Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on January 26, 2018, 04:28:54 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article I came across about Jim Tucker who is a psychiatrist in the University of Virginia...and his research on reincarnation.
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Interesting.
-
I didn't provide an excerpt yesterday, so here is an extract from the article....
************
One day, as Ryan and Cyndi paged through one of the Hollywood books, Ryan stopped at a black-and-white still taken from a 1930s movie, Night After Night. Two men in the center of the picture were confronting one another. Four other men surrounded them. Cyndi didn’t recognize any of the faces, but Ryan pointed to one of the men in the middle.
“Hey Mama,” he said. “That’s George. We did a picture together.” His finger then shot over to a man on the right, wearing an overcoat and a scowl. “That guy’s me. I found me!”
The book didn’t provide any names of the actors pictured, but Cyndi quickly confirmed that the man Ryan said was “George" in the photo was indeed a George—George Raft, an all but forgotten film star from the 1930s and 1940s. Still, she couldn’t identify the man Ryan said had been him.Cyndi wrote Tucker, whom she found through her online research, and included the photo. Eventually it ended up in the hands of a film archivist, who, after weeks of research, confirmed the scowling man’s name: Martin Martyn, an uncredited extra in the film.
Tucker hadn’t shared that discovery with the Hammons family when he traveled to their home a few weeks later. Instead, he laid out black-and-white photos of four women on the kitchen table. Three of them were random.
Tucker asked Ryan, “Do any of these mean anything to you?”
Ryan studied the pictures. He pointed to one. She looks familiar, he said.
It was Martin Martyn’s wife.
Not long afterward, Tucker and the Hammonses traveled to California to meet Martyn’s daughter, who’d been tracked down by researchers working with Tucker on a documentary. Tucker sat down with the woman before her meeting with Ryan. She’d been reluctant to help, but during her talk with Tucker, she confirmed dozens of facts Ryan had given about her father.
Ryan said he danced in New York. Martyn was a Broadway dancer. Ryan said he was also an “agent,” and that people where he worked had changed their names. Martyn worked for years at a well-known talent agency in Hollywood—where stage names are often created—after his dancing career ended.
Ryan said his old address had “Rock” in its name. Martyn lived at 825 North Roxbury Dr. in Beverly Hills. Ryan said he knew a man named Senator Five. Martyn’s daughter said she had a picture of her father with a Senator Ives, Irving Ives, of New York, who served in the U.S. Senate from 1947 to 1959.
And yes, Martin Martyn had three sons. The daughter of course knew their names.
Ryan’s claims, while rare, are not unique among the more than 2,500 case files sitting inside the offices of Jim B. Tucker (Res ’89), an associate psychiatry professor at the UVA Medical Center’s Division of Perceptual Studies.
In cases where a child’s story has been traced to another individual, the median time between the death of that person and the child’s birth is about 16 months.
Further research by Tucker and others has shown the children generally have above-average IQs and do not possess any mental or emotional disorders beyond average groups of children. None appears to have been dissociating from painful family situations.
Nearly 20 percent of the children studied have scarlike birthmarks or even unusual deformities that closely match marks or injuries the person whose life the child recalls received at or near his or her death.
Most children’s claims generally subside around age 6, coinciding roughly with what Tucker says is the time children’s brains ready themselves for a new stage of development.
Despite the otherworldly nature of their stories, almost none of the children exhibit any signs of being particularly enlightened, Tucker says.
“My impression of the children is that while a few make philosophical statements about life, most are just typical kids,” he says. “It might be a situation similar to not being any smarter on the first day of first grade than you were on the last day of kindergarten.”
How exactly the consciousness, or at least memories, of one person might transfer to another is obviously a mystery, but Tucker believes the answers might be found within the foundations of quantum physics.
Scientists have long known that matter like electrons and protons produces events only when observed.
A simplified example: Take light and shine it through a screen with two slits cut in it. Behind the screen, put a photographic plate that records the light. When the light is unobserved as it travels, the plate shows it went through both slits. But what happens when the light is observed? The plate shows the particles go through just one of the slits. The light’s behavior changes, and the only difference is that it is being observed.There’s plenty of debate on what that might mean. But Tucker, like Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, believes that discovery shows that the physical world is affected by, and even derived from the non-physical, from consciousness.
If that’s true, then consciousness doesn’t require a three-pound brain to exist, Tucker says, and so there’s no reason to think that consciousness would end with it.
“It’s conceivable that in some way consciousness could be expressed in a new life,” Tucker says.
************
I know this is a fairly long extract....but it is all relevant to the thread.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Max Planck the father of Quantum Mechanics, on Consciousness.....
http://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/max-planck-i-regard-consciousness-as-fundamental
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Source: The Observer (25 January 1931) (via Wikiquote)
-
For memories to be transplanted from one individual to another, there must be a mechanism to support that information transfer. Living brains provide a mechanism for information retention in an individual over time; when a brain is compromised by disease or injury, its cognitive function is likewise impaired, this is what the evidence suggests. If we could retain memories without having a brain, then we could dispense with brains, they are very expensive after all.
-
For memories to be transplanted from one individual to another, there must be a mechanism to support that information transfer. Living brains provide a mechanism for information retention in an individual over time; when a brain is compromised by disease or injury, its cognitive function is likewise impaired, this is what the evidence suggests. If we could retain memories without having a brain, then we could dispense with brains, they are very expensive after all.
You are talking as if you decide what the world should be, based on your understanding of some cost-benefit analysis!!! The world is what it is... and if we don't understand it.... well...we just don't! You cannot deny realities just because you don't understand them.
And we all will dispense with the brain.... some day.
-
You are talking as if you decide what the world should be, based on your understanding of some cost-benefit analysis!!! The world is what it is... and if we don't understand it.... well...we just don't! You cannot deny realities just because you don't understand them.
That doesn't make reincarnation a 'reality'. It's just an idea without any basis in reason.
-
If we could retain memories without having a brain, then we could dispense with brains, they are very expensive after all.
Unless the brain memory is your local hard drive which serves you locally but all information is stored automatically in a universal data base, a bit like today's 'cloud' data storage. If I remember correctly, the Theosophical Society had the idea of Akashic records, based upon a Hindu term Akasha, where all human mental events were stored. I suppose that this led to the idea that some people with clairvoyant abilities were able to access these records.
-
That doesn't make reincarnation a 'reality'. It's just an idea without any basis in reason.
Your reasoning is dependent on your brain, your learning, your culture and your limitations. The universe does not have to limit itself to that surely!!
-
Your reasoning is dependent on your brain, your learning, your culture and your limitations. The universe does not have to limit itself to that surely!!
I can remember seeing a play on T V in the very old days B & W steam television days, it was titled 'Stone Tape', I've no idea of who the author was. (Wikki says Peter Sasdy was the author and was broadcast by BBC 2 in 1972).
Very crudely it was about how strong emotional events would somehow be recorded by materials surrounding the event, whatever the event happened to be; after a period of time someone that, for reasons unknown to me, just happened to be sensitive to their surroundings and happened to be in tune, somehow, to the information that was supposedly recorded in the physical surroundings and was able to run the tape of the events that had happened in the past in their mind. (Assuming tape recordings were considered to be a state of the art recording device at the time).
This SF story makes more sense to me than all reincarnation stories ever written about, which are just a bunch of entertaining stories as the one I mention 'Stone Tape'.
By the way your use of cheers at the end of your posts comes over as dismissive to my western ears, on saying that perhaps it's a slight difference in use of language, I'm assuming English may not be your first language, I only mention this out of interest, I have no wish to condemn your use of the term, no offence is intended.
Kind regards ippy
-
I can remember seeing a play on T V in the very old days B & W steam television days, it was titled 'Stone Tape', I've no idea of who the author was. (Wikki says Peter Sasdy was the author and was broadcast by BBC 2 in 1972).
It was Nigel Kneale of Quatermass fame.
-
It was Nigel Kneale of Quatermass fame.
Not according to Wikki
Regards ippy
-
Not according to Wikki
Regards ippy
Sasdy was the director, Kneale the writer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stone_Tape
-
Ippy thank you for pointing me in the direction of 'The Stone Tapes'; I'd not heard of it before but found it on Youtube and am very interested in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtvJWKaDI9s
(By the way, I often say "Cheers" at the end of a bit of conversation, to me it's just a pleasantry, like "All the best", less formal than "Kind regards". Perhaps I'll avoid saying it from now on, never occurred to me that anyone would find it dismissive.)
-
Ippy thank you for pointing me in the direction of 'The Stone Tapes'; I'd not heard of it before but found it on Youtube and am very interested in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtvJWKaDI9s
(By the way, I often say "Cheers" at the end of a bit of conversation, to me it's just a pleasantry, like "All the best", less formal than "Kind regards". Perhaps I'll avoid saying it from now on, never occurred to me that anyone would find it dismissive.)
Rob, I wasn't certain that Sriram was being dismissive, I've a feeling it's not his intention, but it does come over that way sometimes.
Sriram, I'm a non-belever in any religion because I haven't seen anything that gives me any reason to think there is such a thing as a god, I view reincarnation in the same way, everything I have read or heard about them points to them as being man made ideas, neither of them that good an idea either.
Regards to the pair of you, ippy
-
Rob, I wasn't certain that Sriram was being dismissive, I've a feeling it's not his intention, but it does come over that way sometimes.
Sriram, I'm a non-belever in any religion because I haven't seen anything that gives me any reason to think there is such a thing as a god, I view reincarnation in the same way, everything I have read or heard about them points to them as being man made ideas, neither of them that good an idea either.
Regards to the pair of you, ippy
'Cheers' is just a cheery way of ending a post instead of the formal 'Regards' or 'Best Wishes' or 'Yours Sincerely' Sometimes I may use it in a dismissive way...perhaps... yes! ;)
Reincarnation is not about religion though it is prevalent largely among Hindus and other Indian religions like Jains and Buddhists. Many non Hindus like Christians, Pagans, Jews and even Muslims believe in reincarnation. In fact, many of the cases investigated by Ian Stevenson are among Muslim children in Lebanon. Pythagoras was one of the early western thinkers who believed in reincarnation.
Reincarnation is a philosophical idea to explain the process of life and its development. There is significant evidence for it.
-
Unless the brain memory is your local hard drive which serves you locally but all information is stored automatically in a universal data base, a bit like today's 'cloud' data storage. If I remember correctly, the Theosophical Society had the idea of Akashic records, based upon a Hindu term Akasha, where all human mental events were stored. I suppose that this led to the idea that some people with clairvoyant abilities were able to access these records.
Cloud servers are still a hardware basis for information storage, and upload and download still imply an information transfer medium and mechanism. Fans of reincarnation would need to propose some comparable functional mechanisms to support their ideas.
-
Reincarnation is a philosophical idea to explain the process of life and its development. There is significant evidence for it.
Hardly.
If there were significant evidence for it then it would be a branch of biology already.
-
Hardly.
If there were significant evidence for it then it would be a branch of biology already.
It is researched under psychology as it should be. Not biology.
-
It is researched under psychology as it should be. Not biology.
Under 'psychology', we would try to understand peoples motivations and behaviours. That might include why people might hold such beliefs.
If reincarnation were true however, the scope of the implications of that would far outstrip what is covered by psychology. It would be a root and branch complete overhaul of the meaning and nature of life; pretty much everything from biology to information theory would have to be sent back to the drawing board.
-
'Cheers' is just a cheery way of ending a post instead of the formal 'Regards' or 'Best Wishes' or 'Yours Sincerely' Sometimes I may use it in a dismissive way...perhaps... yes! ;)
Reincarnation is not about religion though it is prevalent largely among Hindus and other Indian religions like Jains and Buddhists. Many non Hindus like Christians, Pagans, Jews and even Muslims believe in reincarnation. In fact, many of the cases investigated by Ian Stevenson are among Muslim children in Lebanon. Pythagoras was one of the early western thinkers who believed in reincarnation.
Reincarnation is a philosophical idea to explain the process of life and its development. There is significant evidence for it.
Sriram I agree reincarnation doesn't necessarily have a connection with religion, that's why I carefully wrote that I regard them both in the same way, ie, I see religion as man made nonsense likewise reincarnation.
To say reincarnation is a philosophical idea, to me, it would make just as much sense to say Father Christmas is a philosophical idea, I've yet to see anything that would persuade me otherwise.
Regards ippy
P S Have you considered doing Europe again any time?
-
Sriram I agree reincarnation doesn't necessarily have a connection with religion, that's why I carefully wrote that I regard them both in the same way, ie, I see religion as man made nonsense likewise reincarnation.
To say reincarnation is a philosophical idea, to me, it would make just as much sense to say Father Christmas is a philosophical idea, I've yet to see anything that would persuade me otherwise.
Regards ippy
P S Have you considered doing Europe again any time?
You are free to have your views of course, ippy!
Europe...no ..not again immediately. My daughter is thinking of a full UK tour. I might take a trip to America sometime soon though. Let's see!!
-
Under 'psychology', we would try to understand peoples motivations and behaviours. That might include why people might hold such beliefs.
If reincarnation were true however, the scope of the implications of that would far outstrip what is covered by psychology. It would be a root and branch complete overhaul of the meaning and nature of life; pretty much everything from biology to information theory would have to be sent back to the drawing board.
