Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on May 02, 2023, 03:46:07 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a fairly recent article about reincarnation...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation
************
However, in recent years I’ve become aware of well-documented cases of young children who have reported very specific details of a past life, which were later verified by investigators.
Now around 2500 reports of children’s past-life memories have been studied (2). Research has shown that normally the children’s reported previous lives ended prematurely and unnaturally, often involving violence, suicide, or an accident. In almost three-quarters of cases, the “previous personality” (in the term coined by Stevenson) died relatively young. A quarter died before the age of 15. On average, the previous personalities died four-and-a-half years before the birth of the children with whom they were associated (3).
All in all, this evidence makes me feel that I have no choice but to accept that reincarnation is real. As a scientist, I feel obliged to revise my views in the face of evidence.
************
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a fairly recent article about reincarnation...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation
************
However, in recent years I’ve become aware of well-documented cases of young children who have reported very specific details of a past life, which were later verified by investigators.
Now around 2500 reports of children’s past-life memories have been studied (2). Research has shown that normally the children’s reported previous lives ended prematurely and unnaturally, often involving violence, suicide, or an accident. In almost three-quarters of cases, the “previous personality” (in the term coined by Stevenson) died relatively young. A quarter died before the age of 15. On average, the previous personalities died four-and-a-half years before the birth of the children with whom they were associated (3).
All in all, this evidence makes me feel that I have no choice but to accept that reincarnation is real. As a scientist, I feel obliged to revise my views in the face of evidence.
************
How do you explain the case of Ryan? He was apparently able to name the well known actor George Raft in a photo of Raft and his alleged former self but he didn't know his own former name. You'd think that would the one thing he could remember.
-
How do you explain the case of Ryan? He was apparently able to name the well known actor George Raft in a photo of Raft and his alleged former self but he didn't know his own former name. You'd think that would the one thing he could remember.
I have no idea. Just because something is studied scientifically doesn't make it an exact science.
-
I have no idea. Just because something is studied scientifically doesn't make it an exact science.
or indeed a science
-
Sriram,
I have no idea. Just because something is studied scientifically doesn't make it an exact science.
Or indeed studied scientifically:
In an article in Skeptical Inquirer Angel examined Stevenson’s Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974) and concluded that the research was so poorly conducted as to cast doubt on all Stevenson's work. He says that Stevenson failed to clearly and concisely document the claims made before attempting to verify them. Among a number of other faults, Angel says, Stevenson asked leading questions and did not properly tabulate or account for all erroneous statements. Angel writes:
"In sum, Stevenson does not skillfully record, present, or analyze his own data. If a case regarded by Stevenson to be among the strongest of his cases — the only case of 20 that had its purported verifications conducted by Stevenson himself — falls apart under scrutiny as badly as the Imad Elawar case does, it is reasonable to conclude that the other cases, in which data were first gathered by untrained observers, are even less reliable than this one."[31]
Skeptics have written that Stevenson's evidence was anecdotal and by applying Occam's razor there are prosaic explanations for the cases without invoking the paranormal.[32] Science writer Terence Hines has written:
"The major problem with Stevenson’s work is that the methods he used to investigate alleged cases of reincarnation are inadequate to rule out simple, imaginative storytelling on the part of the children claiming to be reincarnations of dead individuals. In the seemingly most impressive cases Stevenson (1975, 1977) has reported, the children claiming to be reincarnated knew friends and relatives of the dead individual. The children’s knowledge of facts about these individuals is, then, somewhat less than conclusive evidence for reincarnation."[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
-
One can always find lots of holes in someone else's work.....especially if they are not open to the idea in the first place.
Importantly we should stop associating reincarnation with religions and with the idea of the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness passing on from one physical body to another. It could be a very natural phenomenon. But then we would have to expand our idea of natural to include non physical influences.
-
I have no idea.
What? None at all. There's an obvious answer and that is that Ryan has picked up everything he "knows" in this life, not a previous one.
-
Sriram,
One can always find lots of holes in someone else's work....
Finding "holes" in something claimed to be science means the claim is wrong.
....especially if they are not open to the idea in the first place.
That's wrong. Either the "holes" exist or they don't - your openness or otherwise to the idea whose justification has holes in it is neither here nor there.
Importantly we should stop associating reincarnation with religions and with the idea of the supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness passing on from one physical body to another. It could be a very natural phenomenon. But then we would have to expand our idea of natural to include non physical influences.
No, we should stop associating it with an actual phenomenon at all until and unless there's evidence for it.
-
One can always find lots of holes in someone else's work.....especially if they are not open to the idea in the first place.
. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness passing on from one physical body to another. It could be a very natural phenomenon.
Have you any idea how it works then?
-
What? None at all. There's an obvious answer and that is that Ryan has picked up everything he "knows" in this life, not a previous one.
When this case was brought up previously I looked into it a bit and scratch below the surface and it isn't very impressive.
So the media tend to focus on the things he got 'right' but there was plenty he get's completely wrong.
Much of the stuff he seems to know was actually already in the public domain so easy for someone to find this out and coach him.
And some of the stuff he gets 'right' is so bland - so apparently it is astonishing that he wore a hat - hmm pretty well everyone back in those days wore a hat. And he smoked - well so did pretty well everyone back then.
A lot of this is also a bit like horoscopes whether the claims are so ambiguous that pretty well anyone can latch onto something as if it was 'predicted'.
-
Even from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense to think of consciousness evolving and developing through repeated reincarnations.
Not that it is possible to understand all this precisely.....especially when we don't even understand biological evolution with any degree of precision.
-
Even from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense to think of consciousness evolving and developing through repeated reincarnations.
Nonsense. Evolution is a theory in biology that depends on variation, inheritance, and a limiting environment. What's more, it doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to populations, so having an individual consciousness being recycled would actually prevent it, even if it wasn't a silly, idea in the first place to apply to some fantasy of a separate consciousness that can jump to another body.
Not that it is possible to understand all this precisely.....especially when we don't even understand biological evolution with any degree of precision.
Speak for yourself. I know you don't understand evolution at all.
-
Even from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense to think of consciousness evolving and developing through repeated reincarnations.
Not that it is possible to understand all this precisely.....especially when we don't even understand biological evolution with any degree of precision.
Biology actually does have mechanisms to recycle traits, behaviours etc from one generation to another - we call them genetics and epigenetics. We are conscious because we have inherited our consciousness through our genes - that provides evolutionary advantage as it is a trait that helps with survival and is hereditable.
-
Biology actually does have mechanisms to recycle traits, behaviours etc from one generation to another - we call them genetics and epigenetics. We are conscious because we have inherited our consciousness through our genes - that provides evolutionary advantage as it is a trait that helps with survival and is hereditable.
What survival advantage does consciousness give us that intelligence couldn’t?
-
What survival advantage does consciousness give us that intelligence couldn’t?
An ability to cooperate in a social manner based on that intelligence. And this is really important as key to survival for human offspring is learning in that social context which I cannot see would be effective if humans were merely intelligent but not conscious - if that were the case we would not have the self awareness and awareness of others required for that social learning and protection.
Think of it this way - humans don't survive because they are fast, strong, dangerous, can fly etc - no, humans survive because they are smart and they are aware, and that awareness is what requires consciousness.
-
An ability to cooperate in a social manner based on that intelligence. And this is really important as key to survival for human offspring is learning in that social context which I cannot see would be effective if humans were merely intelligent but not conscious - if that were the case we would not have the self awareness and awareness of others required for that social learning and protection.
Which, of course, indicates that consciousness is something that is not unique to humans.
-
Which, of course, indicates that consciousness is something that is not unique to humans.
Of course - consciousness is clearly present in many species. Self awareness is an element of consciousness and not all species that are conscious are necessarily self aware, so perhaps that is an element of a kind of higher consciousness - but again self awareness isn't restricted to humans.
-
Of course - consciousness is clearly present in many species. Self awareness is an element of consciousness and not all species that are conscious are necessarily self aware, so perhaps that is an element of a kind of higher consciousness - but again self awareness isn't restricted to humans.
I think that Sriram probably accepts this but sees it as justification of his views since the 'progression' for a 'soul' is through those stages, and because of Sriram's basic voews, that makes more sense than evolution working on species.
I might be wrong, but I sense in the way you phrased 'a kind of higher consciousness' that you are uncomfortable with the phrase 'higher consciousness' and therefore have sought to qualify that with 'a kind of' to make it a bit more vague. If so, then I share the discomfort.
-
I think that Sriram probably accepts this but sees it as justification of his views since the 'progression' for a 'soul' is through those stages, and because of Sriram's basic voews, that makes more sense than evolution working on species.
I might be wrong, but I sense in the way you phrased 'a kind of higher consciousness' that you are uncomfortable with the phrase 'higher consciousness' and therefore have sought to qualify that with 'a kind of' to make it a bit more vague. If so, then I share the discomfort.
Higher consciousness is a term often used in relation to ethical debates - not least animal research, human embryo research. Not sure I like it as it implies better, rather than just more complex. So perhaps better to talk of consciousness with differing levels of complexity.
