.
Which wasn't what I was saying.
No physical copy could possibly be perfect. It's impossible as they would be made of different matter, and have different starting states.

Each of the letters conveys precisely the same information. All you are is information (under materialism).
What do you mean? Information is a way of representing something - it isn't the thing itself.
The word 'orange' is information, but an orange itself is the thing, it isn't information.

(And thia is exactly why I hate debating philosophy - you end up playing with definitions and language all day and night).

We're talking about the second that duplication occurs.
Doesn't matter. The exact instant you create another brain it is different and would always have to be different.

If identity theory is true, and not functionalism, then you could not be an android with an electronic brain. But if materialism should be true (which it can't) then clearly functionalism is vastly superior to identity theory.
My goodness, there are a lot of existential models aren't there. Philosophers do keep themselves busy.
The first thing you should do on your website (whenever it materialises - Geez Ian I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was eventually built...) is to list all these different theories with a brief description.

For example Identity Theory looks at first glance to be similar to dualism, but, like, a bit less so. And I really can't be bothered to delve further.

Suffice to say if we say that consciousness is entirely a product of the brain then why would an exact (as far as possible) copy be so troublesome a concept?

And even if identity theory is true then a matter duplicator which scanned you and created another you would be you just as much as the original.
No but so close it would make no difference. Maybe the original you would be dead, but there would be a new you.

That's why I wouldn't use one. Seriously.

They wouldn't need to be identical. Your brain state is not identical from second to second either.
What does that have to do with anything? A bulb can be on or off, but we're not in any doubt it's the same bulb.

Not that the practical implementation has any relevance.
What? Reality has no relevence to your philosophical musings?
At last something we can agree on.

Kaydens
5th July 2005, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Open Mind
---SNIP---
I’m not convinced even the most gullible of paranormal believers would go for the milk fairy theory, so what does this really mean? ……yet you accused my words earlier of being a strawman! Gosh :)

If you think all paranormal claims fall into this type of scenario you are badly mistaken .. yes there are silly people out there who are obscuring the more interesting cases …… But many paranormal claims are NOT easy to explain away, unless you assume fraud, lying, conspiracy, group delusion, etc.

Just out of interest, how does one delineate between something that's of the order of the Milk Fairy that "even the most gullible of paranormal believers" would have trouble with and say, for example, Ghosts, Psychics, Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny? Presumably there is some form of evidential process that happens?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Instead of your fictitious example, here is an experience I had several years ago. A small, plastic brush was kept on a window ledge in a kitchen ……. One morning the small plastic brush is found still on the ledge but smashed into small pieces as if hit by a hammer many times … the family members all swear they never did it and were puzzled at how it could have occurred. (As the brush was worthless in value, there was little reason to deny it, in fact they could have placed it in a bin and no one would have given it much thought) . Here are several hypothesis ……

(a) One family member secretly smashed it into small pieces in the middle of the night, placed it back in it’s position and for a decade since has denied doing so.

(b) The morning sunshine exploded a tough plastic brush into small pieces

(c) A hoaxer broke into the house, stole nothing, left no trace but smashed the brush,

(d) Paranormal explanation.


Now using Occam’s Razor which one do you choose?

The point is most pararnormal skeptics will consider (d) last of all ……. The other 3 and any other they can possibly think off is likely to be considered less contrived than the (d) option ……. But there is another problem, the skeptic will assume the person telling the account is lying and it never occurred and it is purely anecdotal. So (d) is never reached …… this is why it is vital skeptics actually research the paranormal for themselves, if they merely read CSICOP revisionism, they are displaying faith much like a believer


The problem here is that (d) is not a single conclusion that can be tested by Occam's Razor fairly with the rest. A truer comparison would be:

(a) The brush broke by some normal means
(b) The brush broke by some paranormal means

If you want to test a paranormal explanation against the other theories you supplied You would have to posit a specific paranormal occurance e.g.

(d) Brush was smashed by a poltergeist

This is why most sceptics would be happy to dismiss your hypothesis (d) without getting to it, it's not actually an alternative compared to the other explanations, it's the equivalent of saying "none of the above" and doesn't really tell you much.

As to the arguments about the meaning of Occam's Razor, remember the original wording:

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

It is commonly stated as:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred. (Again thanks to Wiki)

But I prefer Isaac Newtons:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. (One more thanks to Wiki)

Kaydens.

Interesting Ian
5th July 2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Kaydens



The problem here is that (d) is not a single conclusion that can be tested by Occam's Razor fairly with the rest. A truer comparison would be:

(a) The brush broke by some normal means
(b) The brush broke by some paranormal means

If you want to test a paranormal explanation against the other theories you supplied You would have to posit a specific paranormal occurance e.g.

(d) Brush was smashed by a poltergeist



No no no! We do not know what poltergeists are, therefore it is not possible to definitively state that any single occurrence such as the breaking of an object is due to a poltergeist.

In the context of science a paranormal explanation is an oxymoron. All we can say is that the object broke by non-normal means. That is to say it that its breaking is currently scientifically inexplicable (and perhaps forevermore will be).




This is why most sceptics would be happy to dismiss your hypothesis (d) without getting to it, it's not actually an alternative compared to the other explanations, it's the equivalent of saying "none of the above" and doesn't really tell you much.



But the paranormal alternative is not attempting to give an explanation. It's simply saying that it broke through anomalous means. Nothing that has been said by skeptics suggests that this possibility is unlikely.





As to the arguments about the meaning of Occam's Razor, remember the original wording:

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

It is commonly stated as:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred. (Again thanks to Wiki)

But I prefer Isaac Newtons:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. (One more thanks to Wiki)

Kaydens.

All this is just hopelessly imprecise though isn't it? I was examining this assertion that one should posit as few entities as possible to explain some phenomenon. Thus for example we might be able to explain some phenomenon using 2 differing types of elementary particles and their interactions, but only by positing that they undergo behaviour which previously it was supposed they did not exhibit. On the other hand, by introducing an additional entity with certain properties, it at once becomes apparent that the phenomenon can be more elegantly explained. The phenomenon just falls out so to speak. It is idiotic to insist that just because it is possible that some phenomenon can be explained by fewer entities that this is most probably the correct model. Other criteria come into play.

Note that reality plays scant attention to this thesis that as few as entities as possible explain various phenomena. Nature is quite prolific, for example, in the number of elementary particles which can be found or created.

Interesting Ian
5th July 2005, 06:27 AM
II
Under materialism the totality of physical facts fixes you. There cannot be an unlimited number of different people with exactly the same physical configuration of the brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which wasn't what I was saying.
No physical copy could possibly be perfect. It's impossible as they would be made of different matter, and have different starting states.



This is just not relevant to anything.

And the words "different matter" is confused. 2 different physical things can be physically identical.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the letters conveys precisely the same information. All you are is information (under materialism).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do you mean? Information is a way of representing something - it isn't the thing itself.
The word 'orange' is information, but an orange itself is the thing, it isn't information.



This is why materialism is false.

The orange "itself" is simply various perceptual sensations (qualia). It has a certain visual appearance, a certain taste etc. But as you rightly state that is not information. Nor can it be conveyed by information. The patterns of the qualia -- eg I pick an orange up and peel it (tactile qualia), I bite into it (gustatory qualia) etc can be conveyed by information, but not the qualia themselves.

But according to materialism you can be conveyed by information. Record everything about your body and then build another you and it would literally be you. Indeed we could kill the original at the same time as the new you is created. You wouldn't notice any break in consciousness.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And even if identity theory is true then a matter duplicator which scanned you and created another you would be you just as much as the original.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No but so close it would make no difference. Maybe the original you would be dead, but there would be a new you.

That's why I wouldn't use one. Seriously.


I wouldn't use one if the original one were destroyed because I believe the duplicate would be a corpse. But a materialist must believe that the duplicate would be you 100%. If the original got destroyed you would merely experience a shift in perspective (if the duplicate is not created at the precise location the original is destroyed).

Kaydens
5th July 2005, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no no! We do not know what poltergeists are, therefore it is not possible to definitively state that any single occurrence such as the breaking of an object is due to a poltergeist.

In the context of science a paranormal explanation is an oxymoron. All we can say is that the object broke by non-normal means. That is to say it that its breaking is currently scientifically inexplicable (and perhaps forevermore will be).

But the paranormal alternative is not attempting to give an explanation. It's simply saying that it broke through anomalous means. Nothing that has been said by skeptics suggests that this possibility is unlikely.

So you would prefer it perhaps if we posited that it was destroyed by 'vandalous brush gnomes' to 'poltergeists'? I mentioned poltergeists because they fit the requirements of:

a) paranormal
b) generally considered to be destructive by those who believe in them
c) offering a specific claim of what happened

I was pointing out that you can't really apply Occam's Razor to a non-explanation if you are actually comparing it to actual explanations. Please note Ian, the brush example was used to illustrate sceptics apparently dismissing paranormal claims through Occam's Razor (I apologise to Open Mind if this was not your intent but that was how it seemed to me). I was pointing out that, as far as I was concerned, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with that set of specific examples since the option that is apparently being excluded by OR is not an option on an equal footing with the rest. You now appear ready to excoriate us for not considering an explanation that doesn't explain anything, I honestly don't see the point in that. If we can point to a concrete claim that can be investigated then maybe we should examine it.


All this is just hopelessly imprecise though isn't it? I was examining this assertion that one should posit as few entities as possible to explain some phenomenon. Thus for example we might be able to explain some phenomenon using 2 differing types of elementary particles and their interactions, but only by positing that they undergo behaviour which previously it was supposed they did not exhibit. On the other hand, by introducing an additional entity with certain properties, it at once becomes apparent that the phenomenon can be more elegantly explained. The phenomenon just falls out so to speak. It is idiotic to insist that just because it is possible that some phenomenon can be explained by fewer entities that this is most probably the correct model. Other criteria come into play.

Note that reality plays scant attention to this thesis that as few as entities as possible explain various phenomena. Nature is quite prolific, for example, in the number of elementary particles which can be found or created.

In this example introducing a new and previously unknown behaviour for a particle would be introducing a new entity. In the case of considerations such as this you need not restrict "entity" to mean only physical entities. After all then any solution that posited non-physical entities would appear more parsimonious than one which did not. Further, none of those phrasings of Occam's Razor used the word "entity" so to criticize it as such would be disingenious.

We can run through your example of particles with the phrasings if you like though.

- Situation: behaviour of 2 particles A and B is inconsistent with their known properties.

- Hypothesis 1: A or B exhibits behaviour hitherto unknown.

- Hypothesis 2: a particle (C) with different properties to A and B is interacting with them and is thus far unobserved.

Running this through the first and second phrasings we would posit that should a particle with properties compatible with C be known then we should favour hypothesis 2 and look for the particle.

Should no particle with those properties be known then neither hypothesis should be preferred simply because of Occam's Razor since either way we are positing something new. Which hypothesis would be preferred would depend on how easily it could be tested. For example we may decide it's easier to test the theory of a new particle by trying to observe the aberrant behaviour in the absence of A and B.

In the case of phrasing 3 we should look at whether "neither particle A nor B exhibits this behaviour" is true. If it is then we should prefer hypothesis 2, on the grounds that admitting new behaviour may be necessary but is not true.

If the statement above is false then surely we must prefer hypothesis 1 since admitting a new form of particle would be unnecessary.

If the statement is unknown then, again we would prefer neither since both admit a new cause.

Just to recap for those who lost my thread, just because hypothesis 1 posits fewer particles does not mean it posits fewer "entities" or "causes" nor does it mean it is "simpler" in and of itself.

To me it seems that the imprecision you complain of comes from your misunderstanding of the concept.

Kaydens.

shemp
5th July 2005, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You think incorrectly -- as in many other things too.

A rather interesting case of selective memory.

How many times has "Interesting" been suspended? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=45525&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

Why is Ian allowed to post here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=50108&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

Interesting Ian Suspended for 1 Week (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=39671&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

RichardR
7th July 2005, 10:53 AM
I think, with quite a good degree of certainty, we can say what happened with this child.

He visited the WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started. I have confirmed this information came from the kid’s mother. Everything else follows from that – the museum had a Corsair exhibit, had a “drop fuel tank” exhibit etc. The therapist Carol Bowman is of the Ian Stevenson “ask leading questions” school. The whole thing is nonsense dressed up for TV ratings.

I wrote about it here. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

bruto
7th July 2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There's absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with supposing a phenomenon has an explanation which resides outside current scientific laws. In the year 1600 would you think the appearance of the moon must be an illusion since it was disobeying the law that all objects fall?

I don't think anyone in 1600 thought the moon an illusion. They had physical explanations of one sort or another, right or wrong. Long before they figured out exactly how it worked, people figured out that the moon is real and its behavior consistent and predictable.

The better scientists and philosophers of that age also were smart enough to realize that the failure of current theories to explain things they were pretty sure of was likely a matter of insufficient knowledge. They looked for more and better knowledge, not for outlandish supernatural exceptions.

I will always have a great admiration, for example, for Hume, who proved to his satisfaction that his empiricism couldn't explain our understanding of causality, among other things. He more or less closed his Enquiry with the observation that though he was convinced logically that he was right, there must be something wrong with this, and wouldn't someone please figure it out? Kant made this invitation his life's work.