Why are you limiting the scope of psychology and how does lumping it with biology make any difference? It is still about consciousness and the mind and not about the human physiology.
Even if reincarnation is proved beyond doubt, current biology and medicine need not change in any way. Hindus have believed in reincarnation for millennia.....but the understanding of the body and its functions has not changed in any way.
Maybe in the West the focus on the material world will be shifted somewhat.... but our ego will not allow that to go too far. Hindus believe in living life to the full covering all aspects of life in spite of accepting reincarnation as a normal part of life. We don't even encourage people to become monks or to renounce the world, except at the last stage of their lives.
Nothing much is likely to change except to give people a larger and more meaningful picture of the world.
-
Why are you limiting the scope of psychology and how does lumping it with biology make any difference? It is still about consciousness and the mind and not about the human physiology.
Even if reincarnation is proved beyond doubt, current biology and medicine need not change in any way. Hindus have believed in reincarnation for millennia.....but the understanding of the body and its functions has not changed in any way.
Maybe in the West the focus on the material world will be shifted somewhat.... but our ego will not allow that to go too far. Hindus believe in living life to the full covering all aspects of life in spite of accepting reincarnation as a normal part of life. We don't even encourage people to become monks or to renounce the world, except at the last stage of their lives.
Nothing much is likely to change except to give people a larger and more meaningful picture of the world.
That's all very fine Sriram and likewise you should have every entitlement to hold that view I really can't see why anyone would have any kind of a differing life or be worse off, without that kind of baggage, other than the obvious effect of emptying of the unnecessary from the old broom cupboard of course.
Regards ippy
-
Sriram I agree reincarnation doesn't necessarily have a connection with religion, that's why I carefully wrote that I regard them both in the same way, ie, I see religion as man made nonsense likewise reincarnation.
To say reincarnation is a philosophical idea, to me, it would make just as much sense to say Father Christmas is a philosophical idea, I've yet to see anything that would persuade me otherwise.
Regards ippy
P S Have you considered doing Europe again any time?
Reincarnation is a tenant of Rastafarianism.
You don't mess with Jah.
-
Reincarnation is a tenant of Rastafarianism.
You don't mess with Jah.
Especially if he's your landlord.
-
Reincarnation is a tenant of Rastafarianism.
You don't mess with Jah.
Yes another man made idea, similar to believing in Father Christmas too, that I wont be messing with, man.
Regards ippy
-
Yes another man made idea, similar to believing in Father Christmas too, that I wont be messing with, man.
Regards ippy
You needs the herbs, man.
-
Especially if he's your landlord.
Correct :)
-
Why are you limiting the scope of psychology and how does lumping it with biology make any difference? It is still about consciousness and the mind and not about the human physiology.
Even if reincarnation is proved beyond doubt, current biology and medicine need not change in any way. Hindus have believed in reincarnation for millennia.....but the understanding of the body and its functions has not changed in any way.
Maybe in the West the focus on the material world will be shifted somewhat.... but our ego will not allow that to go too far. Hindus believe in living life to the full covering all aspects of life in spite of accepting reincarnation as a normal part of life. We don't even encourage people to become monks or to renounce the world, except at the last stage of their lives.
Nothing much is likely to change except to give people a larger and more meaningful picture of the world.
If i came to understand that my son, for instance, was not really my son at all, but was really some previous person reincarnated into my son's body, I don't see that as being more 'meaningful', quite the opposite, I'd find the idea very unsettling. The fact that I know my son derives solely from me and my partner makes sense, it is the basis for parent child bonding. if I thought my son was in fact derived from some random other stranger unrelated to any of us parachuted in out of nowhere I can't imagine what that would do to family relationships.
-
If i came to understand that my son, for instance, was not really my son at all, but was really some previous person reincarnated into my son's body, I don't see that as being more 'meaningful', quite the opposite, I'd find the idea very unsettling. The fact that I know my son derives solely from me and my partner makes sense, it is the basis for parent child bonding. if I thought my son was in fact derived from some random other stranger unrelated to any of us parachuted in out of nowhere I can't imagine what that would do to family relationships.
LOL!! You just don't get it do you! What do you mean ...'not really my son at all'!
He will still be your son because his body, mind, name and upbringing is given by you. Even you were in another body earlier but you don't think of yourself as someone else, do you?!
We don't become someone else because we were living in another body before. There are many such bodies and lifetimes we all have been through but we still remain 'us' in this birth.
We Hindus accept rebirth as a normal thing but we don't get confused by who we or our family members were earlier.....though we do sometimes think about it if we come across some special experience with some person or feel some special relationship of love or hate that is not normal under the circumstances. We don't go into a tizzy about it though. Just a casual thought about who we could have been earlier and why we feel the way we do.
Anyway....there are many westerners who believe in reincarnation. Ask some of them how they feel about their children or partners or parents. No big deal really.
-
LOL!! You just don't get it do you! What do you mean ...'not really my son at all'!
He will still be your son because his body, mind, name and upbringing is given by you. Even you were in another body earlier but you don't think of yourself as someone else, do you?!
We don't become someone else because we were living in another body before. There are many such bodies and lifetimes we all have been through but we still remain 'us' in this birth.
We Hindus accept rebirth as a normal thing but we don't get confused by who we or our family members were earlier.....though we do sometimes think about it if we come across some special experience with some person or feel some special relationship of love or hate that is not normal under the circumstances. We don't go into a tizzy about it though. Just a casual thought about who we could have been earlier and why we feel the way we do.
Anyway....there are many westerners who believe in reincarnation. Ask some of them how they feel about their children or partners or parents. No big deal really.
This reincarnation idea of yours Sriram probably stems from the natural tendency of human nature where the surroundings may alter but human nature doesn't vary that much over the many years, which in itself would incline people such as yourself to think something like, this child of mine is just like my long departed aunt Matilda, she even, I don't know, even combs her hair in the same way at the same times in the morning, it must be Matilda has come back, ignoring the now well established well researched well known facts we now know about human nature.
No doubt over time where these primitive ideas were mulled over and much elaborated, over time they become established beliefs rather than well researched knowledge, in other words another one of those nice romantic type of ideas but not a supported, particularly meaningful or realistic idea in light of the knowledge we now can easily find to hand.
Regards ippy
-
LOL!! You just don't get it do you! What do you mean ...'not really my son at all'!
He will still be your son because his body, mind, name and upbringing is given by you. Even you were in another body earlier but you don't think of yourself as someone else, do you?!
We don't become someone else because we were living in another body before. There are many such bodies and lifetimes we all have been through but we still remain 'us' in this birth.
We Hindus accept rebirth as a normal thing but we don't get confused by who we or our family members were earlier.....though we do sometimes think about it if we come across some special experience with some person or feel some special relationship of love or hate that is not normal under the circumstances. We don't go into a tizzy about it though. Just a casual thought about who we could have been earlier and why we feel the way we do.
Anyway....there are many westerners who believe in reincarnation. Ask some of them how they feel about their children or partners or parents. No big deal really.
The 'evidence' for reincarnation consists of people allegedly remembering their past lives. We are our memories, that is what makes us unique. If personhood were somehow transported from individual to individual that would be very confusing. In a different life, with different DNA and different life experiences my previous person would bear zero resemblance to me now. To whatever extent my previous life should become manifest or conscious in my current life, that would be nothing other than deeply confusing and disorienting, rather like a multiple personality disorder.
-
The 'evidence' for reincarnation consists of people allegedly remembering their past lives. We are our memories, that is what makes us unique. If personhood were somehow transported from individual to individual that would be very confusing. In a different life, with different DNA and different life experiences my previous person would bear zero resemblance to me now. To whatever extent my previous life should become manifest or conscious in my current life, that would be nothing other than deeply confusing and disorienting, rather like a multiple personality disorder.
How does our unconscious mind retain memories that we don't remember consciously? How does it decide things that we don't know of?
That shows that our personalities and our memories are not as simple as we think. Our consciousness and our personalities are very complex and reincarnation is perhaps more complex.
-
How does our unconscious mind retain memories that we don't remember consciously? How does it decide things that we don't know of?
That shows that our personalities and our memories are not as simple as we think. Our consciousness and our personalities are very complex and reincarnation is perhaps more complex.
Human nature doesn't differ that much Sriram that's a well known well researched fact and of course there'll be similarities even through generations no matter how complex are the behaviours their'll still shine through and research will always to trump here say.
Regards ippy
-
The 'evidence' for reincarnation consists of people allegedly remembering their past lives. We are our memories, that is what makes us unique. If personhood were somehow transported from individual to individual that would be very confusing. In a different life, with different DNA and different life experiences my previous person would bear zero resemblance to me now. To whatever extent my previous life should become manifest or conscious in my current life, that would be nothing other than deeply confusing and disorienting, rather like a multiple personality disorder.
torridon,
Further to my earlier post 33, the boy Ryan and his mom from the OP, seem to be getting on fine in spite of the boy remembering his previous life. Why should anyone not remembering their past lives have any problem?!
-
torridon,
Further to my earlier post 33, the boy Ryan and his mom from the OP, seem to be getting on fine in spite of the boy remembering his previous life. Why should anyone not remembering their past lives have any problem?!
We all have false memories, it seems, and memories we can't readily account for sometimes. But the concepts of karma and reincarnation are about more than just inherited memories, they imply whole persons by some or other definition whose current lives are substantively a function and outcome of a previous life, hence ideas of spiritual progress. There is no theoretical mechanism to support this idea. By contrast there is a wealth of evidence underpinning the concepts of inheritance through reproduction in which each new individual is essentially a new information product that takes on character and qualities as he/she develops through ongoing interaction with the wider world. When I look at my son, I am content that i can understand all his qualities in this framework of understanding. I can gain no further insight by imagining some of his qualities are due to some random stranger who happened to die 16 months ago. To indulge such unwarranted speculative ideas adds nothing of value, it only diminishes my comprehension.
-
torridon,
Yours is an Argument from Incredulity! Just because you can't comprehend something does not mean it cannot exist.
-
torridon,
Yours is an Argument from Incredulity! Just because you can't comprehend something does not mean it cannot exist.
Conversely, by awarding equal rights to the incomprehensible and the unevidenced we risk losing definition and meaning.
An idea has value if it explains observations that cannot otherwise be explained. Reincarnation is a poor candidate for explaining our nature as it introduces more questions than it answers; in other words, it introduces a layer of unwarranted complication for things that are accounted for reasonably well already through the life sciences.
-
torridon,
Yours is an Argument from Incredulity! Just because you can't comprehend something does not mean it cannot exist.
Nope: Torridon isn't just saying 'reincarnation doesn't happen because he personally can't understand how it could', and the clue he isn't going down the incredulity route is where he goes on to say;
There is no theoretical mechanism to support this idea. By contrast there is a wealth of evidence underpinning the concepts of inheritance through reproduction in which each new individual is essentially a new information product that takes on character and qualities as he/she develops through ongoing interaction with the wider world.
In effect he seems to be adopting a reasonable presumption that reincarnation can presumed to be false unless it can be shown to be true, where the burden of proof lies with reincarnation enthusiasts.
-
We all have false memories, it seems, and memories we can't readily account for sometimes. But the concepts of karma and reincarnation are about more than just inherited memories, they imply whole persons by some or other definition whose current lives are substantively a function and outcome of a previous life, hence ideas of spiritual progress. There is no theoretical mechanism to support this idea. By contrast there is a wealth of evidence underpinning the concepts of inheritance through reproduction in which each new individual is essentially a new information product that takes on character and qualities as he/she develops through ongoing interaction with the wider world. When I look at my son, I am content that i can understand all his qualities in this framework of understanding. I can gain no further insight by imagining some of his qualities are due to some random stranger who happened to die 16 months ago. To indulge such unwarranted speculative ideas adds nothing of value, it only diminishes my comprehension.
Why are you confusing reincarnation with biological inheritance and why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
-
Coming to this thread late, sririam, but have read the posts.
Not that long ago I saw a television series advertised about children who believe they have a past life. I didn't watch it for many reasons but mainly I have a horror of kids being exploited on TV, sometimes by parents. Children are naturally imaginative which is great but musings of this type could easily be encouraged by adults.
https://really.uktv.co.uk/shows/the-ghost-inside-my-child/
Ties in somewhat with your opening post & there are some youtube videos from the series which I may watch in the future.
I don't like the fact that kids are dragged in but am open to the idea of reincarnation, find it attractive in some ways.
(I and I Jah blessings)
Cheers!
Robbie
-
Why are you confusing reincarnation with biological inheritance and why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
They conflict in the degree in which they compete to explain the conditions and characters of a person's life. You like to push the notion of spiritual progress, where a spirit attains deeper enlightenment from one life to the next; that leaves atheists as somehow less developed than others, whereas I see no problem in explaining the diversity within humans in terms of inheritance and development within a lifetime. The idea of past lives only adds a layer of speculative unevidenced narratives which obscure our understanding of the real reasons why people are the way they are. This reaches its worst outcomes for many impoverished disabled people in Asia who end up being subject to discrimination on top of all their other problems as a result of the persistent view that they are being punished for misdemeanours in a previous life. Irrational ideas always do harm.
