Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[Old Bob]

Thank you Zosima as for the confusion, we are all on a path of learning. Yes I thing Wogoga is wrong, but I am not always right either. The running start I have is just luck. To have a passed over friend make contact is a bit different. then expose all our guides and to hear them is overwhelming. I can tell when a new spirit comes in our house, so that is why I sound like a knowall. The rule is to ask the Question because then you (we) are ready to receive the answer. I shouldn't push stuff at this list unless you want to hear it. Colour and perception is easy for the free spirits to the point of checking the p.c.b.s in food in the supermarket. EG, cheese age wrapped in plastic. Cheers

[zosima]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

Thank you Zosima as for the confusion, we are all on a path of learning. Yes I thing Wogoga is wrong, but I am not always right either. The running start I have is just luck. To have a passed over friend make contact is a bit different. then expose all our guides and to hear them is overwhelming. I can tell when a new spirit comes in our house, so that is why I sound like a knowall. The rule is to ask the Question because then you (we) are ready to receive the answer. I shouldn't push stuff at this list unless you want to hear it. Colour and perception is easy for the free spirits to the point of checking the p.c.b.s in food in the supermarket. EG, cheese age wrapped in plastic. Cheers

I guess I would recommend that you put this in another thread if you want to talk about it, but don't be surprised if a lot of people are skeptical. Thats pretty much what we do.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

I assume that the word population increased from 1830 (when "the first historical account of muscular dystrophy appeared") to today not by a factor of six, but rather by a factor of three, yet that's not relevant to your argument.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

It may not be relevant to his argument, but your bizzare need to ignore reality at every opportunity is rather relevant to yours. Why would you assume that the world's population has only increased by a factor of three? Why assume anything at all when you could have simply looked it up? I don't know the exact value in 1830, but in 1800 the population was about 0.98 billion and in 1850 it was about 1.2 billion. One billion seems close enough for 1830. The world population currently stands at about 6.6 billion. So, not a factor of three.

Before having dealt myself with demography, I believed like you that population figures of the present and the past are essentially empirical data. But still in 2008 it is not clear whether the population of such a small country as Bhutan is less then 0.8 as assumed by the Bhutan government or more than 2.3 million as assumed by the CIA (see). So official world population figures of 1830 cannot be more than estimates respective calculations dependent on hypotheses. The further back in time one gets, the more and more such figures are just guesswork.

For a country as organized as China, fertility estimates for the year 2000 range from as low as 1.35 to as high as 2.3. (see). In the case of India of the year 2000, two very different populations pyramids exist, one corresponding to raw census data, and a second official one which has been smoothed according to the prejudices of standard demography (see Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Some quotes from the The Demographic Saturation Theory:

The last fifty years show on the one hand that an annual rate of population growth of 3% is not exceptional, if surviving conditions are favourable. They show on the other hand, how fast growth rates can change by increasing or decreasing. An annual growth rate of about 3% leads to a population 20 times as large in one century and to a population 3 million times as large in only 5 centuries.

For this reason it is, in principle, impossible to find the past evolution of world population by means of projections. (Such projections have to assume average rates of growth close to zero, which is not very realistic.) The argument that only agriculture and other technological progress made possible an earth's carrying capacity of more than for example 100 million people, has no scientific basis at all.

Bangladesh, for example, with less than 0.1% of the Earth's land surface has a population of more than 100 million. Thousands of years ago the Sahara was fertile. A very fertile Sahara could feed the current world population.

There are no methods to calculate the population densities using archaeological data such as bones, manufactured objects or other traces.

The population figures of the recent past which are thought as valid are often based on figures of historic documents, whose reliability cannot be out of question, considering the problems of census even in the age of computers and modern means of transport.

If the proportion of the registered population raises from 65% to 95%, this alone seems to be a population increase of almost 50%. After registration of births and deaths became compulsory in many countries, certainly births were more likely reported than the deaths of not registered persons.

In the same way as the temporarily strong increase in 'HIV-positiveness' in many regions also has been caused by an increase in HIV-testing, a major part of the 'increase in world population' before 1950 and a smaller part after 1950 only has been the result of better census and estimates.