There's nothing wrong with supposing a phenomenon which cannot otherwise be explained might be outside current knowledge, but that's one step less than supposing it to be supernatural. In any case, a situation like this seems much more amenable to a non-supernatural and ordinary explanation. The kid had nightmares, so the parents sent him to a crackpot therapist who has already written a book about reincarnated children. And they expected what?

Stupid parents, quacko woo-woo therapist, exploited kid. Very simple really.

Ceinwyn
9th July 2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm being serious. The ability of consciousness to directly affect physical reality and hence our behaviour is telekinesis/psychokinesis even though it may not normally be referred to as such. I believe a fair number of parapsychologists agree with me. tel·e·ki·ne·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tl-k-nss, -k-)
n.
The movement of objects by scientifically inexplicable means, as by the exercise of an occult power.

psy·cho·ki·ne·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-k-nss, -k-)
n. pl. psy·cho·ki·ne·ses (-sz) Abbr. PK
The production or control of motion, especially in inanimate and remote objects, purportedly by the exercise of psychic powers.


I believe a fair number of parapsychologists would agree with you, Ian. Unfortunately, all of you are wrong.

Floyt
9th July 2005, 03:45 AM
Just had a look over at that reincarnation forum and saw they have one board for "questions about reincarnation" that is subtitled "New to Reincarnation?" I thought that was funny, but then I'm easily amused ;)

Carry on, carry on...

edited to add:

Wowsers! Sylvia seems to have hit rock bottom... basically everyone on this thread (http://www.childpastlives.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=2544) seems to think she's phony, and these people ought to fit the description of "core clientele". My, my!

eta 2nd:

*cough, splutter* (man, that forum really is a motherlode)

I do not talk to ANYBODY outside this board generally about my beliefs, except for a few close friends, who ironically don't share my beliefs. I also do not allow anyone outside this board to talk to me about theirs, except for the close friends. I also have 0 interest in UFOs, besides those that I am affiliated with. The others are not affiliated with my mission.

"No, I don't believe in spirits at all. Because my guardian angel told me not to." The human mind is a wondrous thing!

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by shemp
A rather interesting case of selective memory.

How many times has "Interesting" been suspended? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=45525&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

Why is Ian allowed to post here? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=50108&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

Interesting Ian Suspended for 1 Week (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=39671&highlight=Interesting+suspended)

This of course proves nothing of the sort. If you merely wish to contend that I am rude and impolite I am very happy to acknowledge that. If you are contending that I am not a thoroughly decent person then I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. No one knows me personally on here. You have absolutely no idea what sort of person I am.

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Kaydens
So you would prefer it perhaps if we posited that it was destroyed by 'vandalous brush gnomes' to 'poltergeists'? I mentioned poltergeists because they fit the requirements of:

a) paranormal
b) generally considered to be destructive by those who believe in them
c) offering a specific claim of what happened

I was pointing out that you can't really apply Occam's Razor to a non-explanation if you are actually comparing it to actual explanations.



It's all very well to point that out, but to actually argue for it might be a tad more difficult.

You can of course define Occam's razor to be inapplicable here, but if you do this then clearly one cannot appeal to Occam's razer to dismiss paranormal phenomena. Which begs the question why people are therefore doing precisely that??

I am not really interested in discussing what Occam's razor does or does not precisely mean. AS far as I'm concerned Occam's razor is something which can be followed within the basic sciences. Using it in other contexts just gets us into all sorts of difficulties.

I just wish to know why the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered to be unlikely.

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by RichardR
I think, with quite a good degree of certainty, we can say what happened with this child.

He visited the WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started. I have confirmed this information came from the kid’s mother. Everything else follows from that – the museum had a Corsair exhibit, had a “drop fuel tank” exhibit etc. The therapist Carol Bowman is of the Ian Stevenson “ask leading questions” school. The whole thing is nonsense dressed up for TV ratings.

I wrote about it here. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

Richard, no-one is claiming this particular case is good evidence for reincarnation. And the fact that he visited the "WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started" is perfectly compatible with the reincarnation hypothesis. Indeed it is even what one might expect. Seeing the planes might have easily jogged his memories.

And why on earth is reincarnation an extraordinary claim? I think the opposite if anything i.e it would be extraordinary if we are not reincarnated.

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by bruto
I don't think anyone in 1600 thought the moon an illusion. They had physical explanations of one sort or another, right or wrong. Long before they figured out exactly how it worked, people figured out that the moon is real and its behavior consistent and predictable.

The better scientists and philosophers of that age also were smart enough to realize that the failure of current theories to explain things they were pretty sure of was likely a matter of insufficient knowledge. They looked for more and better knowledge, not for outlandish supernatural exceptions.

I will always have a great admiration, for example, for Hume, who proved to his satisfaction that his empiricism couldn't explain our understanding of causality, among other things. He more or less closed his Enquiry with the observation that though he was convinced logically that he was right, there must be something wrong with this, and wouldn't someone please figure it out? Kant made this invitation his life's work.

There's nothing wrong with supposing a phenomenon which cannot otherwise be explained might be outside current knowledge, but that's one step less than supposing it to be supernatural. In any case, a situation like this seems much more amenable to a non-supernatural and ordinary explanation. The kid had nightmares, so the parents sent him to a crackpot therapist who has already written a book about reincarnated children. And they expected what?

Stupid parents, quacko woo-woo therapist, exploited kid. Very simple really.

I don't know what you mean by "supernatural". Could you be more explicit and tell me precisely what's wrong with the reincarnation hypothesis?? I know it resides outside of current science, but as I pointed out, so was the moon in 1600.

I don't see anything in your post which at all address my arguments.

We know that naturalism is necessarily false because of the existence of consciousness. If you therefore label consciousness as "supernatural" then so be it. The question is why the self should not be able to operate though another body. Are you or anyone else able to explain why it cannot?

CFLarsen
9th July 2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't know what you mean by "supernatural". Could you be more explicit and tell me precisely what's wrong with the reincarnation hypothesis?? I know it resides outside of current science, but as I pointed out, so was the moon in 1600.

Rubbish.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We know that naturalism is necessarily false because of the existence of consciousness.

No, we don't.

CFLarsen
9th July 2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In the year 1600 would you think the appearance of the moon must be an illusion since it was disobeying the law that all objects fall?

What are your sources for this belief?

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
What are your sources for this belief?

My general education. They adhered to an Aristotelian physics at that time.

CFLarsen
9th July 2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My general education. They adhered to an Aristotelian physics at that time.

"They"? Could you be a wee bit more specific?

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
"They"? Could you be a wee bit more specific?

Educated people.

CFLarsen
9th July 2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Educated people.

Who, among the educated people in 1600, argued that the moon was an illusion, since it didn't obey the law that all objects fall?

Just name one educated person.

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who, among the educated people in 1600, argued that the moon was an illusion, since it didn't obey the law that all objects fall?

Just name one educated person.

No-one as far as I am aware -- and this is precisely my point. Simply because something doesn't obey physical laws (like the moon not falling down) does not mean to say it is an illusion or doesn't exist. Same goes for paranormal phenomena.

CFLarsen
9th July 2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No-one as far as I am aware -- and this is precisely my point.

You are not making any sense.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Simply because something doesn't obey physical laws (like the moon not falling down) does not mean to say it is an illusion or doesn't exist. Same goes for paranormal phenomena.

Show me one paranormal phenomenon that isn't an illusion or merely exists. Just one.

RichardR
9th July 2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Claus: Who, among the educated people in 1600, argued that the moon was an illusion, since it didn't obey the law that all objects fall?

Just name one educated person.

Ian: No-one as far as I am aware -- and this is precisely my point.

Claus:
You are not making any sense.

:dl:

Reading just the bits of Ian's posts that others quote, and their replies to him, is hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh this morning.

Interesting Ian
9th July 2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
:dl:

Reading just the bits of Ian's posts that others quote, and their replies to him, is hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh this morning.

Well it's hilarious that people don't read my posts so as to get it into their heads what I'm actually saying.

And why are you only reading me where other people quote me? Do you have me on ignore or something? :eek:

Open Mind
9th July 2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
It’s an analogy to help explain Occam’s Razor.



It was much more than that ........ you also compared paranormal claims to a milk fairy, santa, etc. claiming there was equal evidence for these ...... dismissing a great deal of parapsychology and psychical research to the contrary which to falsify requires debunkers to invent so many elaborate, incongruous, unproven fraud/conspiracy theories and imagining scientists and magicians losing the most basic of competence..... . ever thought about applying Occam's Razor to skeptic revisionism? :)


Of course, the person reading it has to want to learn and has to be not an idiot.
Not sure which one of these two you don't fall under, but it is one or other (or both). Whichever it is, I have better things to do than reply to you any more. Bye.


:arrow:

RichardR
10th July 2005, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
It was much more than that ........ you also compared paranormal claims to a milk fairy, santa, etc. claiming there was equal evidence for these ...... dismissing a great deal of parapsychology and psychical research to the contrary which to falsify requires debunkers to invent so many elaborate, incongruous, unproven fraud/conspiracy theories and imagining scientists and magicians losing the most basic of competence..... . ever thought about applying Occam's Razor to skeptic revisionism? :)

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/bugs1.gif

(Chews carrot.) What a maroon.

Archon1
10th July 2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And what's this about the birth marks having moved?? Of course they move! Ones body stretches out as one grows! Ian takes this into account even if you don't.

This is seriously a retarded comment. I have a birthmark at the base of my skull that has been there since the day I was born. It didn't shift at all as my skin "stretched" from my growing.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
After making about 13,000 posts on this board I feel I can confidently say

So the number of posts you have has something to do with what other people know? You have never taken one minute to listen to anyone on this message board. You simply look for others faults and then tell them how stupid they are. When someone is right you just skip that thread and move on.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You think incorrectly -- as in many other things too.

It sounds like you are saying that you are smart and shemp is stupid. How gentlemanly.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No one knows me personally on here. You have absolutely no idea what sort of person I am.

You think incorrectly here. Everyone that has read even a tiny fraction of you 13,000 posts knows exactly what kind of person you are. You are a condescending, nitpicky, self-righteous, know-it-all, that ignores truth in favor of your own delusions.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well it's hilarious that people don't read my posts so as to get it into their heads what I'm actually saying.

Why should they listen to what you are saying? You don't listen to them either. You just yell out your beliefs and when someone disagrees with you, you say they don't know what they are talking about.

CFLarsen
10th July 2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
It was much more than that ........ you also compared paranormal claims to a milk fairy, santa, etc. claiming there was equal evidence for these ...... dismissing a great deal of parapsychology and psychical research to the contrary which to falsify requires debunkers to invent so many elaborate, incongruous, unproven fraud/conspiracy theories and imagining scientists and magicians losing the most basic of competence..... . ever thought about applying Occam's Razor to skeptic revisionism? :)

But there is no better evidence of psychic abilities than there is evidence of Santa.

SezMe
10th July 2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Richard, no-one is claiming this particular case is good evidence for reincarnation. And the fact that he visited the "WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started" is perfectly compatible with the reincarnation hypothesis.
And the fact that he visited the "WWII air museum <strike>before</strike> after any of the other WWII related issues started" is perfectly compatible with the reincarnation hypothesis.

IOW, the reincarnation hypothesis is irrelevant here.

RayG
10th July 2005, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I just wish to know why the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered to be unlikely.

I've yet to see a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

RayG

RayG
10th July 2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Seeing the planes might have easily jogged his memories.

One could also say, seeing the planes might have easily caused his memories.

And why on earth is reincarnation an extraordinary claim?

Because reincarnationists have yet to give a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

I think the opposite if anything i.e it would be extraordinary if we are not reincarnated.

What you think or believe has little bearing on whether it's true or not.

RayG

RayG
11th July 2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Could you be more explicit and tell me precisely what's wrong with the reincarnation hypothesis??

Because it uses additional unproven phenomenon to try and explain an unproven phenomenon.

The question is why the self should not be able to operate though another body.

No, the question is, why should it? Can you explain by what process the consciousness is able to transfer to the other body?

Are you or anyone else able to explain why it cannot?

I've yet to see an adequate explaination that it can.

RayG

Interesting Ian
11th July 2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Archon1
This is seriously a retarded comment. I have a birthmark at the base of my skull that has been there since the day I was born. It didn't shift at all as my skin "stretched" from my growing.


I think it's you that's the serious retard if you imagine that a birthmark there will move relative to the rest of your body or if you imagine that this was what I was saying.

If a birthmark there moves, or if it were, say, on the tip of your nose, and it moved to beside your nose, then that would mean those birthmarks cannot support the reincarnation hypothesis. I mean obviously. :rolleyes:

On the other hand if, for example, a birthmark is on a arm located say 6 inches below the shoulder on a new born baby, then you would not expect it to remain 6 inches below the shoulder as an adult!

If you want to maintain birthmarks do not support reincarnation you have to maintain that these birthmarks which Ian Stevenson thinks support reincarnation are located in the former type of locations. Provide the data please.




So the number of posts you have has something to do with what other people know? You have never taken one minute to listen to anyone on this message board.