-
They conflict in the degree in which they compete to explain the conditions and characters of a person's life. You like to push the notion of spiritual progress, where a spirit attains deeper enlightenment from one life to the next; that leaves atheists as somehow less developed than others, whereas I see no problem in explaining the diversity within humans in terms of inheritance and development within a lifetime. The idea of past lives only adds a layer of speculative unevidenced narratives which obscure our understanding of the real reasons why people are the way they are. This reaches its worst outcomes for many impoverished disabled people in Asia who end up being subject to discrimination on top of all their other problems as a result of the persistent view that they are being punished for misdemeanours in a previous life. Irrational ideas always do harm.
1. I have never said that atheists are less developed. In fact I have said that blind believers are in the child stage while atheists are in the adolescence stage. Spiritual development is not connected to belief in God. It is connected to our intellectual development and our empathy and love.
2. Our biological inheritance does not explain the differences in our circumstances of birth and our destiny. It does not even explain why one person inherits one set of characteristics and his brother inherits another set. Except for 'chance'...there is no explanation at all through biology for anything. Through biology, only the physical mechanism is explained not the 'Why'.
3. The idea of reincarnation does not produce any discrimination. Discrimination happens due to peoples attitudes. There is plenty of discrimination in societies that don't believe in reincarnation.
-
I have never said that atheists are less developed. In fact I have said that blind believers are in the child stage while atheists are in the adolescence stage.
Which you have previously described in a deeply patronising manner. In effect that atheists are somehow in a perpetual state of the adolescent rebel, railing against something that inherently they ultimately recognised to be true. Well there is news for you Siriam - I suspect for many atheist the very reverse is true. namely that their recognition that they do not believe in god is a very mature recognition and one likely to last a lifetime. It is, indeed a recognition of growing up, rather than one of the adolescent rebel. Sure, our childhood always hold a strong draw, and of course almost all theists were brought up as such, but some of us mature out of childhood stories, in terms of actually believing, even if they remain strongly resonant as do so many of the stories of childhood.
-
Which you have previously described in a deeply patronising manner. In effect that atheists are somehow in a perpetual state of the adolescent rebel, railing against something that inherently they ultimately recognised to be true. Well there is news for you Siriam - I suspect for many atheist the very reverse is true. namely that their recognition that they do not believe in god is a very mature recognition and one likely to last a lifetime. It is, indeed a recognition of growing up, rather than one of the adolescent rebel. Sure, our childhood always hold a strong draw, and of course almost all theists were brought up as such, but some of us mature out of childhood stories, in terms of actually believing, even if they remain strongly resonant as do so many of the stories of childhood.
Patronizing...yeah right! At least someone other than atheists is being patronizing for a change! Not bad.....even if I say so myself! :D
Maturity or adolescence or child stage is not connected to believing in God at all. You have the wrong end of the stick.
It is about adulation, blind belief, hero worship, lack of confidence and so on for Child stage. Being irreverent, habitual skepticism, over confidence, habitual disregard in adolescence. During maturity both these extremes are avoided and a balanced view is taken in most matters.
This is about mental stages, not about remembering ones childhood fondly or whatever. ::)
-
1. I have never said that atheists are less developed. In fact I have said that blind believers are in the child stage while atheists are in the adolescence stage. Spiritual development is not connected to belief in God. It is connected to our intellectual development and our empathy and love.
2. Our biological inheritance does not explain the differences in our circumstances of birth and our destiny. It does not even explain why one person inherits one set of characteristics and his brother inherits another set. Except for 'chance'...there is no explanation at all through biology for anything. Through biology, only the physical mechanism is explained not the 'Why'.
3. The idea of reincarnation does not produce any discrimination. Discrimination happens due to peoples attitudes. There is plenty of discrimination in societies that don't believe in reincarnation.
3. I don't think we can easily disentangle people's attitudes from their religious beliefs. Discrimination against the disabled in Asia has greater persistence than elsewhere because it is empowered by a widespread tacit nod to the belief in karma, that people born afflicted are being justly punished.
2. The 'why' question as you frame it here, might not be a valid question. Within a deterministic system, it is fair to ask 'why', as there will always be a 'because' to answer it. That does not mean it is reasonable to ask 'why' there is a deterministic system in the first place; that implies the system is part of a greater whole, a proposition that would need some justification before the 'why' question becomes valid.
-
3. I don't think we can easily disentangle people's attitudes from their religious beliefs. Discrimination against the disabled in Asia has greater persistence than elsewhere because it is empowered by a widespread tacit nod to the belief in karma, that people born afflicted are being justly punished.
2. The 'why' question as you frame it here, might not be a valid question. Within a deterministic system, it is fair to ask 'why', as there will always be a 'because' to answer it. That does not mean it is reasonable to ask 'why' there is a deterministic system in the first place; that implies the system is part of a greater whole, a proposition that would need some justification before the 'why' question becomes valid.
Discrimination happens all over the world. What has it to do with reincarnation? Do you have any data to prove that belief in reincarnation results in discrimination?! You are clutching at straws.
As I have pointed out reincarnation is not a religious belief. It is a philosophical proposition. Lots of people besides Hindus believe in reincarnation.
The 'Why' question is valid and people will continue to ask it and try to find answers. Scientists cannot shut people up just because they don't have the answers or that such answers could be uncomfortable to science enthusiasts. Your memes are clearly as powerful as those of religious people.
-
Discrimination happens all over the world. What has it to do with reincarnation? Do you have any data to prove that belief in reincarnation results in discrimination?! You are clutching at straws.
See #42 and #46.
Belief in reincarnation and belief in karma are related and it is the belief in karma that underpins resistance to legislation aimed at improving the lives of the disabled in places where this belief persists. The principle of cause and effect is sound in itself, but harm comes when that principle is misapplied in combination with a belief in reincarnation and people born with defects and disabilities end up being denied the support they need because of the perception that they are born that way 'for a reason'; it is seen as karma in operation.
-
See #42 and #46.
Belief in reincarnation and belief in karma are related and it is the belief in karma that underpins resistance to legislation aimed at improving the lives of the disabled in places where this belief persists. The principle of cause and effect is sound in itself, but harm comes when that principle is misapplied in combination with a belief in reincarnation and people born with defects and disabilities end up being denied the support they need because of the perception that they are born that way 'for a reason'; it is seen as karma in operation.
And that was my question. What proof do you have that belief in reincarnation and karma automatically result in resistance to legislation aimed at improving the lives of the disabled?! This is just your imagination.
-
And that was my question. What proof do you have that belief in reincarnation and karma automatically result in resistance to legislation aimed at improving the lives of the disabled?! This is just your imagination.
It's not automatic, clearly peoples vary, but that was our clear finding when I worked for an iNGO specialising in human rights support for the impoverished disabled in Africa and Asia. Prejudice against the disabled is widespread and occurs for many reasons but this was what our field workers reported over and over again, resistance to the enactment and observance of anti-discrimination legislation in Asia derived from a popular belief in karma, that people were born afflicted 'for a reason'. It was worst in Laos and Cambodia, but it also occurred across a wide swathe of Asian countries where we operated. We didn't find this by contrast in African countries, Malawi, Lesotho and others where there are still huge challenges facing disabled peoples but they are different, and the 'justification' for prejudice not derived from this belief.
-
It's not automatic, clearly peoples vary, but that was our clear finding when I worked for an iNGO specialising in human rights support for the impoverished disabled in Africa and Asia. Prejudice against the disabled is widespread and occurs for many reasons but this was what our field workers reported over and over again, resistance to the enactment and observance of anti-discrimination legislation in Asia derived from a popular belief in karma, that people were born afflicted 'for a reason'. It was worst in Laos and Cambodia, but it also occurred across a wide swathe of Asian countries where we operated. We didn't find this by contrast in African countries, Malawi, Lesotho and others where there are still huge challenges facing disabled peoples but they are different, and the 'justification' for prejudice not derived from this belief.
I don't know how representative that 'survey' is. As long as a religion teaches compassion and self sacrifice, karma and reincarnation cannot have a negative effect.
The greatest atrocity against the disabled happened in Europe under the Nazis. Greatest discrimination against Jews, homosexuals, blacks etc, happens in countries with religions that do not teach karma and reincarnation.
India has the largest population that accepts karma and reincarnation, including your truly, and no one here opposes any kind of legislation favoring the disabled. Problems connected with poverty, lack of clinics, lack of appropriate technology and facilities could impact on the care of the disabled. But that is not due to lack of compassion. Karma in fact requires that people treat each other with kindness.
Besides all these side effects, if reincarnation is found to be true through such cases as given in the OP, no point in arguing against it, is there?!
-
I don't know how representative that 'survey' is. As long as a religion teaches compassion and self sacrifice, karma and reincarnation cannot have a negative effect.
The greatest atrocity against the disabled happened in Europe under the Nazis. Greatest discrimination against Jews, homosexuals, blacks etc, happens in countries with religions that do not teach karma and reincarnation.
India has the largest population that accepts karma and reincarnation, including your truly, and no one here opposes any kind of legislation favoring the disabled. Problems connected with poverty, lack of clinics, lack of appropriate technology and facilities could impact on the care of the disabled. But that is not due to lack of compassion. Karma in fact requires that people treat each other with kindness.
Besides all these side effects, if reincarnation is found to be true through such cases as given in the OP, no point in arguing against it, is there?!
I wasn't talking about a 'survey'; we had boots on the ground in many countries, case workers out in the field supporting individuals, lawyers in courtrooms defending the rights of people who couldn't afford to fight their corner. Real hard work, not some casual box ticking exercise.
That said, it is a bit naive to claim that noone opposes anti-discrimination legislation. How many people admit to being racist ? How many admit to being misogynist ? Thing is, these things go on under the hood, people don't admit to prejudices that they might be somewhat ashamed of in public. In fact, worse than that, prejudice is often subconscious; a recent study here found that a significant percentage of women who self-identify as feminists had an unconscious bias against women.
-
I wasn't talking about a 'survey'; we had boots on the ground in many countries, case workers out in the field supporting individuals, lawyers in courtrooms defending the rights of people who couldn't afford to fight their corner. Real hard work, not some casual box ticking exercise.
That said, it is a bit naive to claim that noone opposes anti-discrimination legislation. How many people admit to being racist ? How many admit to being misogynist ? Thing is, these things go on under the hood, people don't admit to prejudices that they might be somewhat ashamed of in public. In fact, worse than that, prejudice is often subconscious; a recent study here found that a significant percentage of women who self-identify as feminists had an unconscious bias against women.
You are digressing. Now that you agree that lots of people everywhere could be prejudiced in many ways against many people, it shows that all this has nothing to do with reincarnation.
Reincarnation is the only hypothesis that provides a level playing field for everyone and explains the inherent inequalities in the world and also provides an equal destiny for everyone. The 'scientific explanation' of chance is neither here nor there. It is not an explanation in the first place. Merely identifying a mechanism is not an explanation.
-
You are digressing. Now that you agree that lots of people everywhere could be prejudiced in many ways against many people, it shows that all this has nothing to do with reincarnation.
Eh ? You're not grasping that there is a link between between reincarnation and prejudice against the disabled. What are we supposed to do, just ignore the connection on the grounds that there are other forms of prejudice with other roots in other places. Where we can identify the causes of harm we can do things about it, and this might mean in the long term campaigning to change attitudes through better education. People trapped in a twin cycle of poverty and disability are among the poorest of the poor and the discrimination they suffer will not go away by some glib hand waving exercise pretending that the problem does not exist.
-
Reincarnation is the only hypothesis that provides a level playing field for everyone and explains the inherent inequalities in the world and also provides an equal destiny for everyone.
So stuff like politics, resources, knowledge and the actions (or inactions) of people explain nothing about inequality - but a slice of woo does!
The 'scientific explanation' of chance is neither here nor there. It is not an explanation in the first place. Merely identifying a mechanism is not an explanation.
Chance, in statistical terms, isn't an explanation: when calculated (using statistical tests) it indicates whether or not the results from the analysis of the data you have collected as part of the method used to test your hypothesis could be the result of random chance. In most cases researchers would reject any findings where the calculated risk of chance was 5% or greater.
There seems to be no identified mechanism for reincarnation so you don't have a hypothesis to test in the first place.
-
Eh ? You're not grasping that there is a link between between reincarnation and prejudice against the disabled. What are we supposed to do, just ignore the connection on the grounds that there are other forms of prejudice with other roots in other places. Where we can identify the causes of harm we can do things about it, and this might mean in the long term campaigning to change attitudes through better education. People trapped in a twin cycle of poverty and disability are among the poorest of the poor and the discrimination they suffer will not go away by some glib hand waving exercise pretending that the problem does not exist.
What?! I am saying that there is no connection between reincarnation and prejudice. You are just imagining it based on some experience in Laos and Cambodia or whatever. I remember, Hope who is a Christian, had a similar impression based on the few years he had spent in Nepal. He believed (I think) that Christians had a more empathetic view of everyone compared to Hindus. Many westerners have this (rather superior) attitude of understanding the East and its prejudices just because they spend a few years there. LOL!
Also, correlation is not causation. No one has established any such connection especially in India, which has the largest population of believers in reincarnation. You just like to believe all that because it suits your stand.