It is much more likely to underestimate than to overestimate the size of a population. Because too low figures of past estimates can always be explained by the expected population growth, there has never been any reason to doubt theses figures.

Even if in Africa the registered population of conurbations grows very fast, one must not overlook that the not registered population of the huge hinterland can decrease at the same time.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[six7s]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Before having dealt myself with demography, I believed like you that population figures of the present and the past are essentially empirical data.

<snipppedLotsOfStuffThatDoesNotAddressTheQuestions RaisedFollowingTheOP/>

@Wogoga:

You may well have some interesting - and maybe, just maybe, even accurate - insights into the real world... BUT... you seem to be (through willful ignorance and/or insurmountable stupidity) missing the point of this forum

Your persistence in posting whilst avoiding requests that you at least make an attempt to substantiate the fundamental claim in your argument (the existence of a soul), suggests you are a nothing other than a troll

Accordingly, if your next post does not even begin to address this point, I will unsubscribe from this thread

@Others

If wogoga ever does start to substantiate the claims, please send me a quick PM

Thanks

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by six7s

...

... Your persistence in posting whilst avoiding requests …

I have honestly tried to answer your requests with previous posts (e.g. #189 and #270).

… that you at least make an attempt to substantiate the fundamental claim in your argument (the existence of a soul) …

It may be true that what I've written concerns rather an implicit definition. If you are interested in an explicit definition (of the human soul), maybe the following could help:

A large proportion of your body's matter is regularly replaced. Your body as well as your feelings, thinking and behaviour change a lot in the course of your life. Your psychological properties which are accessible to empirical research would have had a different development under different circumstances. Nevertheless you probably are convinced that you yourself were the baby with your name and that you would still be you yourself, if you had been kidnapped as a baby and brought up in an exotic culture.

The assumption that everyone of us remains the same experiencing subject during one's whole life is deeply rooted in our thinking. Otherwise the following reasoning would make sense: for the old miser who will develop out of me I don't save a single penny. It would also be incomprehensible that people try to trace missing persons even for decades.

Trillions of egg cells have been successfully fertilized during the transition from ape-like ancestors to us. In principle all these fertilizations can be numbered and we can attribute the number n to one having led to a reductionist R. R believes that the currently accepted physical and chemical laws are enough to transform a fertilized egg cell into a self-conscious person.

Nevertheless, the fundamental distinction between the fertilization n (and the body emerging from it) and trillions other ones remains a complete mystery to R. A reductionist explanation is impossible, because it would have to deduce this distinction from a material difference in the fertilized egg cells and such a difference is incompatible with the fact that for every reductionist another fertilization distinguishes itself.

A most impressive refutation of reductionism represents a thought experiment. We assume a machine capable of producing copies of everything which do not differ physically and chemically from the original. According to consequent reductionism such a copy of you would be capable of surviving, and more importantly, it would not be distinguishable from you at all. The copy would have all your memories and properties and would believe like you that it is you. Not even the question whether you are the original or the copy would make any sense.

For what follows I assume that everyone of us remains independently of the circumstances of one's life the same experiencing subject. This subject I call soul. The concept 'soul' abstains from age and current physical and psychological states.

Can you imagine a science-fiction world in which souls (i.e. experiencing subjects) are real entities, entailing possession, reincarnation or similar? And if yes, could you formulate a definition of such a soul concept of an imaginary world, meeting your own requirements?

Cheers, Wolfgang

[six7s]

I appreciate what I assume was a sincere attempt to answer my questions...

Alas... you didn't

But, thanks for trying

I am looking for evidence of a soul

The way I read it, all you have posted is woo-affirming woo, vis:

Originally Posted by wogoga

Nevertheless you probably are convinced that you yourself were the baby with your name and that you would still be you yourself, if you had been kidnapped as a baby and brought up in an exotic culture.

The assumption that everyone of us remains the same experiencing subject during one's whole life is deeply rooted in our thinking.

It might be deeply rooted in some... but not me... and not the gazillions who say 'Oh yes, if I won the lottery, my life wouldn't change' (to which I reply 'well, you won't mind giving me the money then, cool! A $10M windfall would definitely change my life'

Originally Posted by wogoga

Nevertheless you probably are convinced that you yourself were the baby with your name and that you would still be you yourself, if you had been kidnapped as a baby and brought up in an exotic culture.