Yup, because the vast majority are incredibly stupid like you.



It sounds like you are saying that you are smart and shemp is stupid. How gentlemanly.


He's certainly stupid in his irrational dislike of me.

Interesting Ian
11th July 2005, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by RayG


Because reincarnationists have yet to give a plausible explanation for the method/means by which a consciousness can transcend both time and space to take up residence in an unborn child/animal.

[/B]

It is very possible your words mean nothing. It might well be like asking what's the explanation or method whereby electrons repel one another? Or what's the method or explanation whereby an object continues in a state of uniform motion in a straight line in the absence of any forces.

As I keep saying to people on here.

Go and study some damn philosophy of science before asking asinine questions.

Archon1
11th July 2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Go and study some damn philosophy of science before asking asinine questions.

Ian, I think the problem you have in these forums, and the reason many people can't stand you, is that this is not a philosophy forum. People come here to discuss paranormal subjects, not weather or not something is philisophically possible, but if it is actually real. That's the way I see it anyway. Then again I am stupid.:D

Archon1
11th July 2005, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you want to maintain birthmarks do not support reincarnation you have to maintain that these birthmarks which Ian Stevenson thinks support reincarnation are located in the former type of locations. Provide the data please.

Wait a minute, why in the hell would birthmarks be reincarnated along with the soul or consciousness or whatever? I guess birthmarks must be alot more important than I thought.

Interesting Ian
11th July 2005, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Archon1
Wait a minute, why in the hell would birthmarks be reincarnated along with the soul or consciousness or whatever? I guess birthmarks must be alot more important than I thought.

Birthmarks do not pass on from life to life. The birthmarks correspond to the injuries that cause death in the previous incarnation. Thus if one gets shot through the head one might find 2 birthmarks -- one corresponding to the entry of the bullet and one corresponding to its exit. In the case of bullets the birthmark representing where the bullet exited tends to be bigger.

If you have a birthmark on the base of your skull then maybe you were executed by being beheaded in your last life?

Beancounter
11th July 2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Birthmarks do not pass on from life to life. The birthmarks correspond to the injuries that cause death in the previous incarnation. Thus if one gets shot through the head one might find 2 birthmarks -- one corresponding to the entry of the bullet and one corresponding to its exit. In the case of bullets the birthmark representing where the bullet exited tends to be bigger.

If you have a birthmark on the base of your skull then maybe you were executed by being beheaded in your last life?

Jeepers, I had a mate at school who had a birthmark on his todger. Poor sod must have got it bad in his previous life.

(Yes it was a boys' boarding school, but we had communal showers and he was quite proud of it. True but name withheld to avoid legal problems)

Ian, this seems a bit far fetched. What if you have a small birthmark on your little toe? Scratch that went septic, I suppose?

Interesting Ian
11th July 2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Beancounter
Jeepers, I had a mate at school who had a birthmark on his todger. Poor sod must have got it bad in his previous life.

(Yes it was a boys' boarding school, but we had communal showers and he was quite proud of it. True but name withheld to avoid legal problems)

Ian, this seems a bit far fetched. What if you have a small birthmark on your little toe? Scratch that went septic, I suppose?

It's not being claimed that all birthmarks have their origin in a previous life. But if a child claims to remember a previous life, and what he says about that previous person turns out to be true or largely true (and it would be difficult to obtain that knowledge by normal means), and if s/he claimed for example to have died by being shot in the head, and his/her birthmarks roughly correspond to the points of entry and exit of the bullet, then all this evidence does seem to be at least suggestive of reincarnation.

Todger? What's that? A willy?

Beancounter
11th July 2005, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Todger? What's that? A willy?

Yep. Must be a southern expression, I thought you would have heard of it, coming from Blighty.

Re. the birthmarks.

Are we not just moving into the realms of coincidence? If only some birthmarks are indicative of events in an earlier life then to select only those where somebody has a recollection with a connection to their birthmark as evidence of reincarnation seems a bit unscientific.

Also, I would have thought that flights of fancy may play a role here. With the exception of unsightly birthmarks such as the "wine stains" (I think that is the term for them but I may well be wrong) that cover half of peoples' faces etc from my youth I recall kids often coming up with stories as to how they arose. "Being shot" seems like an excellent reason for a birthmark to me.

Open Mind
11th July 2005, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by CFLarsen
But there is no better evidence of psychic abilities than there is evidence of Santa.

:eek:

Oh I forgot you are called Claus. :D

I reckon you have been reading too many Prometheus comic books and are probably over inlfuenced by the a-priori confidence of revisionist csicopmedians who don't conduct proper trials ...... or perhaps you have faith in 2 brief preliminary stunt trials per year by JREF?

It seems to me you are never going to trust anyone making a PSI claim (nor am I saying you should!) ...... but you would trust yourself surely not to commit fraud or deceive yourself or make imaginary errors in method?

So what fair research have you done? Due to the often claimed sheep/goat effect and experimenter effects your research requires (a) You entered the research with a belief it may be possible, not to disprove it or show it doesn't exist (b) You did not involve cynical disbelievers in trials and do not inform any of them prior to or during trials (c) You look for weak anomalous effects in a sincere manner over a period of several years....... etc.

Kaydens
11th July 2005, 07:14 AM
I'm probably going to regret this when I have brick dust on my forehead but what the hell.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's all very well to point that out, but to actually argue for it might be a tad more difficult.

You can of course define Occam's razor to be inapplicable here, but if you do this then clearly one cannot appeal to Occam's razer to dismiss paranormal phenomena. Which begs the question why people are therefore doing precisely that??


I'd try and use words of only one syllable but, "paranormal" and "reincarnation" don't really reduce down that easily. We are saying that Occam's Razor points to a more likely explanation to this young boy's nightmares than reincarnation.

On the other hand, I was saying that Occam's Razor should not be applied to cases of "This happened, that happened or something else" since "or something else" covers far too many possibilities. But back to the main argument:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I just wish to know why the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered to be unlikely

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Richard, no-one is claiming this particular case is good evidence for reincarnation.

This strikes me as a little silly as an argument especially given the fact that these were 2 consecutive posts. First one way, then the other. Do you simply disagree with people just to be contrary?

However, despite your little contradiction, I shall be magnanimous and grant your wish. The reason that the reincarnation hypothesis should be considered unlikely is this: There is no compelling evidence that it happens.

Kaydens.

CFLarsen
11th July 2005, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Kaydens
Do you simply disagree with people just to be contrary?

BINGO!

roger
11th July 2005, 07:49 AM
Sigh. Another perfectly good thread taken over by minute analysis and arguing over every one of Ian's utterances. :(


Anyhoo, I say if they believe the boy, they should stick him in a Cessena by himself, and let the boy fly the plane, solo. Or ask him to recite the pre-flight checklist of the plane he flew. Should be easy peasy.

bruto
11th July 2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by roger
Sigh. Another perfectly good thread taken over by minute analysis and arguing over every one of Ian's utterances. :(


Anyhoo, I say if they believe the boy, they should stick him in a Cessena by himself, and let the boy fly the plane, solo. Or ask him to recite the pre-flight checklist of the plane he flew. Should be easy peasy.

Possibly, but if he fails at the former task, they will always have some kind of out - unfamiliar plane, out of practice, etc., and if he's a really obsessive sort of kid, he might just be able to recite that checklist.

Anyway, I suspect that if they believe the boy on the basis of what they have seen so far, they will find an excuse for any failed test, because they've already demonstrated a level of credulity which is immune to reason.

RayG
11th July 2005, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is very possible your words mean nothing. It might well be like asking what's the explanation or method whereby electrons repel one another? Or what's the method or explanation whereby an object continues in a state of uniform motion in a straight line in the absence of any forces.


I asked a simple question pertaining to reincarnation. Can you explain by what process the consciousness is able to transfer from one body to another?

If you are unable to explain, just say so.

psst...it's simple, you just say... I don't know.

RayG

Nucular
11th July 2005, 09:54 AM
Re: Occam's Razor.

Boy goes to aviation museum; boy subsequently suffers nightmares involving aeroplanes.

Explanation #1: Boy's nightmares were caused by things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Explanation #2: Boy's nightmares were caused by his memories of a past life as a fighter pilot, triggered by the things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Open Mind, Ian, whoever: what does Occam have to say about which is the more likely explanation?

RayG
11th July 2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The birthmarks correspond to the injuries that cause death in the previous incarnation.

Does this hold true for ALL birthmarks, or only the ones that support your hypothesis?

RayG

RichardR
11th July 2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by RayG
Does this hold true for ALL birthmarks, or only the ones that support your hypothesis?In Skeptic magazine V.9 #3 Leonard Angel reviewed Ian Stevenson's “Reincarnation and Biology” where Stevenson explains his “theory” that birthmarks represent the death wounds of reincarnated people. Angel completely debunks Stevenson’s data, exposing how he uses “backwards reasoning” to supply missing evidence that would favor his theory, and then uses that evidence to support the theory.

Angel also exposes the error in Stevenson’s statistics. Stevenson claims the probability of such birthmarks resembling a death wound would be tiny, but Angel calculates it at 70%. Stevenson’s error is in simplistically dividing the body into a fixed “grid”. He then calculates the probability of the birthmark and death wound being in the same square on the grid, and decides it is low. But he ignores the probability of the two being on separate squares on the grid but still close together.

Angel also finds “blatant misrepresentations of primary evidence and faulty summarization”. What he means is that Stevenson assumes results based on his theory, and then somehow “forgets” which bits of data were assumed and which real. He speculates that Stevenson “is so accustomed to reasoning backwards that he keeps confusing data he has hypothesized to be true with data he has established to be true by primary evidence”.

As I said, Stevenson is a well meaning fool; his work cannot be relied on as any kind of evidence for reincarnation.

Archon1
12th July 2005, 03:43 AM
By "birthmarks" is Stevenson talking about the pinkish, redish splotches or the little brown dots? They are very different.

Archon1

RichardR
12th July 2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Archon1
By "birthmarks" is Stevenson talking about the pinkish, redish splotches or the little brown dots? They are very different.
I'm not sure as I haven't read that book, but my guess would be that he counts both.

Archon1
12th July 2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
I'm not sure as I haven't read that book, but my guess would be that he counts both.

That's what I figured. Any mark that supports his hypothesis is used as evidence.

I wonder what this guy would say about my family in regards to our birth marks. My brother, daughter, son and I all have "stork bites" at the base of skulls. My son and I also both have birth marks on our bung holes (not sure if my brother does). I think I really need to find out what the hell happened to us in our previous lives.:D

Archon1
12th July 2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
I'm not sure as I haven't read that book, but my guess would be that he counts both.

That's what I figured. Any mark that supports his hypothesis is used as evidence.

I wonder what this guy would say about my family in regards to our birth marks. My brother, daughter, son and I all have "stork bites" at the base of skulls. My son and I also both have birth marks on our bung holes (not sure if my brother does). I think I really need to find out what the hell happened to us in our previous lives.:D

Open Mind
12th July 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nucular
Re: Occam's Razor.

Boy goes to aviation museum; boy subsequently suffers nightmares involving aeroplanes.

Explanation #1: Boy's nightmares were caused by things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Explanation #2: Boy's nightmares were caused by his memories of a past life as a fighter pilot, triggered by the things he witnessed or heard at the aviation museum we know he went to.

Open Mind, Ian, whoever: what does Occam have to say about which is the more likely explanation?


Well, I'm not familiar with this case, but if your statement accurately sums up this whole case evidence I think '#1' is of course a more likely explanation ....... but is that the whole case or skeptic oversimplification of it?

I’ve come to realize over the years just how selective skeptics and believers are in presenting just the data to support their preferred paradigm. Less well informed sceptics assume only believers are prone to this human weakness ...... but if one reads both sides of the debate, one becomes aware just how alarmingly biased skeptic resources can be in skeptic dictionaries etc.

Open Mind
12th July 2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
In Skeptic magazine V.9 #3 Leonard Angel reviewed Ian Stevenson's “Reincarnation and Biology” where Stevenson explains his “theory” that birthmarks represent the death wounds of reincarnated people. Angel completely debunks Stevenson’s data, exposing how he uses “backwards reasoning” to supply missing evidence that would favor his theory, and then uses that evidence to support the theory.

Angel also exposes the error in Stevenson’s statistics. Stevenson claims the probability of such birthmarks resembling a death wound would be tiny, but Angel calculates it at 70%. Stevenson’s error is in simplistically dividing the body into a fixed “grid”. He then calculates the probability of the birthmark and death wound being in the same square on the grid, and decides it is low. But he ignores the probability of the two being on separate squares on the grid but still close together.

Angel also finds “blatant misrepresentations of primary evidence and faulty summarization”. What he means is that Stevenson assumes results based on his theory, and then somehow “forgets” which bits of data were assumed and which real. He speculates that Stevenson “is so accustomed to reasoning backwards that he keeps confusing data he has hypothesized to be true with data he has established to be true by primary evidence”.

As I said, Stevenson is a well meaning fool; his work cannot be relied on as any kind of evidence for reincarnation.

With regard to philosopher Leonard Angel critique and the reply from Ian Stevenson ……….Vitor Moura wrote an article on the debate concluding mistakes were made by both Angel and Stevenson ..... to sum up he says ……..