Prejudice is present in all communities, more so in communities that do not believe in reincarnation. Any belief in God's wisdom or fate can bring about prejudice against the unfortunate. In fact, even simple 'bad luck' can be used as a reason for prejudice. It all depends on how empathetic or other wise the individual person is....and that has nothing to do with reincarnation.
Changing attitudes in India favouring the disabled is not happening because of rejection of reincarnation. More and more youngsters are now taking to Yogic philosophies of reincarnation and karma. They are also however becoming more helpful and socially aware. It probably has something to do with wealth, technology, facilities, communication and such things.
-
You are digressing. Now that you agree that lots of people everywhere could be prejudiced in many ways against many people, it shows that all this has nothing to do with reincarnation.
Reincarnation is the only hypothesis that provides a level playing field for everyone and explains the inherent inequalities in the world and also provides an equal destiny for everyone. The 'scientific explanation' of chance is neither here nor there. It is not an explanation in the first place. Merely identifying a mechanism is not an explanation.
Belief in Star Trek is the only hypothesis that provides a level playing field for everyone and explains the inherent inequalities in the world and also provides an equal destiny for everyone. The 'scientific explanation' of chance is neither here nor there. It is not an explanation in the first place. Merely identifying a mechanism is not an explanation.
Equally as likely to be truly and correct as would be many others that would also replace the word Reincarnation: Unicorns, Winged horses, Leprechauns, Burt's Tea Pot, Father Christmas, The Tooth Fairy, The Wombles, The Clangers, Mr Plod the Policeman, and on and on and on etc etc etc.
But there Sriram I'm only asserting these things without any credible supporting evidence, the same as you, d'yer get it?
Regards ippy
-
What?! I am saying that there is no connection between reincarnation and prejudice. You are just imagining it based on some experience in Laos and Cambodia or whatever. I remember, Hope who is a Christian, had a similar impression based on the few years he had spent in Nepal. He believed (I think) that Christians had a more empathetic view of everyone compared to Hindus. Many westerners have this (rather superior) attitude of understanding the East and its prejudices just because they spend a few years there. LOL!
That's condescending bullshit showing you're more interested in defending your position than engaging with actual findings. I doubt you have ever been on the ground in Laos getting involved with victim support there. What knowledge I have of the issue is not some armchair imagining of a privileged foreigner, these are not my personal opinions I am relating, but the findings of an international organisation with hundreds of case workers on the ground in dozens of countries. I don't recall their findings in India, particularly, and throughout Africa the karma connection was absolutely not an issue, but it distinctly was the case in South East Asia. You can be damn sure these people were not imagining things.
-
That's condescending bullshit showing you're more interested in defending your position than engaging with actual findings. I doubt you have ever been on the ground in Laos getting involved with victim support there. What knowledge I have of the issue is not some armchair imagining of a privileged foreigner, these are not my personal opinions I am relating, but the findings of an international organisation with hundreds of case workers on the ground in dozens of countries. I don't recall their findings in India, particularly, and throughout Africa the karma connection was absolutely not an issue, but it distinctly was the case in South East Asia. You can be damn sure these people were not imagining things.
Look....even assuming that your rather unscientific and casual finding in Laos is correct (which I seriously doubt) this does not establish any direct connection between reincarnation and apathy. This is just your imagination. You want to believe it! Confirmation bias.....!
In any case, this thread is about a real case of highly probable reincarnation, researched by a reputed university professor. Regardless of whether anyone likes it or not and finds it palatable or not, if it is true, it is true!
Therefore, if you happen to find any apathy in any remote corner of the world that you may happen to visit, you will have to find other ways of dealing with it, not by denying reincarnation.
-
Look....even assuming that your rather unscientific and casual finding in Laos is correct (which I seriously doubt) this does not establish any direct connection between reincarnation and apathy. This is just your imagination. You want to believe it! Confirmation bias.....!
You're still bullshitting when you could be learning. My imagination is nothing to do with it. I am merely relaying witness testimony from victims gathered through litigation and case support work over several years. A fat lot of good you'd be in disability support if you just flatly denied the testimony of the people you were charged with helping. Try telling them it is all in their imagination.
-
You're still bullshitting when you could be learning. My imagination is nothing to do with it. I am merely relaying witness testimony from victims gathered through litigation and case support work over several years. A fat lot of good you'd be in disability support if you just flatly denied the testimony of the people you were charged with helping. Try telling them it is all in their imagination.
You are getting angry! Not a good sign! ::)
And digressing more and more...!
-
You are getting angry! Not a good sign! ::)
And digressing more and more...!
So, you're making silly statements, reincarnation, you even think there's evidence that would support it and then you make posts about reincarnation as though it really happens.
Sriram it's another one of those ideas that if there ever was some verifiable evidence to support this idea we'd never be allowed to hear the end of it by people like yourself, come to that, isn't it you that believes in the blue Elephant man as well; that's quite a track record of soppy beliefs you're holding there Sriram.
Regards ippy
-
In any case, this thread is about a real case of highly probable reincarnation, ....
Highly probable!
-
Highly probable!
When we are discussing a specific case of reincarnation verified by reliable scientists....it is highly probable surely!
-
When we are discussing a specific case of reincarnation verified by reliable scientists....it is highly probable surely!
How did this 'reliable scientist' verify a case of reincarnation?
-
When we are discussing a specific case of reincarnation verified by reliable scientists....it is highly probable surely!
Reincarnation hasn't been verified by him though.
-
Reincarnation hasn't been verified by him though.
You expect a video shot of the soul going into another body, along with a Geiger counter reading or something?!
-
You expect a video shot of the soul going into another body, along with a Geiger counter reading or something?!
That would be useful, plus of course checks on the equipment and a method that explained the basis of how the data was identified, observed, measured and analysed - just normal research methods stuff.
-
Reincarnation is the only hypothesis that provides a level playing field for everyone and explains the inherent inequalities in the world and also provides an equal destiny for everyone. The 'scientific explanation' of chance is neither here nor there. It is not an explanation in the first place. Merely identifying a mechanism is not an explanation.
I think that is an argumentam ad consequentiam. It looks like you would only be satisfied with an 'explanation' that satisfies some anthropic need for there to be an explanation for something that might not require an explanation.
Better surely, to observe the world and see how it works, rather than imagining some pastiche of how it 'ought' to work in some sense and then tie yourself in knots because there is no evidence in support of it.
Reincarnation is a flaky idea that persists only because of its cultural value and psychological appeal. What we do have voluminous evidence for, is replication. We observe life everywhere, and life is, in part, defined by reproduction. This is reincarnation, in a sense, in that a selection of base defining characteristics get incarnated into a new organism at the moment of conception. For this, we have evidence, and for this, we have mechanism. However, that the essence of a fully formed a mature individual as in the OP could get ported across space and time into another unrelated individual has no evidence, and no proposed mechanism.
-
You expect a video shot of the soul going into another body, along with a Geiger counter reading or something?!
A lot better evidence than presented is needed.
-
I think that is an argumentam ad consequentiam. It looks like you would only be satisfied with an 'explanation' that satisfies some anthropic need for there to be an explanation for something that might not require an explanation.
Better surely, to observe the world and see how it works, rather than imagining some pastiche of how it 'ought' to work in some sense and then tie yourself in knots because there is no evidence in support of it.
Reincarnation is a flaky idea that persists only because of its cultural value and psychological appeal. What we do have voluminous evidence for, is replication. We observe life everywhere, and life is, in part, defined by reproduction. This is reincarnation, in a sense, in that a selection of base defining characteristics get incarnated into a new organism at the moment of conception. For this, we have evidence, and for this, we have mechanism. However, that the essence of a fully formed a mature individual as in the OP could get ported across space and time into another unrelated individual has no evidence, and no proposed mechanism.
Replication happens only because of reincarnation. Otherwise why would anything replicate?
-
Replication happens only because of reincarnation. Otherwise why would anything replicate?
Cells and molecules replicate for fundamental reasons around energy conservation and surface area to volume ratio. Mature complex biological systems like badgers or people do not replicate; what they do is reproduce which means going back to an egg cell to replicate. What is incarnated through biological reproduction are base characteristics, eye colour, length of nose etc, not complete organisms or persons. Replication of an entire biological system would be unfathomably improbable.
-
Cells and molecules replicate for fundamental reasons around energy conservation and surface area to volume ratio. Mature complex biological systems like badgers or people do not replicate; what they do is reproduce which means going back to an egg cell to replicate. What is incarnated through biological reproduction are base characteristics, eye colour, length of nose etc, not complete organisms or persons. Replication of an entire biological system would be unfathomably improbable.
You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?
-
You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?
Why do you think that in the context you use it 'why' is a relevant question?
-
You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?
Why do you think there has to be a why?
-
You are not explaining 'Why' replication or reproduction takes place. Why do species live on and why does complexity arise?
Yes I just did. A cell divides because it has gotten too big to remain viable as a single unit. Molecules replicate to conserve energy. Those are reasons why.
-
Yes I just did. A cell divides because it has gotten too big to remain viable as a single unit. Molecules replicate to conserve energy. Those are reasons why.
No...those explain the mechanism. Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.
I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.
-
No...those explain the mechanism. Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.
I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.
Inasmuch as your question why has any significance at all, for heaven's sake you give me a cogent reason why cells and molecules shouldn't exist?
As to why organisms have replicated and reproduced, the answer is an evolutionary one. If they didn't then we would not be able to even ask the question.
-
No...those explain the mechanism. Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.
I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.
The question 'why' is ambiguous in English - it can mean "by what process?" (how come) or it can mean "for what purpose?" (what for)
The answers to your questions in the how come sense is well understood. To ask your questions in the what for sense is to make the significant and unjustified assumption that it has an answer.
In fact, it seems reasonable to assume that what for questions only became meaningful due to evolution. The process of natural selection (that you don't understand) turns how come questions into what for questions by the selection of traits that have a purpose; a function in the context of the environment, that helps the organism's survival and reproduction. These ("free floating") rationales can be seem by intelligent minds with hindsight but do not require a mind to conceive of them in order to exist.
For more detail, see From Bacteria to Bach and Back by Daniel Dennett.
-
No...those explain the mechanism. Not why the cell or molecule needs to exist at all....and why organisms have replicated and reproduced to the level of humans.
I know you have no answer and like the others you can only say that the 'Why' is not meaningful.
What makes you think that molecules 'need' to exist; as opposed to just existing ?
-
What makes you think that molecules 'need' to exist; as opposed to just existing ?
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'. Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.
Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.
Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?
We observe that life has taken a very complex and sophisticated path leading to humans. In addition to that, we have eminent physicists supporting the idea of Consciousness being fundamental in the universe. We also have phenomena like NDE's and reincarnation events (in the OP). What does all this show? It clearly supports the second assumption of there being something more than chance driven material existence.
This should be clear enough for everyone...but no...not for science enthusiasts!
So...what do they do? They dig in their heels and start arguing that there need not be any answer to the 'Why' question. NDE's are hallucinations. Reincarnation incidents are rubbish and made up. Things can 'just exist'. Evolution of complexity is entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....and so on and so forth!
::) ::)
-
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'. Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.
Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.
Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?
...
They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field. If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it. You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset. That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence. To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.
-
Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.
If they do then they are begging the question.
Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?
We observe that the presumption of purpose is an unjustified assumption if it is based on reasoning errors, such as begging the question.
-
They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field. If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it. You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset. That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence. To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.
It's also worth noting that science doesn't as a method start with an assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things just 'exist'. It takes no position on these questions.
-
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'. Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.
Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.
Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?
We observe that life has taken a very complex and sophisticated path leading to humans. In addition to that, we have eminent physicists supporting the idea of Consciousness being fundamental in the universe. We also have phenomena like NDE's and reincarnation events (in the OP). What does all this show? It clearly supports the second assumption of there being something more than chance driven material existence.
This should be clear enough for everyone...but no...not for science enthusiasts!
So...what do they do? They dig in their heels and start arguing that there need not be any answer to the 'Why' question. NDE's are hallucinations. Reincarnation incidents are rubbish and made up. Things can 'just exist'. Evolution of complexity is entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....and so on and so forth!
::) ::)
Science doesn't do that.
Your evidence is just a mish mash of beliefs and unsupported claims which amounts to nothing much.
-
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.
I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that since modern science starts as the endeavour of religiously and mystically minded men.
Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.
-
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'.
I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that...
As has already been pointed out, scientists do not start from that assuption, so they obviously haven't "slipped into" it.
Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.
Baseless assertions - how about backing them up?
-
I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that...
As has already been pointed out, scientists do not start from that assuption, so they obviously haven't "slipped into" it.
Baseless assertions - how about backing them up?
It's obvious that string theory, multiverses, simulated universes, intelligent creators et al have no experimental basis and cannot be tested experimentally.
-
It's obvious that string theory, multiverses, simulated universes, intelligent creators et al have no experimental basis and cannot be tested experimentally.
What has any of that got to do with backing up either of your assertions?
ETA: You also didn't justify your bizarre claim that scientists had 'slipped into' an assumption that they don't make.
-
What has any of that got to do with backing up either of your assertions?