Nope. Not me

I only have to observe someone having, what is colloquially known as a 'bad hair day', where 'things just go from bad to worse', leading to feelings of frustration that, if prolonged, can lead to despair and even depression. However, such days are often 'interrupted' by something 'good' and, hey presto!

The simple fact that this 'phenomenon' is common and unpredictable suggests (to me) that our lives are subject to the whims of fortune... blind chance style 'luck', without any hint of predestination

Leopards might not change their spots, but we ain't leopards

You will notice that I haven't provided any supporting evidence for any of the above... and I don't have to... cos I ain't making a claim, let alone an extraordinary one.

Although I have no relevant training in psychology or whatever field of expertise investigates 'common sense', I can and do recognise 'uncommon sense'...

I see it in your posts

I'm asking for evidence

If it ain't forthcoming, I'll simply dismiss it... and my world will keep spinning, at exactly the same speed as yours

Anyhoo... Thanks, again, for at least trying

[zosima]

@Wogoga

Since we remain ourselves over the course of our existence, this implies that when we are born we were someone else? LoL

The persistence of identity is an interesting topic of discussion, but the existence of a question does not necessarily imply an answer. Ie You can't conclude that because we have questions about the nature of identity that identity is as the result of a soul and psychons. Psychons are one answer among many that are a priori equal. How do I know that my identity isn't because the Spaghetti monster uses his invisible fettuccine tendrils to modify my neural activity to give me the impression of persistence of identity?

[wollery]

I may be wrong, but I thought that brain cells were not replaced during a person's lifetime, and it's also interesting that brain damage can drastically alter someone's personality. This would suggest that personality (which Wogoga seems to be trying to use to evidence the existence of the soul) resides within the material brain.

[six7s]

I'd rather a full bottle in front of me

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

"The Royal Government of Bhutan lists their country's population as 752,700 (2003). The CIA Factbook estimates the population at 2,327,849. What accounts for this discrepancy? ... According to this theory the CIA population experts have retained this original inflated number year after year while adjusting it each year for normal population growth." (Wikipedia)

According to recently updated data from the US Census, the 2008 population of Bhutan seems to be only 682,000.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[six7s]

Further evidence that the CIA can't distinguish their R-Souls from their N-trails

[CapelDodger]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered already, but why would anybody want to be reincarnated as a trivial scientific fact? What a drab prospect.

[Old Bob]

These post tend to be blunt as we all think we are right,"psychons"= Bull---t. Brain cells are not your spirit, only the conduit between. New spirits can be created when needed by I'm told the old method in the next realm. One of our grand children is a newbee, as no family member was available at that time. To hear a mind voice means you are able to relax and hear with your right brain as my wife and daughter can do. Hence the info. Newbee don't grow but are planted in unborn or born child. A way earlier post the argument on moon light at full moon is the same light as half moon, well it's not as at full moon the moon is in the flux path cone streaming from the earth( solar winds etc) which alters the light to feed the souls

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

These post tend to be blunt as we all think we are right,"psychons"= Bull---t. Brain cells are not your spirit, only the conduit between. New spirits can be created when needed by I'm told the old method in the next realm. One of our grand children is a newbee, as no family member was available at that time. To hear a mind voice means you are able to relax and hear with your right brain as my wife and daughter can do. Hence the info. Newbee don't grow but are planted in unborn or born child. A way earlier post the argument on moon light at full moon is the same light as half moon, well it's not as at full moon the moon is in the flux path cone streaming from the earth( solar winds etc) which alters the light to feed the souls

I have no idea what any of that means!

[bruto]

Originally Posted by wollery

I have no idea what any of that means!

I think I understood the 15th word in.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

These post tend to be blunt as we all think we are right,"psychons"= Bull---t. Brain cells are not your spirit, only the conduit between. New spirits can be created when needed by I'm told the old method in the next realm. One of our grand children is a newbee, as no family member was available at that time. To hear a mind voice means you are able to relax and hear with your right brain as my wife and daughter can do. Hence the info. Newbee don't grow but are planted in unborn or born child. A way earlier post the argument on moon light at full moon is the same light as half moon, well it's not as at full moon the moon is in the flux path cone streaming from the earth( solar winds etc) which alters the light to feed the souls

What you selling, we ain't buying. Oy.