In that way, I must say that I felt that instead of presenting us with an "unwarranted inflation of the significance of the data", Leonard Angel provided us with an "unmerited deflation of it".

Anyway, I must stress that his analysis (in both of his articles) is priceless in many respects, and I am very much aware that Angel may really be a hundred percent right in his intuition that all this research program has little or nothing of paranormal in it.

Leonard Angel asked, commenting on the Imad Elawar case, "How difficult is it, then, to account for the specific content of the best of the Twenty Cases material on purely naturalistic hypotheses?"

Having studied it deeply, the answer, as far as I am concerned, is: "Certainly not impossible. But very difficult indeed..."

Vitor Moura
http://listas.pucsp.br/pipermail/pesquisapsi/2004-August/009023.html

Bronze Dog
12th July 2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Open Mind
Well, I'm not familiar with this case, but if your statement accurately sums up this whole case evidence I think '#1' is of course a more likely explanation ....... but is that the whole case or skeptic oversimplification of it?
Unless they can come up with a way to rule out #1, that's the one I'd stick with. Stick with what works, and I haven't seen anything that can't be covered by explanation #1.

I’ve come to realize over the years just how selective skeptics and believers are in presenting just the data to support their preferred paradigm.
I believe skepticism is about defaulting to known explanations until they fail. I've never seen them fail me.

Less well informed sceptics assume only believers are prone to this human weakness
True. Genuine skeptics should know they can be fooled, which is why scientists design their protocols to prevent that.

...... but if one reads both sides of the debate, one becomes aware just how alarmingly biased skeptic resources can be in skeptic dictionaries etc.
I don't see much bias in skeptic resources. They have means of correction and filtering. Skeptical opinions can even be reversed by properly replicated, controlled, double-blind studies.

I, however, see extreme bias in parapsychology resources without any effort whatsoever to reduce it.

RayG
12th July 2005, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by RichardR
In Skeptic magazine V.9 #3 Leonard Angel reviewed Ian Stevenson's “Reincarnation and Biology”

Yup, just got my hands on that issue via eBay. Sending off payment tomorrow for Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, by Paul Edwards (1996), and Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park (2000). Both for $1.98 plus shipping.

I also took a closer look at reincarnation a couple years ago. It seems proponents have lots of excuses, but no actual evidence.

See my submission to the SkepticReport:
http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/reincarnation29.htm

I also searched through some books in an attempt to find scientific evidence of reincarnation. My results are posted at Skeptics Quinte:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807091&lp=1033972322
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032806849&lp=1032806849
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032806967&lp=1032806967
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807327&lp=1032807327
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807397&lp=1032807397
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1032807561&lp=1032807561
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1033660184&lp=1033660184
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=219189&messageid=1033660316&lp=1034022209

RayG

P.S.A.
13th July 2005, 03:47 PM
If you want a classic example of how Ian is data mining information to support his own narcissism, whilst wildly indulging in being abusive again, this thread proves an excellent illustration. I hope you will all include it in replies to him for years to come as evidence of how his behaviour really hasn't improven at all, despite his insisting that he has.

This is the quote in particular that you should be aware of:

This of course proves nothing of the sort. If you merely wish to contend that I am rude and impolite I am very happy to acknowledge that. If you are contending that I am not a thoroughly decent person then I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. No one knows me personally on here. You have absolutely no idea what sort of person I am.

He said the above in response to a post which contains links to numerous examples of where Ian gives an awful lot of evidence of his own real life dyfunction; not just of his own percieved failings, but a painful awareness of failing in a social context away from the JREF. His own words are there for you to click on... and they all show that he's proven himself to be judged negatively in real life.

For instance, follow the third link given, to one of his suspensions, then step over to the thread where he earned it... and you find Ian telling us on Page 1 of a seance years ago where the Medium identifies him, from a face to face meeting, as having a drinking problem. Whether through her own observation, or that of spirits, or simply that God allows her to know this, it doesn't matter. Something saw him years ago, and knew he was involved in drinking heavily.

On Page 3 of that thread Ian admits he used to get drunk because he needed it as a pyscological crutch when meeting people in real life.

On Page 4 of that thread you get a list of all the times Ian has admitted he has a drinking problem more recently.

On Page 5 Tricky refers to the fact that Ian has admitted he is unable to maintain female interest in real life.

On Page 6 you get the following quote directly from Ian;

Hey yeah! I've always been an outsider, never had many friends. Always been out of step with everyone else. Always the one at school who used to stand by himself in the playground, shunned by all the others. Always the one who got bullied. Always the one who thought differently from everyone else. Always the one who had different interests from everyone else.

Which could be just about anyone's experience of school, really. It certainly was mine; I was never invited to parties either... but anyway, Ian is telling you about his real life. There's no need to speculate. He got the shinola kicked out of him at school. He says so. Now me, I found being known as "The Professor" at school gave me a certain amount of credit with the Johnny Hard's who needed their homework doing... the beatings stopped right about the time competitive examinations started... what a coincidence, eh? Never made many genuine friends from that, but no one does in this life... anyway, getting off the point somewhat.

Now, I can't re-find the comment, but as I idly skim read the various threads that Ian was linked to, I could have sworn I also saw someone else refer to the fact that Ian had said that a woman once told him he was "Intellectual but not intelligent", or similar... Which Ian did not question, so I presume it's an honest reflection of something he's genuinely been told, and then genuinely told the JREF... yet another example of real life information Ian has volunteered to us.

Even if that particular recollection is not accurate, I've personally seen him start another thread himself to complain about homosexuals expressing interest in him, and then declared the following examples of his social inadequacy;

"The only exceptions to this has been a few times in the past where I have pretended to be a "yobbo" (ie drunken thick loud-mouthed idiot). Well, they always seemed to get the girls!

People have complained I don't hold a pint glass firmly enough i.e I hold the glass with my fingertips; I use my hands to express what I'm saying; my voice is too refined (compared to the the average male bar patron), and not north-eastern enough; and I don't chat up anything with a skirt. That's about it.

So Ian kindly let us know that he's completely uncharismatic socially, except when he's being deliberately yobbish to attract girls he wouldn't otherwise get.

No, Ian has tried to phrase the debate in a way which states that his behaviour at the JREF is somehow either a response to s[b]K[/i]epticism, or something unrelated to his true nature... and he's done it in reply to a number of threads where he personally has volunteered information about how he is disliked in real life too. And of course, there's an enormous amount of supplimentary information any one of us can recall too.

What does this have to do with "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot"? Nothing much, except that Ian is willing to try and shoe horn "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" into supporting his primary belief system that "Interesting Ian Is Good, Interesting Ian Is Special"... which he feels he can do, because it supports his metaphysical assumptions, which in turn are the way in which he tells himself he is special.

Except, Interesting Ian has at the same time been shown numerous examples of when Interesting Ian has told us himself that even away from the JREF, he's not special at all: In fact, he seems by his own admission to be disliked by a very wide number of people. So if "Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot" is actually true, what we've in fact been lead to is quite the opposite conclusion from the one Ian is trying to draw... Who wouldn't want to have been a dashing pilot in a past life? I know I would, ever since vague memories of having an uncle who flew Spits in the Battle Of Britain, but who died before I was old enough to ever really know him as anything more than a canvas to paint my own dreams onto. But... someone has obviously got the ***** end of the karmic stick and had the misfortune of being reincarnated as Interesting Ian, who by his own acknowledgement leads quite the miserable life indeed... and who he himself admits alienates, offends, or is just plain misunderstood by everyone else in turn who interacts with him away from the JREF. Who'd want to be Ian in this life, let alone future life or a past life?

A life he then finds he needs to lie to you about, and perhaps even himself at times, and claim no one here knows anything at all about what he is like away from the boards, even as you point him towards the thread where he tells you that information? And is that collection of dishonesty and misery a convincing argument for reincarnation, or Interesting Ian's own sense of specialness for you, do you think?

As I said, I hope you'll keep referring to this thread for years to come. It's vintage Interesting Ian.

daedamot
9th June 2009, 03:32 PM
Looks like the parents have published a book.

cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13873561&ch=4226713&src=news

Truly tragic. Instead of challenging the child to become skeptical, they've validated his delusions.

Madalch
9th June 2009, 03:57 PM
Speaking of thread reincarnation.....

(And welcome to the forum, chaironome.)

Rodney
9th June 2009, 05:50 PM
Looks like the parents have published a book.

cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13873561&ch=4226713&src=news

Truly tragic. Instead of challenging the child to become skeptical, they've validated his delusions.
How, exactly, do you know that?

SusanB-M1
9th June 2009, 11:25 PM
Looks like the parents have published a book.
Life is full of interesting coincidences, isn't it? I was referring to this subject on another forum just a few days ago.
I would be interested to know why you chose this as your first post on JREF? And of course welcome.

iMaGiNaTioN
10th June 2009, 05:06 PM
I think the parents on this Childrens Past Lives forum are just trying to make their children seem 'more special' than others. Same goes for Indigo believers. It's just the need to know your children are 'special'. One mother insists her toddler is a 9/11 victim reincarnated because he pretends to be a firefighter(??!!).

George152
10th June 2009, 05:29 PM
Parents take family on trip. Explain to children about the museums they're going to visit.
Over imaginative boy takes it all to heart.
Resurrection? Bah Humbug

FramerDave
10th June 2009, 06:42 PM
I'm not inclined to wade through a pile of four year old bickering, so maybe this has been covered...

They made a big deal about the kid looking at planes as though he was doing a pre-flight check. Did anyone ever think to ask him what he was doing, what he was checking for? If he told me he was checking to make sure the pitot-static tube was unobstructed, inspection plates are secure and that the start area is safe and clear, I'd take a second look at it. Otherwise, it's just a kid who's fascinated by planes.

Did they ever think of asking the kid who his CO was? The name of the CAG? His serial number? Somehow I think I know the answers.

RichardR
13th June 2009, 10:03 AM
I'm not inclined to wade through a pile of four year old bickering, so maybe this has been covered...
Don't blame you. It has been covered - mostly. To repeat what I wrote all those years ago, I think, with quite a good degree of certainty, we can say what happened with this child.

The child visited the WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started. I have confirmed this information came from the kid's mother. Everything else follows from that - the museum had a Corsair exhibit, had a drop fuel tank exhibit etc. The therapist Carol Bowman is of the Ian Stevenson "ask leading questions" school. The whole thing is nonsense dressed up for TV ratings.

I wrote about it here. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

Gord_in_Toronto
13th June 2009, 04:51 PM
I'm not inclined to wade through a pile of four year old bickering, so
maybe this has been covered...

<snip>



Well I actually spent the time while waiting for Open Office to download (30 minutes) and install on my other computer (it now seems to hung trying to connect to the registration site :().

Why is it the argument always with us poor skeptics at JREFF? No scientist in the World thinks reincarnation is real. Convince a few of them first and I'll believe too.

In the meantime I'm worried about my daughter as she really took to dinosaurs as toddler. Knew their scientific names and everything. Either she was Betty Flinstone in a previous life or an archaeologist. :scared:

Note that this all happened after I bought her a book on dinosaurs that I used to read to her at bedtime. :D

Jungle Jim
13th June 2009, 06:19 PM
I started reading this thread today assuming it was current. You mean to tell me the last post of the original thread was P.S.A.'s on July 13, 2005--then nothing else until four years later! What ever happened to Interesting Ian? Is he still around?

Rodney
13th June 2009, 06:35 PM
Don't blame you. It has been covered - mostly. To repeat what I wrote all those years ago, I think, with quite a good degree of certainty, we can say what happened with this child.

The child visited the WWII air museum before any of the other WWII related issues started. I have confirmed this information came from the kid's mother. Everything else follows from that - the museum had a Corsair exhibit, had a drop fuel tank exhibit etc. The therapist Carol Bowman is of the Ian Stevenson "ask leading questions" school. The whole thing is nonsense dressed up for TV ratings.

I wrote about it here. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html)

Depends whether you believe Bruce Leininger, James' father. According to him, James told his mother that, in his past life as James Huston, his plane had taken off from a boat named "Natoma" and that a "Jack Larson" was involved. Huston took off from the Natoma Bay and the wingman on his ill-fated flight was named Jack Larson.

Rodney
13th June 2009, 06:39 PM
No scientist in the World thinks reincarnation is real.
"Jim Tucker, a child psychiatrist and medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatric Clinic at the University of Virginia, is one of the few researchers to extensively study the phenomenon of children who seem to have memories of past lives.

He says James' case is very much like others he has studied.

"At the University of Virginia, we've studied over 2,500 cases of children who seem to talk about previous lives when they're little," Tucker said. "They start at 2 or 3, and by the time they're 6 or 7 they forget all about it and go on to live the rest of their lives."

"Do You Believe?

"Tucker -- the author of 'Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives' -- has seen cases like James' where children make statements that can be verified and seem to match with a particular person.

"It means that this is a phenomenon that really needs to be explored," Tucker said. "James is one of many, many kids who have said things like this."
See http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2232830&page=1

Gord_in_Toronto
13th June 2009, 07:50 PM
"Jim Tucker, a child psychiatrist and medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatric Clinic at the University of Virginia, is one of the few researchers to extensively study the phenomenon of children who seem to have memories of past lives.