ETA: You also didn't justify your bizarre claim that scientists had 'slipped into' an assumption that they don't make.
I disagree.
-
I disagree.
With what?
You made two assertions that you have totally failed to back up with any evidence and have accused science/scientists of 'slipping into' an assumption that plays no part part in the scientific method.
-
I think the world of science and scientists has slipped into that since modern science starts as the endeavour of religiously and mystically minded men.
Many of todays scientists come to many conclusions about the universe that theologians came to centuries ago and not, solely or even mainly as ,say, Stranger will tell you by methodological naturalism either.
I agree with that. Yes...many scientists in earlier centuries weren't such hardened materialists. Mendel was a friar and Darwin was being trained to be a priest. And many other leading scientists were not materialists eg. Max Planck.
-
They are not equally valid assumptions, right from the start you have a distorted playing field. If there is some grander purpose to things there needs to be some justification for that contention, you cannot just assume it. You are starting with the conclusion and then trying to retrofit evidence so that it appears to justify the conclusion when in reality your conclusion was there right from the outset. That thinking is all back to front and it typically blinds people to the true notion of evidence. To be a true student of life you need to start with the evidence and follow where it leads not where you want it to lead.
Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!
-
I agree with that. Yes...many scientists in earlier centuries weren't such hardened materialists. Mendel was a friar and Darwin was being trained to be a priest. And many other leading scientists were not materialists eg. Max Planck.
yes and significantly Newton and James Clark Maxwell two of the Greats although JC Maxwell is not nearly as feted as I believe he should be. I wonder if that is down to his evangelical Christianity not fitting the paradigm picture of science/atheism.
-
Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others.
Evolution didn't start with bacteria - neither did it 'move' to humans. What it did do was produce a very large variety of organisms, from the simpler to the more complex.
There is no evidence whatsoever of a fixed trajectory or aim - quite the reverse.
It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!
There is copious evidence that it is due to random variation and natural selection (that rather simple concept that you've repeatedly failed to grasp) and no evidence at all of direction and purpose.
-
yes and significantly Newton and James Clark Maxwell two of the Greats although JC Maxwell is not nearly as feted as I believe he should be. I wonder if that is down to his evangelical Christianity not fitting the paradigm picture of science/atheism.
Vlad, you don't half talk drivel.
The point is that what a scientist personally believes is of no significance if they produce good science. I have no idea why you think Maxwell isn't considered as significant as he should be. He certainly was one of the great scientists and his work laid the foundation for Einstein's relativity.
-
Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!
No, it requires a mind open to accepting the evidence and not imposing its preconceived ideas.
-
Evolution starting off with bacteria and moving to humans is good enough direction and purpose for me and most others. It requires and very narrow perspective to assume that all this is due to random variation....!
Then you, and the 'most others' who agree with you, are wrong.
-
You old school guys don't like the views of young scientists like Richard Watson and Simon Powell,then!??!
-
Scientists start with the assumption that there is no purpose to life and that material things can 'just exist'. Therein starts the purely material philosophy of science.
Other people start by thinking that nothing can exist without a purpose and therefore they try to find a meaning and purpose to life in the world.
Both are valid assumptions to begin with.....but what do we observe?
We observe that life has taken a very complex and sophisticated path leading to humans. In addition to that, we have eminent physicists supporting the idea of Consciousness being fundamental in the universe. We also have phenomena like NDE's and reincarnation events (in the OP). What does all this show? It clearly supports the second assumption of there being something more than chance driven material existence.
This should be clear enough for everyone...but no...not for science enthusiasts!
So...what do they do? They dig in their heels and start arguing that there need not be any answer to the 'Why' question. NDE's are hallucinations. Reincarnation incidents are rubbish and made up. Things can 'just exist'. Evolution of complexity is entirely due to random variations and chance environmental factors....and so on and so forth!
::) ::)
Sriram,
Science doesn't dig in its heels, as you are wont to suggest. On the contrary it will go where the evidence leads, and, so far, it finds the evidence for things like NDEs(see Sam Parnia's Aware Project) and reincarnation claims as little more than anecdotal. For you, they seem to suggest some sort of meaning and purpose to life(whatever that is), but science is much more exacting than your personal feelings and experiences.
You also seem to completely misunderstand evolutionary theory which does not have homo sapiens as an end result, as you seem to think. You even make the silly assumption that those who disagree must rely on pure chance driving material existence, totally ignoring the entirely rational idea that survival has at least as much significance.
I also note that whilst you are very quick to ask why cells or molecules need(?) to exist, and immediately seem to deride others for suggesting that 'why' is a rather meaningless question, you seem very loathe to answer the alternative question I put to you, which was, why shouldn't they exist?
You seem to start with your ideas about consciousness, spirituality and overall purpose(except you can't seem to answer 'Why'), and then concentrate on dubious so called evidence to back up your ideas, whilst ignoring any ideas and evidence which conflicts with your particular scenario. That's your prerogative, of course, but don't expect me to follow. I'll go where the evidence leads, and have a complete willingness to change my views. So far, I see nothing in your meanderings(and, much more importantly in the scientific world) which would tempt me to do this.
I would politely suggest that rather than 'science enthusiasts' who dig in their heels, it seems to be you who are guilty of that particular characteristic.
-
You old school guys don't like the views of young scientists like Richard Watson...
Watson is a computer scientist who has published some speculative ideas about evolution but, even if correct, they don't mean what you want them to: they do not add purpose or direction to evolution.
See previous discussions on his ideas:
Evolvability (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13486.msg663069#msg663069)
Intelligence in Evolution (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14847.0)
In particular my summary:
The problem is that these guys (Watson and Szathmáry) wrote an opinion paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288324101_How_Can_Evolution_Learn) in Trends in Ecology and Evolution suggesting some equivalence between certain machine learning algorithms and aspects of evolution (the evolution of genotype–phenotype maps, for example). It used the word 'intelligence' in a very general sense. They certainly were not talking about adding any new inputs to evolution. Everything they proposed was still based on inheritance, random variation, and natural selection.
It then got written up in Science Daily, including very little actual detail.
Then Sriram, whose knowledge of the theory of evolution is actually worse than nothing, latched onto the word 'intelligence' and saw a woo-peddling opportunity.
-
...young scientists like ... Simon Powell,then!??!
Not sure who you mean but Simon G. Powell, the author of Darwin's Unfinished Business: The Self-Organizing Intelligence of Nature is, according to Wikipedia and Amazon, a writer, film-maker, and musician, not a scientist...?
-
Not sure who you mean but Simon G. Powell, the author of Darwin's Unfinished Business: The Self-Organizing Intelligence of Nature is, according to Wikipedia and Amazon, a writer, film-maker, and musician, not a scientist...?
This guy?
http://simongpowell.com/index.html
-
Yeah, I agree that Simon Powell is not a scientist. Sorry!
But the idea of Intelligence being inherent in nature is almost obvious. It is not necessarily about religion or God or anything like that.
-
But the idea of Intelligence being inherent in nature is almost obvious.
What is clear from the evidence is that nature produces intelligence via the unintelligent process of evolution.
-
The discussion has shifted from reincarnation to evolution.
My point was that evolution happening for no purpose at all, is meaningless. Scientists may keep saying that life need not have any meaning, but most people in the world do believe that life has a meaning. And accordingly, the idea of levels of Consciousness increasing due to evolution is meaningful and even necessary.
This is something we do observe.
This also ties in with reincarnation and spiritual development. Spiritual development (increase in levels of consciousness) being the reason for biological evolution.
-
... and Darwin was being trained to be a priest ...
I think that this is stretching reality to breaking point. After dropping out of his medical studies he enrolled onto a BA course with the possible intention of continuing into training for the Anglican ministry. At no time did he engage in any specific religious training.
-
Scientists may keep saying that life need not have any meaning, but most people in the world do believe that life has a meaning.
Firstly, there is no evidence at all that life is anything more than a natural process - no evidence for some overall reason why there is life except that it is a consequence of the laws of nature under certain conditions.
Secondly, what most people in the world believe is not relevant to the truth of the matter (that would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy).
Thirdly, people's lives generally do have meaning (in the sense of being significant, worthwhile, and purposeful) but those are meanings that are ascribed to lives by humans themselves.
Spiritual development (increase in levels of consciousness) being the reason for biological evolution.
Biological evolution doesn't need an additional reason - it is fully explained by the theory of evolution.
-
The discussion has shifted from reincarnation to evolution.
My point was that evolution happening for no purpose at all, is meaningless. Scientists may keep saying that life need not have any meaning, but most people in the world do believe that life has a meaning. And accordingly, the idea of levels of Consciousness increasing due to evolution is meaningful and even necessary.
This is something we do observe.
This also ties in with reincarnation and spiritual development. Spiritual development (increase in levels of consciousness) being the reason for biological evolution.
'Meaning' is something that humans ascribe to their lives. Something requires a context to be meaningful within. Our lives have meaning within a socio-cultural context. I concern myself with the wellbeing of my children because they are central to my personal context. I have thousands of family photos and videos on my laptop; they are meaningful to me but less meaningful to a stranger in Yemen; even less so to a warthog or a donkey.
When we look out at the universe, we see what that there is to see. If we imagine there must be some grander context that our universe operates within because otherwise everything is ultimately meaningless, then we are merely projecting our inherited biases to see meaning in a domain that we have no reason to suppose exists. It is the age old human biases, anthropomorphism and narcissism, that lead us to imagine that there must be some grand transcendental anthropocentric purpose based on us, on our needs for meaning. This is what comes from projecting 'us' on to what is out there as opposed to merely observing with humility what appears to be out there without prejudice, without agenda.
-
'Meaning' is something that humans ascribe to their lives. Something requires a context to be meaningful within. Our lives have meaning within a socio-cultural context. I concern myself with the wellbeing of my children because they are central to my personal context. I have thousands of family photos and videos on my laptop; they are meaningful to me but less meaningful to a stranger in Yemen; even less so to a warthog or a donkey.
When we look out at the universe, we see what that there is to see. If we imagine there must be some grander context that our universe operates within because otherwise everything is ultimately meaningless, then we are merely projecting our inherited biases to see meaning in a domain that we have no reason to suppose exists. It is the age old human biases, anthropomorphism and narcissism, that lead us to imagine that there must be some grand transcendental anthropocentric purpose based on us, on our needs for meaning. This is what comes from projecting 'us' on to what is out there as opposed to merely observing with humility what appears to be out there without prejudice, without agenda.
We have discussed all this before, haven't we?! If you take a materialistic base, the sequence of thoughts will be automatically what you say. On the other hand if you take spirituality seriously, then the sequence of thoughts will be different. It depends on the assumptions we make to begin with.
Our assumptions again depend on our programming. I can't prove that you are wrong and you can't prove that I am wrong.
As discussed in another thread, atheists only do not believe in a God......but that does not mean God does not exist. And it does not mean that spiritual realities do not exist.
According to me and most others in the world, there are enough reasons to accept a spiritual base for this world. But I will not be able to convince you because your mindset is different. Even such things as NDE's monitored by professional doctors do not convince you. How can I convince you? It is not possible because of your mental programming. Your sequence of reasoning cannot change.
-
merely observing with humility what appears to be out there without prejudice, without agenda.
.... which in itself could bring purpose and meaning to life, and you could add to that 'what appears to be in there'.
-
We have discussed all this before, haven't we?! If you take a materialistic base, the sequence of thoughts will be automatically what you say. On the other hand if you take spirituality seriously, then the sequence of thoughts will be different. It depends on the assumptions we make to begin with.
Our assumptions again depend on our programming. I can't prove that you are wrong and you can't prove that I am wrong.
As discussed in another thread, atheists only do not believe in a God......but that does not mean God does not exist. And it does not mean that spiritual realities do not exist.
According to me and most others in the world, there are enough reasons to accept a spiritual base for this world. But I will not be able to convince you because your mindset is different. Even such things as NDE's monitored by professional doctors do not convince you. How can I convince you? It is not possible because of your mental programming. Your sequence of reasoning cannot change.
Its impossible if the evidence was there but its not.
-
Its impossible if the evidence was there but its not.
What is impossible?
Evidence is only what we are able and willing to see. All of us don't believe in spiritual realities without any evidence. (That is just atheist arrogance to assume so).
Its just that you are unable to see it. That is all....and we are unable to show it to you. I keep citing the example of a stubborn blind man denying the existence of Light. Nothing can be done about it!
-
Evidence is only what we are able and willing to see. All of us don't believe in spiritual realities without any evidence. (That is just atheist arrogance to assume so).
Its just that you are unable to see it. That is all....and we are unable to show it to you. I keep citing the example of a stubborn blind man denying the existence of Light. Nothing can be done about it!
Utter nonsense. Evidence, in order for it to have any meaning at all, must be objective (intersubjectively verifiable); if it's only 'visible' to a few, it isn't evidence.
Your childish comparison to a blind person is both insulting to the blind and inapplicable. It would be trivially easy to present objective evidence of light to a blind person, in exactly the same way as other people accept the objective evidence for other parts of the electromechanic spectrum (radio waves, X-rays, inferred, and so on).
-
According to me and most others in the world, there are enough reasons to accept a spiritual base for this world.