-
An ability to cooperate in a social manner based on that intelligence. And this is really important as key to survival for human offspring is learning in that social context which I cannot see would be effective if humans were merely intelligent but not conscious - if that were the case we would not have the self awareness and awareness of others required for that social learning and protection.
Think of it this way - humans don't survive because they are fast, strong, dangerous, can fly etc - no, humans survive because they are smart and they are aware, and that awareness is what requires consciousness.
I see no sufficient differentiation between intelligence and consciousness in your answer. Try harder.
-
I see no sufficient differentiation between intelligence and consciousness in your answer. Try harder.
Really, then I suggest you don't understand the difference between intelligence and consciousness.
-
Really, then I suggest you don't understand the difference between intelligence and consciousness.
Enlighten me then , Hotshot.
-
Enlighten me then , Hotshot.
There are plenty of things that are intelligent, e.g. can learn but are not conscious, let alone self aware.
Here is what ChatGPT tells me when I ask it 'What is the difference between intelligence and consciousness?' ;)
"Intelligence and consciousness are two distinct concepts that are often conflated or confused with each other. While both relate to cognitive abilities, they refer to different aspects of human or artificial thinking.
Intelligence refers to the ability to process information, learn from experience, reason, and solve problems. It involves the use of cognitive skills such as perception, memory, attention, language, and decision-making. Intelligence can be measured through standardized tests, such as IQ tests, and is generally thought to be relatively stable throughout a person's life.
Consciousness, on the other hand, refers to the subjective experience of being aware of oneself and the world around them. It includes the ability to perceive, think, feel, and have a sense of self. Consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied from different perspectives, including philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. It is often associated with qualities such as self-awareness, free will, and the ability to experience emotions, sensations, and thoughts.
In summary, intelligence is a cognitive capacity related to problem-solving and decision-making, while consciousness is a subjective experience related to self-awareness and perception of the external world."
Almost as if ChatGPT is intelligent but not conscious.
-
There are plenty of things that are intelligent, e.g. can learn but are not conscious, let alone self aware.
That in itself is not the difference between intelligence and consciousness. Cannot something learn everything you have ascribed to consciousness without self awareness?
In other words every measurable faculty can be achieved with sufficient intelligence.
-
That in itself is not the difference between intelligence and consciousness. Cannot something learn everything you have ascribed to consciousness without self awareness?
In other words every measurable faculty can be achieved with sufficient intelligence.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and use information and to learn from that process
Consciousness: the ability to be aware of and respond to external objects and stimuli
Self awareness: the ability to be aware of oneself
They are different things and you can think of examples where an entity may possess one, two or all three. And while anything that is self aware is probably conscious you can think of examples of something that is intelligent but not conscious (ChatGPT) and something that is conscious but not intelligent (e.g. an organism that is aware of its surroundings but unable to acquire and use that information.
An cat that thinks the cat in the mirror is a threat will be conscious, not self aware and not very intelligent. A cat that learns that the cat in the mirror is itself is intelligent, conscious and learns self awareness.
-
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and use information and to learn from that process
Consciousness: the ability to be aware of and respond to external objects and stimuli
Self awareness: the ability to be aware of oneself
They are different things and you can think of examples where an entity may possess one, two or all three. And while anything that is self aware is probably conscious you can think of examples of something that is intelligent but not conscious (ChatGPT) and something that is conscious but not intelligent (e.g. an organism that is aware of its surroundings but unable to acquire and use that information.
An cat that thinks the cat in the mirror is a threat will be conscious, not self aware and not very intelligent. A cat that learns that the cat in the mirror is itself is intelligent, conscious and learns self awareness.
I agree with that. Consciousness is fundamental and is the ability to have subjective experiences. Intelligence and self awareness are extensions of that with more specific abilities.
All living things are conscious. Some are also intelligent to different degrees meaning that they respond and react to their environment. Self awareness is an ability that is specific to more complex organisms.
So...what is consciousness? Is it just a property of the brain that has evolved through chance driven random variations and a metaphoric natural selection? Of course not.
This is no doubt a philosophical point...but consciousness is a property of the spirit.
-
Sriram,
All living things are conscious.
Really?
Slime mould? Viruses? Bacteria?
This is no doubt a philosophical point...but consciousness is a property of the spirit.
What "spirit" would that be?
-
I agree with that. Consciousness is fundamental and is the ability to have subjective experiences. Intelligence and self awareness are extensions of that with more specific abilities.