He says James' case is very much like others he has studied.

"At the University of Virginia, we've studied over 2,500 cases of children who seem to talk about previous lives when they're little," Tucker said. "They start at 2 or 3, and by the time they're 6 or 7 they forget all about it and go on to live the rest of their lives."

"Do You Believe?

"Tucker -- the author of 'Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives' -- has seen cases like James' where children make statements that can be verified and seem to match with a particular person.

"It means that this is a phenomenon that really needs to be explored," Tucker said. "James is one of many, many kids who have said things like this."
See http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2232830&page=1


The next thing I said in my post was:
Convince a few of them first and I'll believe too.And further:

Dr. Tucker's publications (from his website http://www.lifebeforelife.com/Publications.htm ):

Tucker JB. Religion and medicine. [Letter] Lancet 353:1803, 1999.

Tucker JB. Modification of attitudes to influence survival from breast cancer. [Commentary] Lancet 354:1320, 1999.

Keil HHJ, Tucker JB. An unusual birthmark case thought to be linked to a person who had previously died. Psychological Reports 87:1067-1074, 2000.

Tucker JB. A scale to measure the strength of children's claims of previous lives: methodology and initial findings. Journal of Scientific Exploration 14(4):571-581, 2000.

Tucker JB. Measuring the strength of children's claims to remember previous lives. In Trends in Rebirth Research: Proceedings of an International Seminar, Senanayake N, (ed.). Ratmalana, Sri Lanka: Sarvodaya Vishva Lekha, 2001.

Tucker JB, Keil HHJ. Can cultural beliefs cause a gender identity disorder? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 13(2):21-30, 2001.

Tucker JB. Review of "Getting Rid of Ritalin: How Neurofeedback Can Successfully Treat Attention Deficit Disorder without Drugs." Journal of Scientific Exploration 16(4):688-694, 2002.

Tucker JB. Reincarnation. In Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying, Kastenbaum R (ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 705-710, 2003.

Tucker JB. Religion and Medicine. In Medicine Across Cultures: History and Practice of Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, Selin H (ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 373-384, 2003.

Tucker JB. Review of "Return of the Revolutionaries: The Case for Reincarnation and Soul Groups Reunited." Journal of Scientific Exploration 17(3):583-584, 2003.

Tucker JB. Response to "A New Perspective on the Afterlife Issue." Journal of Near-Death Studies 22(1):15-19, 2003.

Nelson R, Krippner S, Tucker J, Zeitlin G, Pitkanen M, King C, & Germine M. Who and where is the self? A round table discussion on memory, information and the limits of identity. Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions
(e-journal) 2(3):http://www.emergentmind.org/interview.htm, 2003.

Keil HHJ & Tucker JB. Children who claim to remember previous lives: Cases with written records made before the previous personality was identified. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19(1):91-101, 2005.

Sharma P & Tucker JB. Cases of the reincarnation type with memories from the intermission between lives. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 23(2):101-118, 2005.

Tucker JB. Juvenile-onset bipolar disorder? [Letter] Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(10):966, 2005.

Tucker JB. Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2005.

Pasricha SK, Keil J, Tucker JB, Stevenson I. Some bodily malformations attributed to previous lives. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19(3):359-383, 2005.

Tucker JB & Keil HHJ. Experimental birthmarks: New cases of an Asian practice. International Journal of Parapsychology, in press.I'll wait for him to have a paper accepted by a journal other than the like of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the Journal of Near-Death Studies and the International Journal of Parapsychology. Thank you very much. :rolleyes:

Rodney
14th June 2009, 07:02 AM
The next thing I said in my post was:
And further:

Dr. Tucker's publications (from his website http://www.lifebeforelife.com/Publications.htm ):

I'll wait for him to have a paper accepted by a journal other than the like of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the Journal of Near-Death Studies and the International Journal of Parapsychology. Thank you very much. :rolleyes:
How about the Lancet? And, of course, the late Ian Stevenson published many articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Marduk
14th June 2009, 08:00 AM
is this that Leinster kid who remembered being a pilot in a former life based on the USS Natoma Bay
pay attention now this is going to get obvious
interesting game he is addicted to in this news video
http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story
its called "Battle fleet"
heres an info page
http://www.battle-fleet.com/
this game was released in 2000 when James was 2
scroll down to
LIST OF UNITS USED IN 1939BF AND PACIFIC WAR BATTLESHIP GAMES
you'll see USS Natoma Bay listed
James started freaking out having bad dreams about dying in a WW2 fighter when he was 2, same time as this game was released and probably after hed been playing it
his parents took him to see a counsellor who just happened to be Carol Bowman
Carol Bowman earns a living from selling stories of childrens reincarnation to parents who want their little kids to be something special
"hey hes not really a kid screwed up by a violent computer game we allowed him to play, hes really a reincarnated pilot"

buy the book now, written by his mum and with a foreward by Carol Bowman
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Soul-Survivor/Andrea-Leininger/e/9780446509336
in case anyone was wondering Carol Bowman discovered that her son was a reincarnated black civil war soldier about 6 months after the movie "Glory" was released
of course these possible sources are entirely coincedental which is why the adults concerned decided not to mention them to anyone at any point
:D

my favourite bit is where his mum asked him what his name was and he said "James" which she then took as being the name of the dead person he must have been, and not like his actual name. you can discover this for yourself, go ask any 2 year old called James what their name is, I'm betting the vast majority are going to say "James". If any of them says "king henry the 8th" let me know, I could get them a lucrative book deal


I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories, but this isn't that, this is just business

Gord_in_Toronto
14th June 2009, 10:31 AM
How about the Lancet? And, of course, the late Ian Stevenson published many articles in peer-reviewed journals.

The Lancet reference is a letter.

And who did Stevenson convince? Other than Tucker?

RichardR
14th June 2009, 11:06 AM
Depends whether you believe Bruce Leininger, James' father. According to him, James told his mother that, in his past life as James Huston, his plane had taken off from a boat named "Natoma" and that a "Jack Larson" was involved. Huston took off from the Natoma Bay and the wingman on his ill-fated flight was named Jack Larson.
And I covered that in my article.

RichardR
14th June 2009, 11:09 AM
How about the Lancet? And, of course, the late Ian Stevenson published many articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Review of some of Ian Stevenson's work (http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/stevensonbook.htm).

And his methods and beliefs (http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/stevensonbelief.htm).

RichardR
14th June 2009, 11:19 AM
is this that Leinster kid who remembered being a pilot in a former life based on the USS Natoma Bay
pay attention now this is going to get obvious
interesting game he is addicted to in this news video
http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story
its called "Battle fleet"
What makes you think he was playing that specific game? And what makes you think he was playing that at age 3 when he first started mentioning Natoma?

Marduk
14th June 2009, 11:22 AM
And I covered that in my article.


in your article you cast doubt on wether little James got the name of the ship right and wether it was just wishful thinking on the part of his parents,
that answer was far from satisfactory as it has no supporting evidence
and when considered in light of the fact that he had been playing a WW2pacific war combat game where he was taking off from the USS Natoma Bay on a daily basis for 9 years I would have thought he'd got the name precisely right, wouldn't you
:D

Marduk
14th June 2009, 11:24 AM
because the game was released in 2000 when his experiences started and because he is still playing it as shown in this press video, you don't believe 2 year olds know how to use a joystick ?
http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story
I am very familiar with this game, in fact I was addicted to it for quite some time, the Iwo Jima campaign is awesome
:)

and despite the fact that hes obviously addicted to it in the video himself, you wonder why it is that no one mentions it, he even says in the video at 0:22secs and I quote "I can beat the Japanese easy as pie" as hes sat in front of the computer with the joystick in his hand

RichardR
14th June 2009, 11:33 AM
because the game was released in 2000 when his experiences started and because he is still playing it as shown in this press video, you don't believe 2 year olds know how to use a joystick ?
The video says "when we first met James in 2005..." - and showed him playing a video game. In 2005 he was 7, and yet he mentioned Natoma when he was 3. So how do you know he played that game at age 2?

And where does it say he was playing that specific game?

RichardR
14th June 2009, 11:37 AM
in your article you cast doubt on wether little James got the name of the ship right and wether it was just wishful thinking on the part of his parents,
that answer was far from satisfactory as it has no supporting evidence


I said we can't be sure what really happened. I don't need supporting evidence of this - the burden of proof is on the people claiming he knew these names.

Marduk
14th June 2009, 11:41 AM
The video says "when we first met James in 2005..." - and showed him playing a video game. In 2005 he was 7, and yet he mentioned Natoma when he was 3. So how do you know he played that game at age 2?

And where does it say he was playing that specific game?

are you being deliberately obtuse,
the game was released in 2000 when he was 2,
his dreams of being trapped in a burning plane started when he was 2,
I recognise the game because I've played it and it does feature the names of real ships and real locations in it, including the USS Natoma Bay and Iwo Jima, from which you fly corsairs against enemy ships and ground targets and other enemy aircraft

parents are claiming reincarnation when in fact the source of every piece of original information claimed to be from a past life is in a game in his home.

you'll note that the names of the real veterans who the parents contacted are after the fact, that is to say, that the names of these people were known to his parents before they were known to James. lets see now, theres this phenomena, "leading question" perhaps you heard of it
;)

Marduk
14th June 2009, 11:43 AM
I said we can't be sure what really happened. I don't need supporting evidence of this - the burden of proof is on the people claiming he knew these names.


right, and I can prove he was familiar with those names from playing the game, those names are in the game, why then would you need to listen to any claim made by his parents even if they had a video of the event and a room full of credible witnesses when you can prove the source is in his bedroom,

RichardR
14th June 2009, 12:01 PM
are you being deliberately obtuse,
the game was released in 2000 when he was 2,
I understand that. But how do you know he was playing that specific game? I didn't hear anyone on the video mention the name of the game and you couldn't see the screen. So how do you know he was playing that game?

And how do you know he was playing it at age 2?

Marduk
14th June 2009, 12:07 PM
I understand that. But how do you know he was playing that specific game? I didn't hear anyone on the video mention the name of the game and you couldn't see the screen. So how do you know he was playing that game?

Watch it again, there are screenshots at 25 seconds

And how do you know he was playing it at age 2?

see I don't know that he was playing it at age 2
I do know
it was available and so by inference a source for all his info was available, not as the parents would have you believe that there was no possible source
all the pictures he drew age 3 show scenes from the game
he certainly is an expert at it at a very young age, he can kill the Japs "easy as pie"
perhaps you should write to his mum and ask her for a straight answer, but considering she has an income based on this don't expect one.

what about his claim that "little man can't get out"
how big are pixels ?


:p

Rodney
14th June 2009, 04:11 PM
The Lancet reference is a letter.

And who did Stevenson convince? Other than Tucker?
The issue is your contention: "No scientist in the World thinks reincarnation is real." Do you want to withdraw it?

Rodney
14th June 2009, 04:16 PM
And I covered that in my article.
You simply speculated that Bruce Leininger's account is inaccurate. He is adamant, however, that James mentioned Jack Larson's name with no prompting. And how do you explain James Huston's sister's contention that James Leininger knew that: (1) her childhood name was Annie; (2) her portrait was painted; and (3) she had a sister named Ruth?

Skeptic Ginger
14th June 2009, 04:31 PM
How about the Lancet? And, of course, the late Ian Stevenson published many articles in peer-reviewed journals.It's a correspondence letter and not a study. However, I see a lot of the titles are about culture and psychology of belief. Those are not studies supporting the existence of reincarnation.

Edited to add, I see this was already noted.

Skeptic Ginger
14th June 2009, 04:33 PM
....
I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories, but this isn't that, this is just businessCare to cite any?

Skeptical Greg
14th June 2009, 04:44 PM
..... And how do you explain James Huston's sister's contention that James Leininger knew that: (1) her childhood name was Annie; (2) her portrait was painted; and (3) she had a sister named Ruth?

I think ' contention ' would explain it.. Maybe ...

Skeptic Ginger
14th June 2009, 04:54 PM
because the game was released in 2000 when his experiences started and because he is still playing it as shown in this press video, you don't believe 2 year olds know how to use a joystick ?...Speaking from experience with my own genius son ;) , he was good at "Putt Putt" at age 3 when the most of the other kids his age didn't get the gist of it. IE, 2 and 3 yr olds, unless they are very exceptional, are not likely to be able to play a combat game at that age.

Is there a suggested age on the game? How complex is it? I'd be surprised if parents had this game for the kid, but lots of little kids watch other people playing video games.


I hate this kind of story because it begs for real science and all we get are claims of evidence but no assurance the evidence is factual. That Fox News piece has all sorts of convincing claims, but darn! I want the facts. One of those facts would be did someone coach the kid inadvertently. Another would be did the boy see others playing the video game? How about a WWII movie or 2? There are so many places/times a kids could get this kind of subtle coaching there is no way to sort out if any real coincidences occurred in his memory story. Then there is the cold reading phenomena. The kid cites some data and people look for a match among many possible matches.

I want the real science!!!! I hate intriguing stories I know are probably full of crap.