Actually, whatever you believe about god(s), "spirituality" and other religious ideas, most people in the world think you are wrong.
This is evidence that the beliefs do not have an objective evidence base.
-
What is impossible?
Evidence is only what we are able and willing to see. All of us don't believe in spiritual realities without any evidence. (That is just atheist arrogance to assume so).
Its just that you are unable to see it. That is all....and we are unable to show it to you. I keep citing the example of a stubborn blind man denying the existence of Light. Nothing can be done about it!
Should have been possible not impossible.
I don't think you understand what evidence is. It is a fact or something which is known - the things you refer to are not facts but unexplained phenomena.
You do keep referring to the blind man but that doesn't mean you are correct.
Atheist arrogance! Pot, kettle, black.
-
We have discussed all this before, haven't we?! If you take a materialistic base, the sequence of thoughts will be automatically what you say. On the other hand if you take spirituality seriously, then the sequence of thoughts will be different. It depends on the assumptions we make to begin with.
Our assumptions again depend on our programming. I can't prove that you are wrong and you can't prove that I am wrong.
As discussed in another thread, atheists only do not believe in a God......but that does not mean God does not exist. And it does not mean that spiritual realities do not exist.
According to me and most others in the world, there are enough reasons to accept a spiritual base for this world. But I will not be able to convince you because your mindset is different. Even such things as NDE's monitored by professional doctors do not convince you. How can I convince you? It is not possible because of your mental programming. Your sequence of reasoning cannot change.
I don't agree about 'mindset' unless you are including an ethos of disciplined analytical thinking in that, in which case I'd say the 'mindset' has virtue. How are we to investigate and understand our world if we fail to set the bar high ?
There are perhaps two sorts of puddles in this world : there are those that find the hole in the ground they occupy fits their contours so wonderfully, so perfectly, that they conclude that it must have been made just for them. Then there are the other puddles who see the coincidence as a learning opportunity and set about investigating the character of fluids and how to measure the volume of irregular shapes. The first puddles are lazy, they set the bar low, their attitude betrays their narcissism. The second lot set the bar much higher, consequently they learn about the world. The overwhelming majority of doctors (and scientists) don't accept your interpretation of NDEs; maybe their 'mindset' is to set the bar higher.
-
Should have been possible not impossible.
I don't think you understand what evidence is. It is a fact or something which is known - the things you refer to are not facts but unexplained phenomena.
You do keep referring to the blind man but that doesn't mean you are correct.
Atheist arrogance! Pot, kettle, black.
You don't understand. Evidence is all around us for hundreds of things. We just can't see it or connect it with the relevant phenomenon. Someone suddenly connects the dots and hey presto....we have evidence for something that has always been there but no one noticed.
Even evolution is like that. The similarities between animals and humans is obvious...but no one made the connection (Hindus did make the connection and developed the idea of evolution of human consciousness through reincarnation from animals.....but not biological evolution).
Evidence is not as simple and straight forward as we might think.
-
I don't agree about 'mindset' unless you are including an ethos of disciplined analytical thinking in that, in which case I'd say the 'mindset' has virtue. How are we to investigate and understand our world if we fail to set the bar high ?
There are perhaps two sorts of puddles in this world : there are those that find the hole in the ground they occupy fits their contours so wonderfully, so perfectly, that they conclude that it must have been made just for them. Then there are the other puddles who see the coincidence as a learning opportunity and set about investigating the character of fluids and how to measure the volume of irregular shapes. The first puddles are lazy, they set the bar low, their attitude betrays their narcissism. The second lot set the bar much higher, consequently they learn about the world. The overwhelming majority of doctors (and scientists) don't accept your interpretation of NDEs; maybe their 'mindset' is to set the bar higher.
Most of us are programmed from childhood to think in certain ways. Maybe partly genetic, epigenetic, upbringing, training, culture....whatever.
It is this programming that makes us think that we are right and others are wrong. It is memes.
It is not about evidence as many of you like to believe. You just don't notice the evidence that is there in front of you. And even if and when it is brought to your notice, it is disregarded as probably this and that. This is because the memes don't allow you to accept certain things. This is where the two boxes syndrome becomes relevant.
-
You don't understand. Evidence is all around us for hundreds of things. We just can't see it or connect it with the relevant phenomenon. Someone suddenly connects the dots and hey presto....we have evidence for something that has always been there but no one noticed.
Actually you don't - what you have is a proposed explanation for a some observed phenomena. In order for your proposal to have its own evidence, it must make predictions of (objective) observations or the results of experiments that can either confirm or falsify it.
It is the results of these observations or experiments that constitute its evidence.
Evidence is not as simple and straight forward as we might think.
It is, actually.
Most of us are programmed from childhood to think in certain ways. Maybe partly genetic, epigenetic, upbringing, training, culture....whatever.
It is this programming that makes us think that we are right and others are wrong. It is memes.
Which is exactly the reason we have developed the tools of scientific investigation and critical thinking. These tools enable us to take a more objective view of the world. One that is independent of personal views and inclinations. That is why it is vitally important that evidence is objective.
It is not about evidence as many of you like to believe. You just don't notice the evidence that is there in front of you. And even if and when it is brought to your notice, it is disregarded as probably this and that. This is because the memes don't allow you to accept certain things.
If the 'evidence' being pointed out is not objective and unambiguous, then it really isn't evidence in any meaningful sense of the word.
By the way, do you have an instance of the meme that says that memes are necessarily a bad thing? The scientific method is a meme, as is critical thinking but they are useful memes that enable us to think independently of other memes that might cloud our judgement.
-
Most of us are programmed from childhood to think in certain ways. Maybe partly genetic, epigenetic, upbringing, training, culture....whatever.
It is this programming that makes us think that we are right and others are wrong. It is memes.
It is not about evidence as many of you like to believe. You just don't notice the evidence that is there in front of you. And even if and when it is brought to your notice, it is disregarded as probably this and that. This is because the memes don't allow you to accept certain things. This is where the two boxes syndrome becomes relevant.
Like I say, you don't understand what evidence is. And you don't understand the scientific method. Apart from that ......
-
By the way, do you have an instance of the meme that says that memes are necessarily a bad thing? The scientific method is a meme, as is critical thinking but they are useful memes that enable us to think independently of other memes that might cloud our judgement.
Memetics is a pseudoscience isn't it?
-
Like I say, you don't understand what evidence is. And you don't understand the scientific method. Apart from that ......
Such a simple conclusion isn't it?! LOL! Thanks Maeght.
-
Memetics is a pseudoscience isn't it?
No, it's a meme.
-
People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.
-
You don't understand. Evidence is all around us for hundreds of things. We just can't see it or connect it with the relevant phenomenon. Someone suddenly connects the dots and hey presto....we have evidence for something that has always been there but no one noticed.
Even evolution is like that. The similarities between animals and humans is obvious...but no one made the connection (Hindus did make the connection and developed the idea of evolution of human consciousness through reincarnation from animals.....but not biological evolution).
Evidence is not as simple and straight forward as we might think.
So you assert Sriram.
Regards ippy
-
People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.
Memes are shite.
-
People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.
- If this is the case, you should be listening to what others have said about your meme 'infections': reincarnation, purpose and direction in evolution, two boxes, and so on, and so on...
- We can actually assess the usefulness of memes by their (objective) results - hence we can be sure that the scientific method is useful because it has produced tangible, objective results.
- As your statement above is a meme that you are clearly 'infected' with, I am telling you (as someone who isn't) that it isn't a generally useful one.
-
Memes are shite.
Are they? Oh well, given that you have made such a comprehensive, well argued, and logically compelling case, I'll have to concede your point...
...oh, hang on a minute, you didn't, did you? It was just another baseless and ill-informed assertion.
-
Are they? Oh well, given that you have made such a comprehensive, well argued, and logically compelling case, I'll have to concede your point...
...oh, hang on a minute, you didn't, did you? It was just another baseless and ill-informed assertion.
Memetics cannot eliminate including the intelligently designed idea into itself. What implications for the ultra darwinistic basis of Memetics do you think that has.
Memetics is just a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism. It is a useless redefinition.
-
You old school guys don't like the views of young scientists like Richard Watson and Simon Powell,then!??!
Nothing new about such views. They'd been proposed before I was born by Bergson, A.N. Whitehead (Russell's mathematical collaborator) Hans Driesch and popularised by the novelist Samuel Butler and the dramatist G.B.Shaw.
Bergson wasn't a scientist per se, and Whitehead was of course a mathematician and philosopher. Driesch was a biologist. None of their views have really passed muster in the years of scientific criticism and research which followed them.
-
Yeah, I agree that Simon Powell is not a scientist. Sorry!
But the idea of Intelligence being inherent in nature is almost obvious. It is not necessarily about religion or God or anything like that.
Where do you think evolution is 'going'?
-
Memetics cannot eliminate including the intelligently designed idea into itself. What implications for the ultra darwinistic basis of Memetics do you think that has.
Do you want to try that again, using coherent English?
Memetics is just a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism. It is a useless redefinition.
Why should I believe this naked assertion?
-
Such a simple conclusion isn't it?! LOL! Thanks Maeght.
Its really obvious I'm afraid.
-
People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.
Have you read your own posts?
-
Do you want to try that again, using coherent English?
Why should I believe this naked assertion?
Memeticists would have to admit that many or most memes would be intelligently designed therefore going against the Darwinian assumptions of those who have been prominent in pushing it.
It just repackages ideas like concept, idea, signs and symbols which have been a staple of other fields of study. Memetics is therefore linguistic and intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism.
IMHO it represents a dumbing down of language for a neotenised intelligentsia. Pop science.
Now if you think there are memes not only do you have to demonstrate them since you are making a claim, but you have to show that they patch any inadequacy in other fields of study.
-
Memeticists would have to admit that many or most memes would be intelligently designed therefore going against the Darwinian assumptions of those who have been prominent in pushing it.
Of course some memes would be intelligently designed by people. I have no idea why you think that goes against the assumption of Darwinian-like differential reproduction - which is the point.
It just repackages ideas like concept, idea, signs and symbols which have been a staple of other fields of study. Memetics is therefore linguistic and intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism.
IMHO it represents a dumbing down of language for a neotenised intelligentsia. Pop science.
Paranoid rantings.
Now if you think there are memes not only do you have to demonstrate them since you are making a claim, but you have to show that they patch any inadequacy in other fields of study.
To the best of my knowledge, that is a work in progress. I don't think the concept is sufficiently developed yet to constitute a scientific hypothesis - so it's pointless to criticise on that basis. Dennett uses the idea extensively but he's doing philosophy, not science.
On the other hand, I think there are undoubtedly some parallels between genes and concepts and ideas, in the way in which they spread through populations. Some ideas spread despite being wrong, misleading, and unhelpful - one has to ask who or what benefits? For example, why do so many people think that Darwin wrote a book called The Origin of the Species?
-
Where do you think evolution is 'going'?
Its a long story....but to cut it short.
Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon. Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation. That's the idea.
-
Its a long story....but to cut it short.
Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon. Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation. That's the idea.
and how would that work ? If consciousness is something that evolves independently of biology through reincarnation, how does it survive a mass extinction event when there are no suitable biological organisms alive able to host previously highly developed forms of consciousness ? If humans get taken out by an asteroid and there is nothing more complex than ants remaining, do the ants end up hosting all that reincarnated human consciousness ?
-
Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon. Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation. That's the idea.
So, you're ignoring the evidence and relying on wishful thinking and blind faith... ::)
-
Its a long story....but to cut it short.
Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon. Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation. That's the idea.
Then I think you need to revisit the idea.
-
Its a long story....but to cut it short.
Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon. Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation. That's the idea.
Where are all of these supposed reincarnation records, memories etc, kept waiting Sriram, I assume, waiting to be handed down to the next recipient?
If you don't know perhaps blue elephant man can help you?
Blue elephant man?
I don't know?
Makes as much sense as any other superstitious belief, I suppose?
Regards ippy
-
and how would that work ? If consciousness is something that evolves independently of biology through reincarnation, how does it survive a mass extinction event when there are no suitable biological organisms alive able to host previously highly developed forms of consciousness ? If humans get taken out by an asteroid and there is nothing more complex than ants remaining, do the ants end up hosting all that reincarnated human consciousness ?
You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.
The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness. The evidence is right there in us and our societies. There can be no doubt about that fact.
The question is whether all this is chance brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose. Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.
Max Planck has said... "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.
The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.
-
What about evolution of other species which do not display the same level of consciousness as humans? Where does that fit into this idea?
-
You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.
The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness. The evidence is right there in us and our societies. There can be no doubt about that fact.
The question is whether all this is chance brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose. Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.
Max Planck has said... "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.
The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.
There's evidence for random variation/chance and virtually zero evidence to show purpose.
Just because we haven't nailed the exact why, how and therefore about conciousness does nothing for the we don't know the explanation therefore god argument.(No matter what guise or how well the therefore god idea is concealed within the text)
Yes I suppose we did evolve to fit in with the psychical surroundings we by chance were born into, I doubt we had a lot of choice about that; makes me think of Duggies puddle, again.
Conciousness, I'd be more surprised if it wasn't an integral part of human evolution, you can't exactly put it to one side when trying to work things out or have ideas, I'd have thought that would come under the heading of 'The Bleeding Obvious'.