Nope - self awareness is an extension of consciousness, as I cannot see how you can be self aware without being conscious.
But intelligence is not an extension of consciousness as there are things that are intelligent but non conscious as my ChatGTP example demonstrates. Arguably there are things that are conscious but not intelligent, although I think whether something is intelligent or not is not an absolute but a spectrum.
-
All living things are conscious.
I disagree - consciousness requires more than some kind of sensor/actuator system or my car would be conscious as it is able to park itself by using sensor to detect objects and actuators to avoid them. Nope consciousness requires some kind of awareness of external things beyond a mere sensor/actuator function.
-
consciousness is a property of the spirit.
But too much spirit can lead to loss of consciousness
-
But too much spirit can lead to loss of consciousness
Such as this
https://youtu.be/EYcnKkBOcmI
-
Nope - self awareness is an extension of consciousness, as I cannot see how you can be self aware without being conscious.
But intelligence is not an extension of consciousness as there are things that are intelligent but non conscious as my ChatGTP example demonstrates. Arguably there are things that are conscious but not intelligent, although I think whether something is intelligent or not is not an absolute but a spectrum.
You make some good points. However Intelligence cannot exist without consciousness. Consciousness is what gives purpose and direction to intelligence.
Even your chatGPT cannot be 'intelligent' without human consciousness and intelligence. It cannot arise on its own. In a sense, chatGPT can be seen as a human extension ....just like a self driven car.
ChatGPT is language driven. It does not have any objective or need to survive or need to do anything. The moment a robot starts having its own objectives and intent and experiences....that means consciousness has entered the scene and has somehow attached itself to the machine. That is when we have to worry.
All living things including bacteria are conscious.....though there are different levels of consciousness. That is what makes them respond to their environment, fight for survival and reproduce. Experience and intent are consciousness driven.
-
All living things including bacteria are conscious.....though there are different levels of consciousness. That is what makes them respond to their environment, fight for survival and reproduce. Experience and intent are consciousness driven.
Nonsense. That reduces the word to meaningless.
-
Nonsense. That reduces the word to meaningless.
Absolutely - and Sririam appears to arbitrarily restrict consciousness to living things. Why? If a bacterium is conscious, why not my car which uses sensors and actuators to autonomously act to park itself.
The problem with Sriram is that he doesn't seem to understand the distinction between sensing and perception, the latter requiring some level of awareness, which is a prerequisite for consciousness. Things that can sense, but not perceive aren't conscious in my thinking.
-
Without consciousness there cannot be any intelligence or perception or awareness. Even your examples of chatGPT and self driven cars are only extensions of human consciousness and capabilities. By themselves they cannot exist or do any of the things that they do.
-
Without consciousness there cannot be any intelligence or perception or awareness. Even your examples of chatGPT and self driven cars are only extensions of human consciousness and capabilities. By themselves they cannot exist or do any of the things that they do.
Except they can - that's why they are described as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their intelligence develops from themselves - what humans produce in the first place doesn't have that intelligence.
-
Except they can - that's why they are described as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their intelligence develops from themselves - what humans produce in the first place doesn't have that intelligence.
I agree that Intelligence needs some specific platforms to work on. But without intent and will, intelligence cannot work. It doesn't have a driver.
ChatGPT and others work on human will and intent.
If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them and that can be dangerous. The ghost in the machine...literally.
-
If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them ...
No it doesn't - it just means they are operating autonomously - that doesn't mean that they are conscious.
-
Sriram,
All living things including bacteria are conscious...
Why do you think that's true?
-
If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them and that can be dangerous. The ghost in the machine...literally.
I think you need to tell us what your definition of consciousness is. It doesn't seem to be the same as anybody else's.
-
Consciousness is life itself IMO. Without consciousness there is no life. Without life there is no consciousness. They are virtually indistinguishable.
Consciousness is the source of subjectivity, experience, intent and response. It has several levels...from basic to very complex.
All living things are conscious because they have some sort of experience, intent and response. Intelligence is the ability of consciousness to respond suitably to environmental situations in line with its intent and needs. In complex organisms, consciousness gives rise to self awareness.
Consciousness can exist in subtle forms such as our unconscious mind. It could also perhaps exist in a collective form that is common to all beings.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/the-unconscious-mind/
-
Consciousness is life itself IMO. Without consciousness there is no life. Without life there is no consciousness. They are virtually indistinguishable.
I thought so. You are using a definition of consciousness that nobody else does. If you mean life, stay "life". Don't try to repurpose another word.