Kind of fun to get a free trip to Japan out of the deal. As for the crying, hey, my son and I both had a hard time holding back tears at the Nagasaki memorial. Memorials do that to you even if you are a kid and even if you don't really know the individuals involved.

Gord_in_Toronto
14th June 2009, 05:46 PM
The issue is your contention: "No scientist in the World thinks reincarnation is real." Do you want to withdraw it?

Nope. Whether or not either of the two gentlemen in question are/were scientists is pretty moot.

Skeptical Greg
14th June 2009, 05:52 PM
My kid was fascinated by trains - a la ' Thomas The Tank Engine '- at age 2.
He knew all the names and personality traits of the characters and what kind of engine or car they represented... If they had happened to have the names of WW2 fighter pilots and aircraft, I'm quite sure he would have known those as well ..


I think FramerDave nailed it in his post:

They made a big deal about the kid looking at planes as though he was doing a pre-flight check. Did anyone ever think to ask him what he was doing, what he was checking for? If he told me he was checking to make sure the pitot-static tube was unobstructed, inspection plates are secure and that the start area is safe and clear, I'd take a second look at it. Otherwise, it's just a kid who's fascinated by planes.

Did they ever think of asking the kid who his CO was? The name of the CAG? His serial number? .......

Rodney
14th June 2009, 06:50 PM
Nope. Whether or not either of the two gentlemen in question are/were scientists is pretty moot.
See http://www.buddhanet.net/ans32.htm and http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html

pchams
14th June 2009, 08:01 PM
As much as I hate to say it, you're going to have to retract that statement Gord_in _TO.
There are those who do believe it.
Of course there are. There are also those who believe no man has ever stepped on the moon.

Marduk
14th June 2009, 08:02 PM
Care to cite any?
But surely you realise our Lord Jesus Christ is coming back
not christian ?
hmmmm
But surely you realise our Lord Buddha is coming back :jaw-dropp
:p

Gord_in_Toronto
14th June 2009, 08:15 PM
See http://www.buddhanet.net/ans32.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/ans32.htm) [quote]

The total list from that page is:
Thomas Huxley,
Professor Gust Stromber,
Julian Huxley, and
Henry Ford

Not one of them has investigated anything. They all just think it is a "nice idea".

Ford ISTR had a greater belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

and
[quote]http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html (http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html)

As yes famous scientists such as:
Benjamin Franklin
Pythagoras

And I think Mark Twain was making a joke.

:boggled:

Gord_in_Toronto
14th June 2009, 08:17 PM
As much as I hate to say it, you're going to have to retract that statement Gord_in _TO.
There are those who do believe it.
Of course there are. There are also those who believe no man has ever stepped on the moon.

Bugger. Now I'm going to have to ask for a cite from a scientist that does not think we have gone to the Moon. :D

SusanB-M1
14th June 2009, 11:17 PM
See http://www.buddhanet.net/ans32.htm and http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html

A quick read through that link shows that the people mentioned date from approx 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Are there any right up-to-date top scientists who would expound similar views today?

Skeptic Ginger
15th June 2009, 12:06 AM
But surely you realise our Lord Jesus Christ is coming back
not christian ?
hmmmm
But surely you realise our Lord Buddha is coming back :jaw-dropp
:pI'll take that as an admission you mis-spoke. ;)

Marduk
15th June 2009, 11:52 AM
I'll take that as an admission you mis-spoke. ;)

well no, not really, there are examples I could cite, but they've never been scientifically evaluated and are all rather personal and I'm still investigating them so for the purposes of discussion are valueless, take my comment as an expression that my mind is open, but that my brain hasn't fallen out yet
;)

Rodney
15th June 2009, 06:05 PM
A quick read through that link shows that the people mentioned date from approx 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Are there any right up-to-date top scientists who would expound similar views today?

I'm not sure whether he believes in reincarnation, but Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson believes in the paranormal, for which he has been vilified by the scientific establishment. Undoubtedly, there are scientists who are closeted believers in the paranormal, including reincarnation, but who know that it wouldn't be good for their science careers if they came out of the closet.

Marduk
15th June 2009, 06:10 PM
A quick read through that link shows that the people mentioned date from approx 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Are there any right up-to-date top scientists who would expound similar views today?

in the west I wouldn't have thought so, in the east probably about 100% of them
;)

Skeptic Ginger
15th June 2009, 10:42 PM
well no, not really, there are examples I could cite, but they've never been scientifically evaluated and are all rather personal and I'm still investigating them so for the purposes of discussion are valueless, take my comment as an expression that my mind is open, but that my brain hasn't fallen out yet
;)I see. Then I'll take that as an admission you use unskeptical criteria when you evaluate these claims.

Marduk
16th June 2009, 05:45 AM
I see. Then I'll take that as an admission you use unskeptical criteria when you evaluate these claims.


ok so youre saying in your opinion that dismissing something without evaluating it properly is the correct sceptical approach

funny, I thought that was just denial and denial like that without even knowing the details is more akin to religious fundementalism than anything else I can think of
:p

Galaxie
16th June 2009, 12:21 PM
pay attention now this is going to get obvious
interesting game he is addicted to in this news video
http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story
its called "Battle fleet"
heres an info page
http://www.battle-fleet.com/
this game was released in 2000 when James was 2
scroll down to

you'll see USS Natoma Bay listed

The kid is clearly playing a 3D flight simulator game in the video, but the game you've linked to is a 2D naval strategy game. What gives, Marduk?

Marduk
16th June 2009, 01:32 PM
The kid is clearly playing a 3D flight simulator game in the video, but the game you've linked to is a 2D naval strategy game. What gives, Marduk?
oops
wrong link
http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=1045
:D

Galaxie
16th June 2009, 02:03 PM
oops
wrong link
http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=1045
:D

Ah, thank you.

all the pictures he drew age 3 show scenes from the game
RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 2004

So, do you still think this was the source of his info?

Skeptical Greg
16th June 2009, 07:37 PM
oops
wrong link
http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=1045
:D

I'm pretty sure the screen shots in the news video are not from Pacific Fighters, either ..

The Pacific Fighters cockpits are more realistic...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/images/6109674/31/?tag=thumbs_below;thumb;31

Galaxie
17th June 2009, 07:02 AM
Could it possibly be Secret Weapons Over Normandy?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/280884a38f433b9fce.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16708)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/280884a38f456ed310.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16709)

Skeptical Greg
17th June 2009, 08:28 AM
The one on the right looks like a match for Secret Weapons Over Normandy, but I can't find any cockpit shots ... The terrain texture style, from the shot on the left doesn't look like Secret Weapons Over Normandy either...
However, cranking down the video options, could result in a significantly different look ...

Skeptic Ginger
19th June 2009, 12:36 AM
ok so youre saying in your opinion that dismissing something without evaluating it properly is the correct sceptical approach

funny, I thought that was just denial and denial like that without even knowing the details is more akin to religious fundementalism than anything else I can think of
:pYou made a claim. The claim was that you thought there was possible evidence for reincarnation. You have provided no evidence supporting this claim.

And you accuse me of denial without knowing the details? :rolleyes:

Produce the evidence Marduk.

Marduk
19th June 2009, 12:45 AM
You made a claim. The claim was that you thought there was possible evidence for reincarnation. You have provided no evidence supporting this claim.

now youre moving the goalposts, I said nothing at all about reincarnation, perhaps you should be sure of your facts before accusing people of Woo

And you accuse me of denial without knowing the details? :rolleyes:

so do you know the details then ?, and thats the second denial from you now, you are attempting to prove reincarnation fallacious are you not, isn't that an attempt to deny the validity of my opinion (even though that was not what I was referencing)

Produce the evidence Marduk.
pffft
:D

Skeptic Ginger
19th June 2009, 12:50 AM
now youre moving the goalposts, I said nothing at all about reincarnation, perhaps you should be sure of your facts before accusing people of Woo

so do you know the details then ?, and thats the second denial from you now, you are attempting to prove reincarnation fallacious are you not, isn't that an attemptto deny the validity of my opinion (even though that was not what I was referencing)

pffft
:DOK, Marduk, let's review:...
I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories, but this isn't that, this is just business

I repeat, where's your evidence?

Marduk
19th June 2009, 12:54 AM
OK, Marduk, let's review:

I repeat, where's your evidence?
and I repeat, where did I say anything about reincarnation ?

you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, is it bothering you sweety ?
:p

chillzero
19th June 2009, 04:13 AM
How would someone have past life memories if they weren't reincarnated, Marduk?

Marduk
19th June 2009, 04:34 AM
Speculated examples of instinctual fixed action patterns can be observed in the behavior of animals, which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are believed not to be based upon prior experience, such as reproduction, and feeding among insects. Sea turtles, hatched on a beach, automatically move toward the ocean, and honeybees communicate by dance the direction of a food source, all without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and building of nests. Another term for the same concept is innate behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
;)

chillzero
19th June 2009, 04:36 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
;)
Very nice, but my question was this:

How would someone have past life memories if they weren't reincarnated, Marduk?

Marduk
19th June 2009, 05:46 AM
1. None of those animals have been reincarnated,
2. they all have built in behaviours which are skills learned by natural selection over millenia, (innate behaviour)
laymen call this instinct, but it is just basically hard wired memory, this behaviour is controlled "instinctively" by the brain, but it is directly controlled by the Hippocampus, which also happens to be the centre of memory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus

so it is in effect a memory that has not been learned by the individual which it inherited from its direct ancestor, who in turn inherited it from his direct ancestor and so on and so on etc

wouldn't you call that past life memory ?

well my point is this, humans have instincts too

;)

chillzero
19th June 2009, 06:11 AM
wouldn't you call that past life memory ?

No.

Marduk
19th June 2009, 06:30 AM
No.

would you call "innate behaviour" memory controlled ?

:D

chillzero
19th June 2009, 06:32 AM
would you call "innate behaviour" memory controlled ?

:D

It is not 'past life memory' no matter what way you try to spin it, and you would have done better to apologise to skeptigirl for rudeness instead of this behaviour.

Marduk
19th June 2009, 06:51 AM
It is not 'past life memory' no matter what way you try to spin it, and you would have done better to apologise to skeptigirl for rudeness instead of this behaviour.


I'm not trying to spin anything, sceptic girl attacked me for expressing an opinion and rudely demanded I publically explain myself on a public forum in a clear attempt to embaress me, the first person who asked politely about my opinion (You, ty.)I Imeediately answered in full, expressing the facts supported by credible links upon which is based on my understanding of "innate behaviour" which, wether anyone likes it or not is a system that uses data passed on in the memory from a previous dead relative
thats a past life memory
"in my opinion"

what is your instinct telling you right now

Would you have preferred it if I'd shouted hallelujah and started foaming at the mouth
:eek:

;)
But hey if I have upset you somehow SG,
I apologise profusely

RichardR
20th June 2009, 10:41 AM
You simply speculated that Bruce Leininger's account is inaccurate.

No, I pointed out that this was a possibility. As reincarnation is the extraordinary claim, the possibility of another explanation means this is not evidence of reincarnation.

He is adamant, however, that James mentioned Jack Larson's name with no prompting. And how do you explain James Huston's sister's contention that James Leininger knew that: (1) her childhood name was Annie; (2) her portrait was painted; and (3) she had a sister named Ruth?

Interesting that this information has been presented by the Leiningers years after the original documentary. The story keeps getting "better" with the retelling - a phenomenon consistent with a false story.

Skeptic Ginger
20th June 2009, 11:23 PM
and I repeat, where did I say anything about reincarnation ?

you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, is it bothering you sweety ?
:pAre you really unable to read your own quote or are you just being a troll?

I didn't say anything about anything except to ask you for evidence supporting the statement you made which I quoted.

Skeptic Ginger
20th June 2009, 11:32 PM
would you call "innate behaviour" memory controlled ?

:DDefinitely not. A memory is a recollection of a something which has occurred. Instinct is the process of pre-programming behavior. Would you call it a past life memory because your heart beats? How about the fact babies know how to suck? Moving down the continuum, do ducklings act on some memory of how to imprint on their parent shortly after birth?

My dogs imprinted on all dogs they met the first year of their lives. Those dogs are identified as in the pack now regardless of the time between seeing them. All dogs after that first year are identified as not in the pack regardless of how I try to get my dogs to see them as friendly.

Is it a reflex when they chase bunnies or memory?


None of those instincts are memory driven.

Skeptic Ginger
20th June 2009, 11:35 PM
I'm not trying to spin anything, sceptic girl attacked me for expressing an opinion and rudely demanded I publically explain myself on a public forum in a clear attempt to embaress me, the first person who asked politely about my opinion (You, ty.)I Imeediately answered in full, expressing the facts supported by credible links upon which is based on my understanding of "innate behaviour" which, wether anyone likes it or not is a system that uses data passed on in the memory from a previous dead relative
thats a past life memory
"in my opinion"

what is your instinct telling you right now

Would you have preferred it if I'd shouted hallelujah and started foaming at the mouth
:eek:

;)
But hey if I have upset you somehow SG,
I apologise profuselyGoodness you have a whole CT built up around this.

From my perspective, you made a remark that indicated you believed in reincarnation, just not the reincarnation in the OP. Instead of clarifying you were equating instinct to memory, you've wasted all this time stewing in your CT about my intent.