Regards ippy
P S Having read some further posts I think I should have made more of your ever present references to Woo in your posts and I'm not wrong about that either, Blue Elephants Sriram, come on Sriram, Blue Elephants?
-
You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.
The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness. The evidence is right there in us and our societies. There can be no doubt about that fact.
The question is whether all this is chance brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose. Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.
Max Planck has said... "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.
The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.
Consciousness seems to be a biological function that has a one-to-one correspondence with each individual biological agent that is conscious: the idea that one instance (for want of a better term) of consciousness can migrate from one biological agent to a different and separate biological agent seems unfounded as things stand.
-
Typical woo-peddling tactics from Sriram..
You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.
The difference being that these are well established areas of science backed up by plentiful evidence, in much the same way as your fanciful ideas aren't.
The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness. The evidence is right there in us and our societies. There can be no doubt about that fact.
Humans (and human consciousness) evolved and then societies did. That isn't in dispute. This appears to be an attempt to pretend that this backs up your claims, which it does not.
The question is whether all this is chance brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose.
We have plenty of evidence for random variation and natural selection being the mechanism for evolution and no evidence of purpose - so, in the absence of new evidence, it isn't actually much of a question
Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.
Carefully selected scientists, none of whom were talking about evolution or any supposed purpose for it - so we've now gone off at a tangent about quantum mechanics...
Max Planck has said... "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"
Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.
These are both connected to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is still an area of speculation. However, the discovery of decoherence has since explained how much of the quantum "weirdness" disappears at the macro scale - and it has nothing at all to do with consciousness. There really are very few scientists today that take a connection to consciousness seriously (some 6% of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers according to a poll in 2011, see: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation#Reception)).
The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution...
Now you are back to consciousness and evolution, as if the digression into QM had anything at all to do with it.
...if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.
Given the total lack of any evidence, how would you suggest this "research" should start?
-
What about evolution of other species which do not display the same level of consciousness as humans? Where does that fit into this idea?
As I said, we all have many questions. Even I have many doubts about this.
Maybe consciousness spontaneously branches out in as many ways as possible to develop. Maybe it needs many avenues before it can grow. I have no idea frankly.
But that does not detract from the idea of consciousness evolving. That we can see as a fact.
-
As I said, we all have many questions. Even I have many doubts about this.
Maybe consciousness spontaneously branches out in as many ways as possible to develop. Maybe it needs many avenues before it can grow. I have no idea frankly.
But that does not detract from the idea of consciousness evolving. That we can see as a fact.
There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness evolves independently of biological evolution though. If consciousness evolves that is because conscious creatures evolve, and if there are more sophisticated implementations of it that will be because it is a phenomenon that confers a competitive advantage to the organism that benefits from it. If all humans get wiped out tomorrow. all that sophisticated human consciousness is going to get wiped out too, trust me on this. We are not going to see human consciousness reincarnated into the surviving insect populations. If consciousness evolves, it is because species evolve.
-
There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness evolves independently of biological evolution though. If consciousness evolves that is because conscious creatures evolve, and if there are more sophisticated implementations of it that will be because it is a phenomenon that confers a competitive advantage to the organism that benefits from it. If all humans get wiped out tomorrow. all that sophisticated human consciousness is going to get wiped out too, trust me on this. We are not going to see human consciousness reincarnated into the surviving insect populations. If consciousness evolves, it is because species evolve.
Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.
The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property. The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.
Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements.
Nice isn't it?! :D
It all fits in if you know how.... As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! ;)
-
Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.
The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property. The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.
Is this the view of evolutionary biologists: you know, the experts?
Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements.
As noted before: you don't have a hypothesis.
Nice isn't it?! :D
Only if you replace 'nice' with 'silly'.
It all fits in if you know how.... As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! ;)
The TofE is a scientific theory and not an 'atheist idea'.
-
Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.
The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property. The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.
Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements.
Nice isn't it?! :D
It all fits in if you know how.... As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! ;)
That's all conjecture without any basis in evidence though. Fine to set the bar so low if you aren't really interested in what is true and what is not. Early Europeans evolved white skin, so do we conclude that the purpose of evolution therefore is to be white ?
-
That's all conjecture without any basis in evidence though. Fine to set the bar so low if you aren't really interested in what is true and what is not. Early Europeans evolved white skin, so do we conclude that the purpose of evolution therefore is to be white ?
Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?! In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.
I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.
-
The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property. The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.
So you assert, without evidence or reasoned argument and in contradiction of the known (from evidence) mechanisms of evolution. Also, if you are proposing that human level consciousness was the goal, then it's been an incredibly inefficient and wasteful process - what kind of idiot "intelligence" are you proposing is behind this purpose?
Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements.
As has been pointed out, it isn't a hypothesis, it's an untestable, unfalsifiable, baseless assertion. What's more, even if it was a hypothesis, the things you mention do not logically follow from it. They are just more untestable, unfalsifiable, baseless assertions.
Seems you understand as little about logic as you do about science.
Nice isn't it?! :D
Only if you think baseless fantasies being presented as serious possibilities are nice...
It all fits in if you know how....
Fantasies are like that... ::)
-
Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?! In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.
I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.
You haven't presented any 'Truth'. All you have given is baseless conjecture without any justification. I could just as easily propose that the purpose of evolution is produce white skin. But I don't because there is no justification for that. We can't just go around making things up for no reason.
-
In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.
Nonsense. Nothing in your baseless fantasies is an explanation of anything at all. There is no mechanism - nothing that replaces the process of random variation and natural selection.
- How is this 'purpose' realised in practice?
- Where and when did it originate?
- How and where is consciousness stored when not in a brain?
- How does this (non-material?) consciousness integrate with the brain?
- What predictions does your 'hypothesis' make?
- How can they be tested?
and so on and so on and so on...
Are you really so utterly clueless as to think you've offered an explanation or hypothesis that can in any way be compared to science?
-
Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?! In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.
I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.
It is not the Truth nor is is a theory nor is it an hypothesis. It is an expression of what you want to be true. And you suggest others are blinded by memes!
Evolution (by Natural Selection) is not an atheist idea it is a very well supported scientific theory which explains a huge amount of observations and facts about this world in which we live, unlike your imagined story.
-
Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... :D
-
Looks like it's time for you to go back to the drawing book Sriram, quite a drubbing for you there in the last few posts.
This reincarnation's only an idea inside your head with zero anything to back it up, best dump it.
Regards ippy
P S At least we wont be filling our children's or our grandchildren's heads with unsupported nonsense.
-
Looks like it's time for you to go back to the drawing book Sriram, quite a drubbing for you there in the last few posts.
This reincarnation's only an idea inside your head with zero anything to back it up, best dump it.
Regards ippy
P S At least we wont be filling our children's or our grandchildren's heads with unsupported nonsense.
Cheers....ippy!
-
Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... :D
Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...
::)
-
Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...
::)
Still on about memes I see.
-
Still on about memes I see.
It's actually Sriram who keeps bringing them up - despite apparently knowing nothing about the idea (which, unfortunately, seems to be par for the course for his pronouncements).
-
Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... :D
So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.
-
So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.
The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......
1. I have no problem with any of the established scientific facts. I accept evolution without any reservation. I agree about all observed facts. I am not adopting a religious 'God did it' stand.
2. I am only having a problem about the assumed reasons for evolution.....ie. random variations and NS. The last word is yet to be said on this I am sure. Lot of new ideas on epigenetics and 'learning built into evolution', are going on. Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism. Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.
3. Besides evolution, there are other observations in our lives that deserve to be noted too. NDE cases, reincarnation cases and many more such phenomena. All these are observed phenomena and they need to be integrated with all other theories and cannot be kept at bay.
The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena. You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!
4. Even the opinions of eminent scientists on consciousness being fundamental to life, is disregarded by all of you because it does not fit in with your ideas of evolution and life.
5. I am not holding on to any religious beliefs. My stand on consciousness driving evolution is based on observed phenomena noted by scientists like Lamarck, perhaps even Darwin, Max Planck, Wheeler, reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, NDE's cases studied by Raymond Moody, Sam Parnia and others.
Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality. Certainly not mine!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.
The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......
You are just reinforcing Maeght's point. Instead of responding directly to the points that have been put to you, you just repeat the same things in you usual patronising way.
I'll only highlight the worst drivel...
Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism.
No it isn't. Epigenetics is limited in scope and does not change the genome. We have copious evidence that random variation and natural selection are the main mechanism for evolution.
Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.
Utter nonsense. I suggest you read On the Origin of Species. Artificial selection is a good analogy but the point was that a population's environment also 'selects' those individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction within it.
You have never understood this (this has been made obvious many times here) so you are trying to criticise something you don't understand - it shows.
The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena. You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!
You consistently try to convince people (maybe including yourself) of all these phenomena. You are petrified of any suggestion of death being the end because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!
Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality.
Yes, so am I.
-
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to give a considered reply.
The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......
Glad you are accepting that you have memes. Of course you consider yourself to be less effected though. Lets look at your reasons then
1. I have no problem with any of the established scientific facts. I accept evolution without any reservation. I agree about all observed facts. I am not adopting a religious 'God did it' stand.
I know you don't take a 'God did it stance' never said you did, but you do take a spiritual stance.
2. I am only having a problem about the assumed reasons for evolution.....ie. random variations and NS.
It is not an assumption but a theory supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. That you have trouble with it reflects your meme and your incredulity.
The last word is yet to be said on this I am sure. Lot of new ideas on epigenetics and 'learning built into evolution', are going on. Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism.
Of course, science is always open to new evidence and new discoveries. The ToE by Natural Selection has not to date been invalidated by any evidence, and if it were a new Theory would be adopted to fit the scientifically established facts.
Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.
I don't think that is true at all, and even if it was, so what, evolutionary theory has moved on vastly since Darwin's initial theory and a huge amount of evidence exists to support the modern refined theories.
3. Besides evolution, there are other observations in our lives that deserve to be noted too. NDE cases, reincarnation cases and many more such phenomena. All these are observed phenomena and they need to be integrated with all other theories and cannot be kept at bay.
They are unexplained phenomena and cannot count as evidence since they are not facts, regardless of how strong your meme is to consider them as such.
The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena.
'We' do not accept your meme driven explanation of these reported phenomena since it lacks any evidence.
You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!
Nonsense. You like to think people such as me are scared and avoiding what to you is an obvious truth but I wouldn't have any problems if reincarnation etc were shown to be true - it would all be fascinating and considering the implications would be incredible. There is no evidence for any of it though so as yet the reported phenomena are unexplained.
4. Even the opinions of eminent scientists on consciousness being fundamental to life, is disregarded by all of you because it does not fit in with your ideas of evolution and life.
Not discarded but seen for what it is, blue sky thinking and speculation by humans with imaginations.
5. I am not holding on to any religious beliefs.
You have beliefs, regardless of whether they are 'religions' or not.
My stand on consciousness driving evolution is based on observed phenomena noted by scientists like Lamarck, perhaps even Darwin, Max Planck, Wheeler, reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, NDE's cases studied by Raymond Moody, Sam Parnia and others.
No I really don't think it is. You cherry pick stuff, look for stuff which might support your belief, and consider yourself to be oh so much more enlightened than those who look at all the evidence and consider all alternatives, accepting that which there is evidence for and not accepting stuff for which there is no evidence. Not accepting is different from dismissing of course.
Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality. Certainly not mine!
Of course you think that, but like much of what you think, believe and post on here the evidence doesn't support it.
-
I know you don't take a 'God did it stance' never said you did, but you do take a spiritual stance.
What do you mean by a 'spiritual' stand? 'Spirit' is just a word. Today it is more fashionable to use the word Consciousness. It means the same thing. So...I am no different from anyone who believes that Consciousness is not an emergent property of biology. Call it spirituality, science, philosophy....whatever!
It is not an assumption but a theory supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. That you have trouble with it reflects your meme and your incredulity.
Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible.
Of course, science is always open to new evidence and new discoveries. The ToE by Natural Selection has not to date been invalidated by any evidence, and if it were a new Theory would be adopted to fit the scientifically established facts.
I don't find anyone readily embracing neo Lamarckism for example.... Scientists are as prone to holding on to their pet theories as much any one else. As I have said before...'evidence' does not come and knock anyone on the head and say ...'here I am'! We need to think laterally...form a hypothesis and then go about trying hard to gather evidence...and connect relevant observations together.
I don't think that is true at all, and even if it was, so what, evolutionary theory has moved on vastly since Darwin's initial theory and a huge amount of evidence exists to support the modern refined theories.
Darwin was an agnostic...not an atheist. He believed Nature selected traits for survival the same way people artificially selected traits that they desired in crops and animals. He was also influenced by Lamarck.
They are unexplained phenomena and cannot count as evidence since they are not facts, regardless of how strong your meme is to consider them as such.
Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven. String is unproven. Parallel universes is unproven. They are however considered seriously as possibilities nevertheless. NDE's and reincarnation on the other hand have thousands of cases that can be studied. They can be taken seriously but for the mindset of people.