-
https://people.com/parents/boy-says-he-was-gucci-past-life-goes-viral-dressmaking-exclusive/
**********
While most first-graders couldn't name the founder of Gucci — let alone know anything about him — 7-year-old Max Alexander believes he has a deep connection to the famed designer.
Max, a dressmaking prodigy who has been designing and creating clothes since he was 4 years old, tells PEOPLE he was Gucci in a past life. "I actually was," he says with confidence.
**********
-
Sriram,
https://people.com/parents/boy-says-he-was-gucci-past-life-goes-viral-dressmaking-exclusive/
**********
While most first-graders couldn't name the founder of Gucci — let alone know anything about him — 7-year-old Max Alexander believes he has a deep connection to the famed designer.
Max, a dressmaking prodigy who has been designing and creating clothes since he was 4 years old, tells PEOPLE he was Gucci in a past life. "I actually was," he says with confidence.
It seems your gullibility knows no bounds. Could I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
-
I believe in reincarnation and find the idea plausible. This is not a science forum that I have to provide evidence and a thorough analysis for everything I write.
-
Sriram,
I believe in reincarnation and find the idea plausible. This is not a science forum that I have to provide evidence and a thorough analysis for everything I write.
And I believe in leprechauns and find the idea plausible. The difference between us though is that I dont post idiotic attempts to justify my belief.
-
You are free to justify them if you believe in them. I for one will not keep badgering you for evidence.
-
Sriram,
You are free to justify them if you believe in them. I for one will not keep badgering you for evidence.
You've missed the point. I'm not claiming to have evidence. You on the other hand are, only your "evidence" turns out to be idiotic.
-
I never claimed anything as scientific evidence. These are cases that make the idea plausible. They add to the belief. Many people accept it as evidence, many don't. So what?
-
Sriram,
I never claimed anything as scientific evidence. These are cases that make the idea plausible. They add to the belief. Many people accept it as evidence, many don't. So what?
No, but you think a four-year-old kid who's heard of a fashion designer and has a penchant for clothes design is evidence for reincarnation of some kind. It isn't, and they don't make the idea plausible at all - do I really need to explain to you why that is?
-
You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn. Now...why are you getting all hot and bothered because of that?
-
You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn.
As I said on the other thread (and you ignored, as you do anything you find challenging):-
No you don't have to explain anything, but you keep on presenting these 'ideas' as if they were thought out, intellectually and even scientifically justifiable. Your whole blog is set up like that too, not only your posts here. It's not a good look when it all collapses into blind faith and ignoring the evidence as soon as you get challenged.
You're basically trying to spread misinformation.
-
You don't need to explain anything. I believe in reincarnation and accept the possibility of the boy having been reborn. Now...why are you getting all hot and bothered because of that?
In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.
Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.
-
In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.
Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.
Courtiers reply, a name which stems from the Hans Christian Anderson fable about a naked King.
Who or what is naked here. What clothes are they lacking?
-
In that case, Sriram, you believe in, and are peddling, woo: you've often said that what you believe is different from religions, and I think you are dead wrong - reincarnation is just a preposterous as dead men not staying dead.
Your beliefs are not justified by either method or evidence and can, therefore, be dismissed just as easily as, say, the beliefs of Christians in miracles - it's all magical and wishful thinking, often dressed up in the form of a Courtier's Reply.
In your opinion it is 'woo' (whatever that means). Not according to me. I consider it a valid hypothesis for which there is ample evidence in terms of documented cases (Jim Tucker).
And reincarnation is a philosophical concept independent of religions....though religions may also teach reincarnation.
-
Sriram,
In your opinion it is 'woo' (whatever that means). Not according to me. I consider it a valid hypothesis for which there is ample evidence in terms of documented cases (Jim Tucker).
Only if your stretch the phrase “valid hypothesis” to include any notion that happens to pop into your head no matter how incoherent, non-cogent, and reason- and evidence-free.
And reincarnation is a philosophical concept independent of religions....though religions may also teach reincarnation.
What “philosophy” do you think supports such an outlandish claim? Or are you now also stretching that term to includes include any notion that happens to pop into your head no matter how incoherent, non-cogent, and reason- and evidence-free?
-
I know you have problems with Eastern philosophies. At least check out Plato and Pythagoras.
-
Sriram,
I know you have problems with Eastern philosophies.
No, you don't know that at all. What I do have a "problem" with though is people dishonestly spreading reason- and evidence-denying woo and pretending that it's not reason- and evidence-denying woo by ignoring the arguments that explain why it's reason- and evidence-denying woo.
At least check out Plato and Pythagoras.
As you apper not to have read anything much I suspect I've "checked out" both more rigorously than you have.