Pity. I hate wasting time.

Sean84
20th June 2009, 11:57 PM
Instinct is only verifiable as it is repeated throughout generations, and is only presented when some stimulus prompts it; i.e. a baby learns how to suck because it's hungry... A typical failing of the species. The baby still has to learn how to suckle, it's not necessarily automatic, hence all the crying. A baby does not simply remember how to suck a tit because the mother did it. It is not memory, it is a factor of how the brain forms.

Long story short: Dismiss as troll.

SusanB-M1
21st June 2009, 12:17 AM
Long story short: Dismiss as troll.
Just dropping in here to say that I know Marduk pretty well, and he's definitely not a troll. I have learnt a lot from him over the past five or so years.

Sean84
21st June 2009, 12:24 AM
If my assessment was hasty then I apologize, but the recent exchange seemed to warrant it.

Marduk
21st June 2009, 08:31 AM
Are you really unable to read your own quote or are you just being a troll?

I didn't say anything about anything except to ask you for evidence supporting the statement you made which I quoted.

see there you go again with the rudeness
I said nothing about reincarnation, I said past life memories, and thats exactly what instinct is, hardwired memory inherited from our parents I'm sorry youre not capable of reading what I posted (and not what you imagined I posted), it was formatted in English, if english isn't your first language I can translate it into whatever is if it helps
:D
btw your behaviour is way more trollish than mine, you are the one here who seems incapable of rational thought, you were rude, and now youre being rude again.
did I accidentally tread on your bridge
?

Marduk
21st June 2009, 08:34 AM
Goodness you have a whole CT built up around this.

From my perspective, you made a remark that indicated you believed in reincarnation, just not the reincarnation in the OP. Instead of clarifying you were equating instinct to memory, you've wasted all this time stewing in your CT about my intent.

Pity. I hate wasting time.

how many times do I have to tell you I wasn't talking about reincarnation, can you post the word "reincarnation" from my statement which clearly said "past life memory" can you not distinguish a memory from a reincarnation ?

life must be so difficult for you when you are incapable of admitting you were wrong. doesn't do your rep much good showing people that skill publically either
:p

Marduk
21st June 2009, 08:37 AM
Definitely not. A memory is a recollection of a something which has occurred. Instinct is the process of pre-programming behavior. Would you call it a past life memory because your heart beats? How about the fact babies know how to suck? Moving down the continuum, do ducklings act on some memory of how to imprint on their parent shortly after birth?

My dogs imprinted on all dogs they met the first year of their lives. Those dogs are identified as in the pack now regardless of the time between seeing them. All dogs after that first year are identified as not in the pack regardless of how I try to get my dogs to see them as friendly.

Is it a reflex when they chase bunnies or memory?


None of those instincts are memory driven.

yup, its clear youre out of your depth here, consider, how does your body know how to do anything, it does so from genes inherited from your parents, instinct is part of this, the fact that it is controlled by the hippocampus proves that instinct is memory driven and its memories that we didn't generate ourselves, you seem to be claiming that instincts just magically appear at birth, that clearly is not the case
:D

Marduk
21st June 2009, 08:40 AM
Instinct is only verifiable as it is repeated throughout generations, and is only presented when some stimulus prompts it; i.e. a baby learns how to suck because it's hungry... A typical failing of the species. The baby still has to learn how to suckle, it's not necessarily automatic, hence all the crying. A baby does not simply remember how to suck a tit because the mother did it. It is not memory, it is a factor of how the brain forms.

Long story short: Dismiss as troll.
youre a towell

you said it yourself
it is repeated throughout generations

so those memories come from a past generation, how in any way could that not be described as past life memory ?
;)

Marduk
21st June 2009, 09:45 AM
now I'm going topost this again because it seems that no one bothered to read it the last time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
Instincts are thought to occur as fixed action patterns. These fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited.
this proves that instinct is not learned after birth, thats what the word "inherited" means
Both memory-driven and innate behaviour is made hippocampal-dependent by innate and acquired conflicting tendencies and not the class of stimulus presented.
this proves that instinct is controlled in the hippocampus
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010945208708827
this proves that the hippocampus is responsible for long term memory
The hippocampus is a major component of the brains of humans and other mammals. It belongs to the limbic system and plays important roles in long term memory and spatial navigation.
Fair enough, you want to believe this information is trolling, because you can't handle the truth thats fine, thats your problem, but don't accuse me of trolling because you are incapable of answering a simple question, that question

if instinct is not controlled by the hippocampus as science says it is and is not inherited from our parents as science says it is, then where is it controlled and what is its source

A general reminder - please re-read the OP and stay on topic. This thread is not about the composition of the human brain or where "instinct comes from." You are welcome to discuss such topics, but start a new thread in the appropriate Forum section to do so.

dlorde
21st June 2009, 11:46 AM
I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but when you say:I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories in a thread explicitly discussing extraordinary cases of alleged past life memories, then subsequently claim it was a statement about instinctive behaviour, it sounds disingenuous to say the least...

We're supposed to believe that you were effectively saying that you 'think there are genuine cases of people having instinctive behaviour' ? That you suddenly introduced new semantics for 'past life memories' to the thread just to say something bafflingly mundane?

Marduk
21st June 2009, 11:57 AM
I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but when you say: in a thread explicitly discussing extraordinary cases of alleged past life memories, then subsequently claim it was a statement about instinctive behaviour, it sounds disingenuous to say the least...

I had no original intention of elaborating

We're supposed to believe that you were effectively saying that you 'think there are genuine cases of people having instinctive behaviour' ? That you suddenly introduced new semantics for 'past life memories' to the thread just to say something bafflingly mundane?
nope, I'm pointing out that instinctive behaviour is based on real past life memory, you don't think genuine past life memories are worth discussing in a thread about past life memories then why bother to post ?
:p

dlorde
21st June 2009, 12:56 PM
nope, I'm pointing out that instinctive behaviour is based on real past life memory
Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean by 'past life memory', since (as I implied earlier) it doesn't seem to be the meaning use in this thread up to that point - unless you are suggesting that a single individual's memories of life can be inherited and described 'instinctively' by their inheritors ?

...[if] you don't think genuine past life memories are worth discussing in a thread about past life memories then why bother to post ?
:p
:rolleyes: my post wasn't about whether past life memories, genuine or otherwise, are worth discussing, but whether what you posted was consistent or credible.

Marduk
21st June 2009, 01:40 PM
Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean by 'past life memory', since (as I implied earlier) it doesn't seem to be the meaning use in this thread up to that point - unless you are suggesting that a single individual's memories of life can be inherited and described 'instinctively' by their inheritors ?

Is there a scientific basis for that not being possible, I think I have shown already that instincts are past life group memories (by any definition), isn't it possible that on certain occaisons individual memories can be inherited by the same process ?
what about the first instinct, imagine a rabbits new instinct shortly after the evolution of a fox, it has to have started off as a passed on individual memory doesn't it ?

for James the boy this thread is based on that would mean that the story of the dead pilot he believes he was, was told to one of the individuals that supplied his genetic inheritance, a grandparent perhaps. It would mean there is a scientific basis for past life memory recall (even though that life isn't the persons who remembers it), where there isn't one for reincarnation.

;)

my post wasn't about whether past life memories, genuine or otherwise, are worth discussing, but whether what you posted was consistent or credible.
I am fully aware why you posted, your usage of "disingenious" and "bafflingly mundane" made it quite clear you weren't interested so much as discussing the credible information I posted fully supported by credible links which proves my point of view is scientific as you were slagging me off for your own personal reasons. But really, am not bothered by your rudeness in the slightest any more than I was by Scepticgirls, I'm just interested in discussing the facts
;)

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 03:37 PM
Instinct is only verifiable as it is repeated throughout generations, and is only presented when some stimulus prompts it; i.e. a baby learns how to suck because it's hungry... A typical failing of the species. The baby still has to learn how to suckle, it's not necessarily automatic, hence all the crying. A baby does not simply remember how to suck a tit because the mother did it. It is not memory, it is a factor of how the brain forms.

Long story short: Dismiss as troll.Infant sucking is a reflex, not a learned behavior. Fetuses suck in the womb including sucking their thumbs. I doubt they have learned to eat their thumbs.

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 03:40 PM
see there you go again with the rudeness
I said nothing about reincarnation, I said past life memories, and thats exactly what instinct is, hardwired memory inherited from our parents I'm sorry youre not capable of reading what I posted (and not what you imagined I posted), it was formatted in English, if english isn't your first language I can translate it into whatever is if it helps
:D
btw your behaviour is way more trollish than mine, you are the one here who seems incapable of rational thought, you were rude, and now youre being rude again.
did I accidentally tread on your bridge
?It's not rudeness, it's frankness.

What you posted was based on the false premise that instinct and memory were equivalent. Had you simply cleared that up in the beginning, we'd be done with this sidetrack.

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 03:42 PM
how many times do I have to tell you I wasn't talking about reincarnation, can you post the word "reincarnation" from my statement which clearly said "past life memory" can you not distinguish a memory from a reincarnation ?

life must be so difficult for you when you are incapable of admitting you were wrong. doesn't do your rep much good showing people that skill publically either
:pTake a deep calming breath. Now please go back and read post #178. Note the word, reincarnation, is not in the post.

RichardR
21st June 2009, 03:43 PM
Is there a scientific basis for that not being possible, I think I have shown already that instincts are past life group memories (by any definition),

Not by any definition, no. What's your definition?

isn't it possible that on certain occaisons individual memories can be inherited by the same process ?

I don't see how. At least, I can think of no reason to suppose this happens.

what about the first instinct, imagine a rabbits new instinct shortly after the evolution of a fox, it has to have started off as a passed on individual memory doesn't it ?

Why?

Marduk
21st June 2009, 03:43 PM
It's not rudeness, it's frankness.

What you posted was based on the false premise that instinct and memory were equivalent. Had you simply cleared that up in the beginning, we'd be done with this sidetrack.

frankly my dear it was rude,

memory and instinct are the same, instinct is controlled by the brains memory centre, I'd value your opinion more if youd actually bothered to read the links I posted that already proved that
:p

Marduk
21st June 2009, 03:46 PM
Not by any definition, no. What's your definition?



I don't see how. At least, I can think of no reason to suppose this happens.



Why?

my opinion is backed by the facts that I have posted and linked to, denying the truth of them isn't doing anyone any favours. I'm really not interested in peoples unqualified opinions unless they are at least based on supporting evidence

thanks
;)

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 04:04 PM
yup, its clear youre out of your depth here, consider, how does your body know how to do anything, it does so from genes inherited from your parents, instinct is part of this, the fact that it is controlled by the hippocampus proves that instinct is memory driven and its memories that we didn't generate ourselves, you seem to be claiming that instincts just magically appear at birth, that clearly is not the case
:DFinally, a discussion emerges.

Instinct and memory are distinctly different. Your rationale which you claim "proves" instinct is memory driven is faulty.

Here are some links to the neurobiological aspects of each demonstrating the difference.

Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience/Memory, an online textbook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Memory)

Johns Hopkins Neuroscientists Watch Memories Form In Real Time (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154609.php)

THE COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE OF MEMORY (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/jmb86/memory.pdf)One of the most important conceptual developments in cognitive theorizing is the subdivision of memory into three separate processes of encoding, storage and retrieval. Encoding, which can be further broken down into acquisition and consolidation stages, involves the laying down of a memory trace. Storage is the maintenance of a memory trace over time while retrieval is the process of reactivating a stored memory for current use.

Instinct, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)Instinctual actions - in contrast to actions based on learning which are served by memory and which provide individually stored successful reactions built upon experience - have no learning curve, they are hard-wired and ready to use without learning, but do depend on maturational processes to appear.

dlorde
21st June 2009, 04:05 PM
Is there a scientific basis for that not being possible
AFAIAA there's no credible evidence and no known mechanism for such a thing. But there are good models for instinctive behaviour and known epigenetic phenomena.

I think I have shown already that instincts are past life group memories (by any definition), isn't it possible that on certain occaisons individual memories can be inherited by the same process ?No. Instincts are only past life group memories in the sense that DNA is a group memory. They are inherited behaviours resulting from natural selection, individual memory is not relevant.

what about the first instinct, imagine a rabbits new instinct shortly after the evolution of a fox, it has to have started off as a passed on individual memory doesn't it ?No - there is no 'new instinct' (if by 'instinct' you mean the popular idea of a fixed action pattern that is unlearned and inherited). Instincts in this sense have nothing to do with individual memory. Foxes is a continuously evolving creature, as are rabbits - if they are both in the same environment and one preys on the other they will have co-evolved from the earliest ancestors in that relationship, and their behaviours will have co-evolved too. The rabbit's responses to a fox will typically be the responses evolved by generations of rabbits that have survived predation by predators like foxes. If they behave a certain way and survive, the genetic components of that behaviour can pass to their progeny.

for James the boy this thread is based on that would mean that the story of the dead pilot he believes he was, was told to one of the individuals that supplied his genetic inheritance, a grandparent perhapsIt's obviously possible that an grandparent heard the story.
It would mean there is a scientific basis for past life memory recall (even though that life isn't the persons who remembers it), where there isn't one for reincarnation.It doesn't follow at all that the story could be passed genetically to offspring. There are no known or possible mechanisms for such individual memories to be encoded in genetic material, and no known or possible mechanism for them to be decoded from genetic material into equivalent memories in the child - and there's no good reason why such mechanisms might be present (have evolved). Occam's Razor applies.