Nonsense. You like to think people such as me are scared and avoiding what to you is an obvious truth but I wouldn't have any problems if reincarnation etc were shown to be true - it would all be fascinating and considering the implications would be incredible. There is no evidence for any of it though so as yet the reported phenomena are unexplained.
What do you mean 'unexplained'? Only if someone 'explains' it in terms of biology and chemical reactions....it will be taken as 'explained'...is it?!
Not discarded but seen for what it is, blue sky thinking and speculation by humans with imaginations.
'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it. No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.
You have beliefs, regardless of whether they are 'religions' or not.
So do you. You only like to think that everything you believe has clinching evidence.
No I really don't think it is. You cherry pick stuff, look for stuff which might support your belief, and consider yourself to be oh so much more enlightened than those who look at all the evidence and consider all alternatives, accepting that which there is evidence for and not accepting stuff for which there is no evidence. Not accepting is different from dismissing of course.
What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL! The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!
Of course you think that, but like much of what you think, believe and post on here the evidence doesn't support it.
There is plenty of evidence if one takes the right attitude. There are people who are scornful of the moon landing and believe that there is no evidence for it. Does not mean that they are right. Its all about perception and attitude.
-
What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL! The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!
Yep, that is cherry picking going on. Anyone can scour the internet searching for quotes from famous people that could be construed to support your pet theory. A handful of fantastic NDE or reincarnation claims are not going to overturn a knowledge base which is orders of magnitude more profound when they can be far more simply explained as psychological or neurological artefacts. That is a sound principle at work, and that is why the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors do not take such things seriously. If everyone set the bar so low we would still be grunting in caves.
-
What do you mean by a 'spiritual' stand? 'Spirit' is just a word. Today it is more fashionable to use the word Consciousness. It means the same thing. So...I am no different from anyone who believes that Consciousness is not an emergent property of biology. Call it spirituality, science, philosophy....whatever!
You use the term spiritual a lot. I'd probably replace it with believing in woo.
Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible.
Nonsense. If random is used it is because that is the current conclusion from the evidence - it is not an assumption.
I don't find anyone readily embracing neo Lamarckism for example.... Scientists are as prone to holding on to their pet theories as much any one else.
They are not 'embracing it' because it is not supported by the evidence. It isn't about pet theories but about theories which are supported b y the evidence.
As I have said before...'evidence' does not come and knock anyone on the head and say ...'here I am'! We need to think laterally...form a hypothesis and then go about trying hard to gather evidence...and connect relevant observations together.
And like I've said before, you don't understand what evidence means in science nor hypothesis nor theory.
Darwin was an agnostic...not an atheist. He believed Nature selected traits for survival the same way people artificially selected traits that they desired in crops and animals. He was also influenced by Lamarck.
Even if true, so what. As I said we have moved on a greatly from Darwin, based on the evidence not individual's beliefs.
Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven. String is unproven. Parallel universes is unproven. They are however considered seriously as possibilities nevertheless
They are descriptions of observed phenomena. This has been explained to you before but you don't get it. Nothing is ever proven in science by the way.
NDE's and reincarnation on the other hand have thousands of cases that can be studied. They can be taken seriously but for the mindset of people.
What do you mean 'unexplained'? Only if someone 'explains' it in terms of biology and chemical reactions....it will be taken as 'explained'...is it?!
We don't know what the reports of NDE's, memory transfer etc actually are, so they are unexplained phenomena. You take them on face value as being examples of consciousness surviving death etc but it is not known that this is what they are so are not evidence of anything.
'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it.
What makes you think I don't like it? I enjoy science and speculation as much as anyone else but recognise those things for what they are.
No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.
Not dismissing anything, but recognising what things are and understanding where they are evidence and where they are not -unlike some.
So do you. You only like to think that everything you believe has clinching evidence.
Nonsense.
What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL! The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!
See Torridon's answer.
There is plenty of evidence if one takes the right attitude. There are people who are scornful of the moon landing and believe that there is no evidence for it. Does not mean that they are right. Its all about perception and attitude.
Its really not. Again, shows you don't know what evidence is.
-
Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible.
Once again, you are making assertions based on your total (self-imposed) ignorance. Randomness and natural selection do give rise to complexity. That isn't an assumption, it's one of the best established theories in science, backed up by copious evidence, and a process that can be modelled on a computer.
Fanciful notions of an influence too subtle to be detected are laughable straw clutching.
Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven.
This has been explained to you many times and yet you still never miss an opportunity to publicly display your ignorance. Dark matter and dark energy are labels that have been applied to observations. Dark matter is a name give to whatever is causing the observations that appear to show the presence of unseen matter having a gravitational effect on visible matter. Dark energy is a label given to whatever is causing the observation that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
Neither are unproven - there term doesn't even make sense in the context.
'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it. No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.
That would be because relativity was a concrete mathematical hypothesis that made specific predictions that could be tested (even if not at the time). The 'blue sky thinking' was nothing but speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation provided you understand that it is speculation.
However, trying to present speculation, that is really nothing but religiously motivated wishful thinking, as being some sort of theory or hypothesis that should be taken seriously by science, is simply dishonest.
-
Ok...guys. I have nothing more to say on this subject.
Thanks & Cheers :)
Sriram
-
Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...
::)
I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life :o; could be wrong about that I suppose.
-
I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life :o; could be wrong about that I suppose.
That actually made me laugh.
IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...
-
That actually made me laugh.
IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...
Yes, quite funny that.
-
I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life :o; could be wrong about that I suppose.
Hi Robbie...
Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's. After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring. That's my little CV. :D
But don't take these guys here seriously. ;) They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety. They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information. I have seen worse on here! :D
If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Robbie...
Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's. After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring. That's my little CV. :D
But don't take these guys here seriously. ;) They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety. They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information. I have seen worse on here! :D
If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
Cheers.
Sriram
Ah that old chestnut - if you have no answers you can always fall back on trying to denigrate your opponents. Speaks volumes, that.
-
Hi Robbie...
Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's. After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring. That's my little CV. :D
But don't take these guys here seriously. ;) They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety. They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information. I have seen worse on here! :D
If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
Cheers.
Sriram
To be fair to you Sriram, having looked at the 'conversations' about evolution your blog, although somewhat cringe worthy in style I feel, the first conversation shows reasonable understanding. Much more than you normally reflect on here. The second conversation though contains mostly your beliefs and views with little or no basis in fact, only personal opinion. I have no issue with speculation, as I have said many times, but I do have issue with presenting speculation as fact or 'obvious'. If you were able to recognise what you post as being speculation, and to respect those who don't have the same speculative thought rather than denigrating them and presenting yourself as somehow a superior thinker, things on here would be more constructive and interesting.
Enjoy your day
Maeght
-
To be fair to you Sriram, having looked at the 'conversations' about evolution your blog, although somewhat cringe worthy in style I feel, the first conversation shows reasonable understanding. Much more than you normally reflect on here.
Yes, it is a vast improvement on his posts here - Sriram, have you realized the error of your former ways?
It does still have the misunderstanding of Darwin's comparison of natural selection with artificial selection, though.
The second conversation though contains mostly your beliefs and views with little or no basis in fact, only personal opinion. I have no issue with speculation, as I have said many times, but I do have issue with presenting speculation as fact or 'obvious'.
More classic Sriram. While I agree that some of it would class as speculation, other parts are misleading or just wrong.
For example:
"But regardless of whether Epigenetics itself is sufficient to explain active adaptations to changing environments or not, is besides the point. There has to be something that enables adaptations and progression."
The "something" that "enables adaptations and progression" is called "natural selection" - which calls into question the apparent understanding shown in the first conversation.
Then we have the idea of a "life force" which seems to be a giant leap backwards to the long dead notion of vitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism). There is much evidence that life is 'just' complicated chemistry - there is no open question that would require a "life force" as an answer.
And it still contains the nonsense about dark matter and energy, and...
-
Ah...you guys visited my site! (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys! Nice of you! :)
I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that.....regardless of what you guys here might think. The first article on the 'Conversations' is meant precisely to present evolution as it is. The second part is meant to outline my opinions and views on it (a little longish I think....I'll cut it down soon) .
I stand by all that I have said in the second part.
1. Everything evolves including man made products, civilizations, technologies etc. Just as intelligence and intent are involved in all these examples...so also biological evolution would have intelligence to guide it. 'Evolution' does not have to automatically mean 'chance'. This random stuff doesn't gel with me.
I agree that in the early days that would be the only way Christian beliefs could have been kept at bay...but much water has flowed since then. We need to think laterally.
2. 'Life' could be an amorphous thing of some sort that injects life into organic molecules, the same way electricity powers all our equipment. It cannot be an'emergent property' of some chemicals.
3. Complexity and all ''Emergent Properties' cannot be products of random variations. Progression is evident. There has to be some sort of Intelligence/consciousness involved.
4. Natural Selection as it is currently presented, is just a metaphor. It is not a real process and has no law or predictability. I believe that Nature actually 'selects' traits through some kind of intelligent process. Neo Lamarckism might give us some ideas in the coming years.
I agree lot of questions are left unanswered but much less so than under the current understanding.
Ok...cheers guys. Nothing more to say.
Sriram
-
Ah...you guys visited my site! (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys! Nice of you! :)
Not sure 'liked' is quite the word, but it wasn't for the first time - I'm always curious if people offer a website link. I thought the piece on time was priceless: no such thing as time, only change. What had you been smoking, and can I get some? :D
I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that...
Yes, I rather think your lack of doubt is part of your problem - you simply ignore people who correct you, even on basic stuff that you could go away and check with independent sources for yourself. Personally, if I have any doubt at all and often if I don't, I check and double check, even if it's something I have recognised qualifications in.
1. Everything evolves including man made products, civilizations, technologies etc. Just as intelligence and intent are involved in all these examples...so also biological evolution would have intelligence to guide it. 'Evolution' does not have to automatically mean 'chance'. This random stuff doesn't gel with me.
Conflating different meanings of a word is unhelpful and confusing to those who are not familiar with the concepts. Biological evolution is a distinct process that only has a superficial similarity with the other types of evolution you mention. Your insistence that biological evolution has an intelligence to guide it is (at the very best) a baseless guess.
Strangely, whether something 'gels' with you is not evidence and has nothing to do with science. Reality is under no obligation to be appealing to you or anybody else.
I agree that in the early days that would be the only way Christian beliefs could have been kept at bay...but much water has flowed since then. We need to think laterally.
I have no idea why you think keeping Christian beliefs at bay has anything to do with the science. The evidence for the mechanism of random variation and natural selection has only grown. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't mean that there is a need for science to change its approach.
2. 'Life' could be an amorphous thing of some sort that injects life into organic molecules, the same way electricity powers all our equipment. It cannot be an'emergent property' of some chemicals.
What for? What would it do? The evidence is that life is just chemistry - a flat contradiction of that is not an argument or evidence.
3. Complexity and all ''Emergent Properties' cannot be products of random variations. Progression is evident. There has to be some sort of Intelligence/consciousness involved.
Baseless assertion.
4. Natural Selection as it is currently presented, is just a metaphor. It is not a real process and has no law or predictability.
Simply untrue.
I believe that Nature actually 'selects' traits through some kind of intelligent process. Neo Lamarckism might give us some ideas in the coming years.
Your beliefs are irrelevant unless you have some evidence or reasoning to back them up. Presenting this sort of belief as anything but personal opinions that contradict the conclusions of evidence based science, is dishonest.
-
That actually made me laugh.
IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...
What, the antitheism bit or the scientism part?
-
...antitheism ... scientism...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Hi Robbie...
Well....not a scientist really...but I have a BSc in Physics, chemistry and maths, from a very reputed college back in the1970's. After that I did my MBA and went into industry. Worked for a military aircraft manufacturing company for many years, (that is when I visited British Aerospace Plc. at Farnborough and Manchester (Warton) back in the 1990's), then went into the software industry....worked for some majors in senior positions before retiring. That's my little CV. :D
But don't take these guys here seriously. ;) They are all old school guys who are mostly of the 'Zoom-In' variety. They think in mutually exclusive terms and are unable to integrate information. I have seen worse on here! :D
If you want to know what 'Zoom-in' means in this context, check here.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
Cheers.
Sriram
there's an important difference in getting a degree in physics and actually understanding it .Your posts demonstrate the latter .
-
Ah...you guys visited my site! (I suspect you wanted to have a good chuckle and some more ammunition for your 'discussions' here). But I am glad you liked it. Thanks guys! Nice of you! :)
Didn't say I liked it either. I have looked at your blog before and find it somewhat irritating that you present yourself as an expert on this or that when yiu aren't, you are just putting up your opinions and beliefs.
I know I understand much of science. I never had any doubts on that.....regardless of what you guys here might think. The first article on the 'Conversations' is meant precisely to present evolution as it is.
Such confidence. I have a simioar background but would never claim to understsnd much of science. The scientific principle and the meaning of words such as evuidence, hypothesis, theory and the like, yes, but not much of science.
The second part is meant to outline my opinions and views on it (a little longish I think....I'll cut it down soon) .
Then you should make it clear that it is yiur opinion and views and that you ar not qualified in the field of evolution and not a guru.
I stand by all that I have said in the second part.
Of course you do.
I won't go through the points as Stranger has addressed them all very well.