I shall dismiss thee.
You run on imagination only.
Logic is dirty,
and intelligence eluding.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

The most widespread psychon-deficit disease obviously is type-2 diabetes. See e.g. First cases of type 2 diabetes found in white UK teenagers . A quote from Genetics of Type II Diabetes:

"Some ethnic groups, such as most Native Americans and Hispanics, have a definite genetic susceptibility to diabetes, while some groups, including Caucasians, Melanesians, and Eskimos, are at low risk. Since Type II diabetes essentially did not exist 100 years ago, it's obvious that a change in the environment has created the disease, but there is genetic susceptibility on top of that."

Because mankind is still increasing in number, the disease cases will increase, even if overweight and other life-style factors seen as causes of diabetes-2 should become less widespread. The faster a population increases, the higher is the probability of psychon-deficit diseases in the corresponding races or sub-populations, because a psychon species can increase in number only in the long run at the expense of other related psychon species.

An interesting quote in this context from Diabetes in India:

Over 30 million have now been diagnosed with diabetes in India. ... This means that India actually has the highest number of diabetics of any one country in the entire world. ... In India, the type of diabetes differs considerably from that in the Western world.

Type 1 is considerably more rare, and only about 1/3 of type II diabetics are overweight or obese. Diabetes is also beginning to appear much earlier in life in India, meaning that chronic long-term complications are becoming more common. The implications for the Indian healthcare system are enormous.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[Eos of the Eons]

India is competing with China for population counts. What PERCENTAGE has diabetes Type 1 or 2 compared to elsewhere?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by bruto

Keep working at it. Somebody is bound to be amused before this is all over.

I am amused,he's well up there in the nutcase stakes,neck and neck with Bjarne,Nationalcosmpolitan,Doc and Doron.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Stir

Because if he raised, everyone might fold

Looks at top of page...No, I'm not on twoplustwo.

[Skamandros]

if people take the 3 they're will see the body is the one and the soul is the two and three is the powar that makes the univers incrnation funtionality of the strong forces energey. diabetis is the proofs of this becaus phsychon people are sick not in India but also Macedonia and all world. See the reelality of how the 3 maked all reeincrnaton happen.

[wollery]

Hmmm, Wogoga is back, and Skamandros is in his thread.

This can't end well.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by wollery

Hmmm, Wogoga is back, and Skamandros is in his thread.

This can't end well.

Look on the bright side: It can't possibly end any worse than it began.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Look on the bright side: It can't possibly end any worse than it began.

Have you read NationalCosmopolitan's thread?

[Iconoclast08]

I found this gentleman's exchange here a real hoot:

http://www.ureader.de/msg/14669028.aspx

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by wollery

I have no idea what any of that means!

Join the club.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast08

I found this gentleman's exchange here a real hoot:
http://www.ureader.de/msg/14669028.aspx

What is it that you find so amusing?

Do you deny that Immanuel Kant presented a quite consistent hypothesis of biological evolution decades before Charles Darwin?

If you think that I simply cooked up the claims concerning Kant and evolution, then you should also read the two messages I wrote before the above one. The first one containes the corresponding original quotations from Kant, and the second a short defence of my claims.

That Kant quite consistently advocated biological evolution can also be recognized from quotes like this:

In the 1770s, Immanuel Kant expressed his thoughts upon differing human physical traits: ... He subscribed to the theory of "hybridization, or the invariable inheritance by offspring of the differing characteristics of both parents...", but had difficulty reconciling it with the vast variety of physical traits in the human species.

He rejected the multiple origin hypothesis of the human species because humans could interbreed and produce fertile offspring with each other. This made him arrive at the conclusion that human "parents descend from common, original stock in which different, invariably inherited characteristics subsequently developed." ...

Or do you consider "a real hoot" my logical conclusion that Charles Darwin essentially explained biological evolution by differential mortality (which is quite similar to explaining life by death)?