Speculating wildly, consider the situation if it was possible - many (all?) children would 'inherit' such memories - so many (all?) people would be swamped with the memories of stories heard by their parents and ancestors that they believed to be their own...

I am fully aware why you posted, your usage of "disingenious" and "bafflingly mundane" made it quite clear you weren't interested so much as discussing the credible information I posted fully supported by credible links which proves my point of view is scientific as you were slagging me off for your own personal reasons.I wasn't discussing any information you posted, other than simply pointing out that the explanation you gave for your original statement "I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories" was not credible to a reasonable reader. I don't know why you explained it that way, rather than admitting it was a mistake, or defending it as written, but you did. It was sufficiently absurd for me to add my opinion of it to the other similar opinions.

But really, am not bothered by your rudeness in the slightest any more than I was by Scepticgirls, I'm just interested in discussing the facts
;)If you think it was rude to point out how absurd your explanation sounded, that's your prerogative.

Marduk
21st June 2009, 04:05 PM
Take a deep calming breath. Now please go back and read post #178. Note the word, reincarnation, is not in the post.

ok I see, you got caught out and are now bending the truth to cover yourself, ok fair enough

why don't you go and read every other one of your posts when you were asking me for evidence of reincarnation, just to reiterate at no time under any circumstances have I said anything about reincarnation, you have been saying I did the whole way through.
post 165 perhaps
You made a claim. The claim was that you thought there was possible evidence for reincarnation. You have provided no evidence supporting this claim.

And you accuse me of denial without knowing the details? :rolleyes:

Produce the evidence Marduk.

demanding I produce evidence for something I don't believe in and have not even commented on is really not going to get you anywhere is it


;)

Marduk
21st June 2009, 04:09 PM
Finally, a discussion emerges.

Instinct and memory are distinctly different. Your rationale which you claim "proves" instinct is memory driven is faulty.

Here are some links to the neurobiological aspects of each demonstrating the difference.

Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience/Memory, an online textbook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Memory)

Johns Hopkins Neuroscientists Watch Memories Form In Real Time (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154609.php)

THE COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE OF MEMORY (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/jmb86/memory.pdf)

Instinct, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)

Epic fail, your first three links don't even mention instinct and your last supports my position
;)

Marduk
21st June 2009, 04:10 PM
AFAIAA there's no credible evidence and no known mechanism for such a thing. But there are good models for instinctive behaviour and known epigenetic phenomena.

No. Instincts are only past life group memories in the sense that DNA is a group memory. They are inherited behaviours resulting from natural selection, individual memory is not relevant.

No - there is no 'new instinct' (if by 'instinct' you mean the popular idea of a fixed action pattern that is unlearned and inherited). Instincts in this sense have nothing to do with individual memory. Foxes is a continuously evolving creature, as are rabbits - if they are both in the same environment and one preys on the other they will have co-evolved from the earliest ancestors in that relationship, and their behaviours will have co-evolved too. The rabbit's responses to a fox will typically be the responses evolved by generations of rabbits that have survived predation by predators like foxes. If they behave a certain way and survive, the genetic components of that behaviour can pass to their progeny.

It's obviously possible that an grandparent heard the story.
It doesn't follow at all that the story could be passed genetically to offspring. There are no known or possible mechanisms for such individual memories to be encoded in genetic material, and no known or possible mechanism for them to be decoded from genetic material into equivalent memories in the child - and there's no good reason why such mechanisms might be present (have evolved). Occam's Razor applies.

Speculating wildly, consider the situation if it was possible - many (all?) children would 'inherit' such memories - so many (all?) people would be swamped with the memories of stories heard by their parents and ancestors that they believed to be their own...

I wasn't discussing any information you posted, other than simply pointing out that the explanation you gave for your original statement "I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories" was not credible to a reasonable reader. I don't know why you explained it that way, rather than admitting it was a mistake, or defending it as written, but you did. It was sufficiently absurd for me to add my opinion of it to the other similar opinions.

If you think it was rude to point out how absurd your explanation sounded, that's your prerogative.

again this is unqualified opinion based on your beliefs
not valid I'm afraid, please support your claims with relevant links

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 04:23 PM
ok I see, you got caught out and are now bending the truth to cover yourself, ok fair enough

why don't you go and read every other one of your posts when you were asking me for evidence of reincarnation, just to reiterate at no time under any circumstances have I said anything about reincarnation, you have been saying I did the whole way through.
post 165 perhaps


demanding I produce evidence for something I don't believe in and have not even commented on is really not going to get you anywhere is it


;)Last time, as it appears you are blocking the facts from your reality.

What you first posted about memory was interpreted as meaning reincarnation by me and others on the thread. How was anyone to know you held a belief based on a false premise that memory and instinct are the same when the rest of us do not hold that premise to be correct?

But now that it is clear what the problem is, I see my question asking you for evidence is no longer relative.

On to the discussion about your underlying false premise.

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 04:24 PM
Epic fail, your first three links don't even mention instinct and your last supports my position
;)Come on Marduk, you cannot possibly be that dense.

The neurobiology of memory and instinct are as different as night and day. They are not the same.

Marduk
21st June 2009, 04:36 PM
Come on Marduk, you cannot possibly be that dense.

The neurobiology of memory and instinct are as different as night and day. They are not the same.

ok so do you have a link that says that instinct is not a function of memory in the hippocampus or not, I have already posted links that says it is.

It can't be too hard to find someone capable of discussing something without parrotting their beliefs instead of some facts can it ?

I'm not interested in what you don't believe in, I'm interested in reality
thanks
;)

Marduk
21st June 2009, 04:39 PM
Last time, as it appears you are blocking the facts from your reality.

nope, actually youre the one in denial

What you first posted about memory was interpreted as meaning reincarnation by me and others on the thread.

I said nothing about reincarnation, what you assume is not my responsibility

How was anyone to know you held a belief based on a false premise that memory and instinct are the same when the rest of us do not hold that premise to be correct?

funnily enough then that just disqualifies you from making any salient comment, the fact that you don't believe what science accepts is your issue, not mine

But now that it is clear what the problem is, I see my question asking you for evidence is no longer relative.

I have yet to see you post anything in this thread that is relative or even relevant

On to the discussion about your underlying false premise.
ah ok, this will be the false premise that is backed up by science then will it and which despite a number of days to formulate a reply you havent even addressed yet ?
:D

RichardR
21st June 2009, 05:04 PM
my opinion is backed by the facts that I have posted and linked to, denying the truth of them isn't doing anyone any favours. I'm really not interested in peoples unqualified opinions unless they are at least based on supporting evidence

thanks
;)
You've got nothing then?

Marduk
21st June 2009, 05:15 PM
You've got nothing then?

apparently I have no one capable of accepting that instinct is controlled by the hippocampus apart from neuro scientists whos experiments have proved it, I guess I'll just have to live with that

thanks
:D

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 10:22 PM
ok so do you have a link that says that instinct is not a function of memory in the hippocampus or not, I have already posted links that says it is.

It can't be too hard to find someone capable of discussing something without parrotting their beliefs instead of some facts can it ?

I'm not interested in what you don't believe in, I'm interested in reality
thanks
;)I posted links describing the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of both instinct and memory which demonstrated the two were not the same. In addition, one link specifically pointed out instinct was not a function of memory. That's the link you think proved your point.

From the Wiki link on Instinct that you claim proves your point that memory and instinct are the same. (emphasis mine)Instinctual actions - in contrast to actions based on learning which are served by memory and which provide individually stored successful reactions built upon experience - have no learning curve, they are hard-wired and ready to use without learning, but do depend on maturational processes to appear.



The hippocampus plays a role in establishing long term memory. But that doesn't make everything it does the equivalent of memory. My legs play a role in walking but walking is not defined as legs.

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 10:41 PM
apparently I have no one capable of accepting that instinct is controlled by the hippocampus apart from neuro scientists whos experiments have proved it, I guess I'll just have to live with that

thanks
:DInstinct is controlled by genetics.

The hippocampus plays a role in long term memory. It plays a role in some physical movements considered to be instinctual. It has additional functions.

The gut plays a role in digestion. The gut is not defined as digestion.
Muscles are involved in movement. Muscles are not defined as movement.

Skeptic Ginger
21st June 2009, 10:47 PM
nope, actually youre the one in denial

I said nothing about reincarnation, what you assume is not my responsibility

funnily enough then that just disqualifies you from making any salient comment, the fact that you don't believe what science accepts is your issue, not mine

I have yet to see you post anything in this thread that is relative or even relevant

ah ok, this will be the false premise that is backed up by science then will it and which despite a number of days to formulate a reply you havent even addressed yet ?
:DSigh...I did say I was done with this but I'll try one more time anyway.

Reinactment:

Marduk: "I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories."
(the rest is prarphrased)
Skep: Evidence please.
Marduk: Past life memories are expressed in instinctual behavior.
Skep: OK, I see you are talking about something else.

That's it, Marduk. That's what underlies your whole conspiracy theory in a nutshell.

Sean84
22nd June 2009, 03:09 AM
I retract any semblance of an apology and encourage you to: dismiss as troll.

Marduk
22nd June 2009, 08:08 AM
Instinct is controlled by genetics.

The hippocampus plays a role in long term memory. It plays a role in some physical movements considered to be instinctual. It has additional functions.

and those additional functions, any of them that aren't involved with memory ?

The gut plays a role in digestion. The gut is not defined as digestion.
Muscles are involved in movement. Muscles are not defined as movement.

thats a ridiculous comparison, like saying the brain is involved with thinking but the brain itself is not a thought, really clutching at straws, do you have anything productive to say at all or do you just want to admit that previous to my comment you knew zilch about what the Hippocampus is or does and in your attempt to be sceptical still don't. really you should rename yourself pseudo-sceptic girl,
;)

Marduk
22nd June 2009, 08:09 AM
I retract any semblance of an apology and encourage you to: dismiss as troll.


thanks for that, do you actually have anything to add the the topic because I'm starting to get bored reporting all your posts to the mod team ?

Marduk
22nd June 2009, 08:10 AM
Sigh...I did say I was done with this but I'll try one more time anyway.

Reinactment:

Marduk: "I do think there are genuine cases of people having past life memories."
(the rest is prarphrased)
Skep: Evidence please.
Marduk: Past life memories are expressed in instinctual behavior.
Skep: OK, I see you are talking about something else.

That's it, Marduk. That's what underlies your whole conspiracy theory in a nutshell.

who am I conspiring with, really go get yourself a dictionary and look the word up, then you'll know how to use it properly
;)

catbasket
22nd June 2009, 08:31 AM
Just dropping in here to say that I know Marduk pretty well, and he's definitely not a troll. [snip]

Seriously?
Do you have any evidence for that?

Marduk
22nd June 2009, 08:37 AM
Seriously?
Do you have any evidence for that?

sure

Troll definition
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community

I originally had no intention of going into detail about the Hippocampus and only expanded on my comments after repeated attacks
my comments about the Hippocampus are relevant to this thread as they involve its memory functions and this thread is about memory
There is nothing controversial in stating that the Hippocampus is the centre for memory and instinct

so how am I qualified to be a troll, your post being deliberately inflammatory qualifies you, are you trying to recruit me for your troll club ?
if so I'm not interested thankyou
now why don't you scuttle off back under your bridge
:p

Ysidro
22nd June 2009, 09:09 AM
Just dropping in here to say that I know Marduk pretty well, and he's definitely not a troll. I have learnt a lot from him over the past five or so years.

Given his statements and attitude in this thread, I find that very hard to believe. :(

Marduk
22nd June 2009, 09:13 AM
Given his statements and attitude in this thread, I find that very hard to believe. :(

my attitude to being attacked by trolls for a comment which the attacker didn't understand is bad ?

so sue me
:D

Gaspode
22nd June 2009, 11:01 AM
Keep it civil and on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not each other.

Skeptic Ginger
23rd June 2009, 12:22 AM
Keep it civil and on topic please. Discuss the subject of the thread, not each other.Not sure if 'memory vs instinct' deserves another thread. I suspect it does. I will defer to the decision of the mods.

XLDS03
24th July 2009, 06:39 PM
Wow. I saw this video years ago. RichardR's blog said it all-- good ol' Mom suggested reincarnation in the first place. I wonder what the boy would've said on his own.

teedot
24th July 2009, 08:41 PM
Getting back to the "reincarnated" kid:

I listened to the Coast to Coast AM interview with the Leininger family and also watched a story about them that aired on one of the major networks (cannot recall which one).

One thing that was immediately apparent to me was Mr. Leininger's own fascination with WWII and airplanes. It's clear that he has a thing for planes and that is probably why the family visited the airplane museum in the first place and his son probably inherited the same interest from the elder Leininger. Kids are little information sponges, especially when it concerns something of great interest to them.

There's been a lot of coaching of this child; not sure whether it's been intentional or unintentional.