Printable View
I do because of the scientific theory "Energy can not be created nor destroyed" and our souls are energy. That makes me think of life after death.
and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that
the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (:
Moved to Extended discussion
I believe I'll find out sooner or later, or maybe not...
:-)
Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul?
Science is great! BUT... How much does science really know about what we call energy? And since everything there is, is considered to be energy. How do we know where it begin or where it ends when we messure it? So if we take the smalest energy form we know of. How could we really know that, thats the smalest energy form there is. Maybe its one of the bigger strucktures of energy form compared to all there is in the universe.Quote:
Science does not assign energy to souls, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics doesn't really make sense. How many joules are in a soul?
Well, since "things" seems to repeat them selfs.. Then I do belive in reincarnation.:)Quote:
DO YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION? why or why not?
Although I do believe that souls exist in some Hermetic way, I have to agree with Denziloe. Thermodynamics probably do not apply to either religion nor the occult, and referring to the law of conservation of energy as a 'theory', is, although technically correct, pretty painful for the ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
So we should not go for the pain even if it is technically correct? It is to painful maybe?;)Quote:
referring to the law of conservation of energy as a 'theory', is, although technically correct, pretty painful for the ears.
No, he means painful in the sense that using the argument that it is a "theory" in the context of the word that is used in regular speech as opposed to the scientific definition is both irritating and inaccurate. "It's only a theory" is both very ignorant and an argument that is abused. The idea that we technically do not call something a "fact" (which, I mean, how can we ever be sure of anything or call anything a fact, by your logic?) means it is false or has a large probability of being wrong is a logical fallacy. Gravity is just a theory too. Man, I guess it means we can't measure it's influence on other objects or tell if it exists or not, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamyBear
A)Science knows as much as we are able to observe, test, measure, and understand about energy as human beings so far. It is our collective and collaborative knowledge on its existence. I would rather side with that knowledge because it has stringent and rigorous procedures set in place to make sure the observations and conclusions we come to on the subject are as objective as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamyBear
B)You are assuming that souls exist.
The idea that "Things repeat themselves, so you will repeat life again" has no such procedures put in place and relies on the loftiest of assumptions that can be made. What are these "things" that repeat themselves? How are they all related? Why does their (possible) correlation to life mean that your life will be reincarnated? For that matter, can the soul be measured? How are we sure that a soul even exists? ...and somehow science's knowledge on energy and the rest of the universe is less believable to you than your "theory" on reincarnation? I simply can't follow your logic there.
Now, here are my opinions on reincarnation. I am open to the idea that it is possible. I don't believe it can be falsified or tested for, however, and realize that any ideas on the subject are not only just speculation, but could likely even just be creative imagination. There is nothing solid whatsoever to go off of on the subject, so trying to defend your belief in the subject makes no sense to me. Say that you have faith that it does, like that somebody could have faith that God exists. I don't have a problem with that, because it is a truthful statement without flawed logic being your reason for believing. What I have a problem with is grasping at any little straws you can to hold on to the idea, to prove it's legitimacy and why you believe in it. It's ignorant and there's no two ways about that. There's no matter of wording or explanation a person can come up with that will lead me to believe science is inherently flawed and completely speculative and can even be ignored, but that one's personal beliefs on something like reincarnation based on things that are almost completely random and unrelated (or the connection is only significant to you) makes more sense and is preferable/more plausible. The lack of sense that makes to me is almost stunning.
I take issue with the use of the term "soul," but I understand your point. But the First Law of Thermodynamics does not extend to being able to maintain consciousness, or all of our experiences, personality traits, and idiosyncrasies that are stored in our brain. All of those seem to be irreversibly lost at death.Quote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
We can't explain ghosts and/or spirits, because they require a suspension of the laws of physics while simultaneously playing fast and loose with biology to become believable. Besides, most instances of ghost or spirit sightings are easily debunked anyway.Quote:
and how do we explain ghosts and spirits ? their energy and people have constantly had experiences with them. I think that
the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb. I really do believe in reincarnation and think that in the future more people will too (:
No.
1. There is no evidence that souls exist.
2. Even if they did there is no reason to think they would stay intact after death.
3. Even if they did, there is no reason to think they gets absorbed into another person.
4. Even if they did, there is no reason to think that it passes any sort of information or meaning to the new person.
Also, even if you wanted to assume a soul was energy, energy can change form and that pretty much screws you since you will most likely end up as some form of energy outside the human body. Also, can a lightning bolt reincarnate as a person?
It's a shame Science doesn't know all there is to life right? They never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
Yes I absolutely do. It just makes logical sense to me. There are so many cases of people who say they can remember their previous life on earth and the details they remember have been confirmed, with it being impossible for the person to know.
3-Year-Old Claims To Remember Who Killed Him In Past Life, Leads Police To Body
Wow (!!!) IHadADreamWhereQuote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
That is a piece of deep thinking,
Quote:
I think that the 'light' we see during death is the light we see coming out of our new mothers womb.
So
I "friended" you.
How old r u IHadADreamWhere ?
Again, this is a logical fallacy, known as ad ignorantiam.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneUp
You might say, "wait, that means your argument is wrong too!" Not so, because I admit that there is a possibility of it existing. Any way you cut it though, which is the more sensible set of beliefs? The ones based on evidence (phenomenon doesn't exist), or the ones that exist in your dreams and imagination (phenomenon exists)? One of the two options has a significantly higher chance of actually being true, I'll let you guess which option that is.Quote:
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
Oh boy, another "It DOES" "It DOES NOT" argument.