Cheers, Wolfgang

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by wogoga

What is it that you find so amusing?

Do you deny that Immanuel Kant presented a quite consistent hypothesis of biological evolution decades before Charles Darwin?

Hadn't lots of people come up with somewhat evolutionary type ideas in that period? What does it matter if they did?

Originally Posted by wogoga

That Kant quite consistently advocated biological evolution can also be recognized from quotes like this:

In the 1770s, Immanuel Kant expressed his thoughts upon differing human physical traits: ... He subscribed to the theory of "hybridization, or the invariable inheritance by offspring of the differing characteristics of both parents...", but had difficulty reconciling it with the vast variety of physical traits in the human species.

He rejected the multiple origin hypothesis of the human species because humans could interbreed and produce fertile offspring with each other. This made him arrive at the conclusion that human "parents descend from common, original stock in which different, invariably inherited characteristics subsequently developed." ...

By the sound of it he missed mutation.

Originally Posted by wogoga

Or do you consider "a real hoot" my logical conclusion that Charles Darwin essentially explained biological evolution by differential mortality (which is quite similar to explaining life by death)?

Surely it's differential breeding success, not differential mortality? Unless differential mortality results in differential breeding success, what does it matter?

[dafydd]

With regard to the OP,where is the proof that reincarnation is a fact?

[Skamandros]

Originally Posted by dafydd

With regard to the OP,where is the proof that reincarnation is a fact?

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Skamandros

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

I think we've found a new word. "Reincranation" is what happens when your brain falls out and you try to stuff it back in. The above post suggests that the operation is not without side effects.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Skamandros

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

Tell you what, as soon as you get the radishes on board, we'll talk.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Originally Posted by Skamandros

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

Tell you what, as soon as you get the radishes on board, we'll talk.

Teh radishes have lefft teh bilding

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by bruto

I think we've found a new word. "Reincranation" is what happens when your brain falls out and you try to stuff it back in. The above post suggests that the operation is not without side effects.

Reincarnation is when you come back as a flower.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Skamandros

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

Where is the proof of reincarnation in that farrago of nonsense?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Where is the proof of reincarnation in that farrago of nonsense?

Perhaps that a certain level of crazy must be cumulative?

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by dafydd

With regard to the OP, where is the proof that reincarnation is a fact?

A 'proof' (as opposed to 'unquestionable evidence') is essentially an argument from authority. So it is only relevant to those submitting themselves to the corresponding authority.

I've presented a lof of evidence for reincarnation in this thread. And only such concrete evidence can in the end decide whether reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis is in agreement with reality or not.

So read my contributions of this thread, and let me know why you don't consider my arguments in favour of reincarnation as valid evidence.

Whether all biological species (from enzymes to humans) are limited in number or not, makes a huge difference in the real world, or don't you think so?

Can you imagine a science fiction world, where reincarnation acutally exists?

If yes, what kind of evidence would you consider a proof that reincarnation is actually a fact in this science fiction word?

Cheers,
Wolfgang

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by wogoga

A 'proof' (as opposed to 'unquestionable evidence') is essentially an argument from authority. So it is only relevant to those submitting themselves to the corresponding authority.

I've presented a lof of evidence for reincarnation in this thread. And only such concrete evidence can in the end decide whether reincarnation as a scientific hypothesis is in agreement with reality or not.

So read my contributions of this thread, and let me know why you don't consider my arguments in favour of reincarnation as valid evidence.

Whether all biological species (from enzymes to humans) are limited in number or not, makes a huge difference in the real world, or don't you think so?

Can you imagine a science fiction world, where reincarnation acutally exists?

If yes, what kind of evidence would you consider a proof that reincarnation is actually a fact in this science fiction word?

Cheers,
Wolfgang

I was asking about proof in the real world.

[Skamandros]

can no budy here count to three? is pooves evrywere.

3

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Skamandros

funey question is these. can any one count to three??? there is prooves in you'res faces. 1 + 1 + 1 and reincranation is happens eveery second of the lifes of all lifing things. that secret of the univers is obviyous!
Is tis same for radisches and poeple and wurms > all lifing things. wake up!!!

are you from Uberwald ?