Author Topic: Article on reincarnation  (Read 5752 times)

enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3110
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2018, 02:29:30 PM »

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.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2018, 02:42:01 PM »
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
Intelligence in Evolution

In particular my summary:
The problem is that these guys (Watson and Szathmáry) wrote an opinion paper 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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 02:44:27 PM by Stranger »
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2018, 03:03:40 PM »
...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...?
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31835
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2018, 03:06:18 PM »
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

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2018, 03:19:54 PM »


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. 

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #105 on: February 10, 2018, 03:30:51 PM »
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.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #106 on: February 10, 2018, 03:34:38 PM »

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.


Harrowby Hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #107 on: February 10, 2018, 04:00:53 PM »
... 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.
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #108 on: February 10, 2018, 04:19:23 PM »
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.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8411
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #109 on: February 13, 2018, 07:09:53 AM »
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.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #110 on: February 13, 2018, 10:04:53 AM »
'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.

ekim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3640
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #111 on: February 13, 2018, 10:06:29 AM »
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'.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4722
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #112 on: February 13, 2018, 10:22:24 AM »

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.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #113 on: February 13, 2018, 10:52:58 AM »
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!

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #114 on: February 13, 2018, 11:29:07 AM »
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).
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #115 on: February 13, 2018, 11:33:31 AM »
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.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4722
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #116 on: February 13, 2018, 11:46:56 AM »


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.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8411
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #117 on: February 13, 2018, 01:21:11 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 01:24:35 PM by torridon »

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #118 on: February 13, 2018, 01:54:54 PM »
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.


Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #119 on: February 13, 2018, 02:00:25 PM »
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.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #120 on: February 13, 2018, 02:26:15 PM »
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.

x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4722
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #121 on: February 13, 2018, 02:42:36 PM »


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 ......

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24978
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #122 on: February 13, 2018, 02:46:01 PM »


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?
''Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice- stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband''             David Cameron

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6069
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #123 on: February 13, 2018, 02:46:27 PM »
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.

 

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Article on reincarnation
« Reply #124 on: February 13, 2018, 03:43:35 PM »
Memetics is a pseudoscience isn't it?

No, it's a meme.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))