Science only knows what it knows right now. It doesn't know what it will know tomorrow. But it knows, what it didn't know yesterday.
Not once did I say that reincarnation is real nor did I believe in it. You're wrong for putting words into my mouth. You debaters tend to do that quite frequently. All I said was that science does not have the answers to everything, and it never will. Nice try buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Science has nothing to contribute to this question except for "there is no evidence for reincarnation". I don't believe in reincarnation because there is no evidence to support it happening.
If reincarnation existed, sex would really attract spirits!
It's rather clear that your belief is based on faulty logic. Nothing you said would require reincarnation to be true. No offense is intended, but I encourage you to be more critical and logical in your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
Personally, I believe reincarnation is possible, especially after several out of body experiences in which I've gained insight into what may possibly be some of my past lives. However, I do not believe reincarnation is a fact simply because of these experiences. There are several other plausible explanations for these experiences which, in being honest, I must consider as possibilities.
The question is, how does the belief in reincarnation serve you? How is this belief of benefit in your life?
Haha, imo that would suck, I mean after I die I'd like to have some time to explore other worlds, not just "oops I'm dying" *5 seconds later pops out of new mommy* Welp, I'm back xDQuote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
I think reincarnation is a possibility, one of many.
There is also the possibility of the "simultaneous multiple incarnation" reincarnation theory, in which the Higher Self simultaneously sends out multiple "probes" (us) into various points in space/time depending on what it desires or needs to experience and learn. "Our" past lives are not actually experiences of our individuated consciousness personality (our human personality/consciousness), but are the experiences of other aspects of our Higher Self, other individuals (probes) who are connected to us through the Higher Self but are unique personalities, and thus we share all of the experiences through our larger consciousness (the Higher Self) even though we only experience our own lifetime first hand. After death we eventually shed our egos and return to/become one with our Higher Self, and from this state all of the life experiences of the other individual consciousnesses are effectively our own, even though it wasn't "us"(the little us) who lived them.
Just a theory found to be true by some out of body explorers.
I know how to read between the lines Snoop, so no worries there if there was some. What Im saying is just what Im saying. And what you seem to ask me seems to come from a point of view where many assumptions is made out of what I said earlier. If I ask: Is it to painful maybe? And you answear:Yes/No, it is anoying and irritating. Then thats a perfect simple answear to that. I might ask you why it is irritating or anoying. And I could assume that is because you want to discuss within the frame of theories. And that could of course be somewhat hard if someone doesnt play by the rules by asking questions which could potentially shake the agreed facts within any theory there is.Quote:
No, he means painful in the sense that using the argument that it is a "theory" in the context of the word that is used in regular speech as opposed to the scientific definition is both irritating and inaccurate. "It's only a theory" is both very ignorant and an argument that is abused. The idea that we technically do not call something a "fact" (which, I mean, how can we ever be sure of anything or call anything a fact, by your logic?) means it is false or has a large probability of being wrong is a logical fallacy. Gravity is just a theory too. Man, I guess it means we can't measure it's influence on other objects or tell if it exists or not, right?
This is the main theme for our discussion at this point right now, and that is also why I see no point in pointing out anything more than this right now. Im not assuming that you CAN'T follow my logic, because Im very sure you could if you really wanted it enough. But you just dont want to understand it enough, as I see it. And Im not even interested to argueing what you belive or not belive, because it becomes obvious why you asking what you ask because I can follow what your saying from your point of view. I think Gab pretty much nailed it all withQuote:
I simply can't follow your logic there.
However, I have a feeling that this discussion will reincarnate..;)Quote:
Science only knows what it knows right now. It doesn't know what it will know tomorrow. But it knows, what it didn't know yesterday.
As I mention I don't believe in reincarnation since there is really no evidence at all, and honestly it is a pretty far fetch scenario that makes little sense. That said, there is two scenarios that I think reincarnation is possible, though I still don't think it is very likely.
1. We live in some kind of simulation. If true, they could basically save your brain pattern as data and then even after you die you can come back. This would allow for all sort of crazy reincarnation stuff.
2. Theoretically if time was really infinite and space is actually large enough there exists some possibility, some very very unlikely possibility that after you die at some point in the future your brain will be spontaneously reconstructed with all your memories. I have no idea of time is infinite it might not be. However, if there really is such a thing as an infinite amount of time, then even extremely unlikely events may eventually happen.
Considering those two things though, neither seem to happen, at least on earth. There isn't evidence that people die and come back in the next generation or anything like that.
But Alric, there is evidence. It is subjective evidence, but evidence nonetheless, and should not be disregarded simply because it is not corroborated by mainstream science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
And for the sake of those who may erroneously jump to conclusions and think that I am saying that this evidence proves reincarnation, understand that I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that it raises the possibility.
It's certainly not a theory in scientific terms, and "out of body explorers" sounds about as rigorously defined and supported as reincarnation does, which is to say, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
If subjective evidence (by which I assume you mean person anecdotes) is taken to be evidence at all (it usually isn't; the plural of anecdote is not data), then it is the weakest form of evidence possible. Probably so weak that it's not even worth considering.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Sounds like a good start to begin formulating a theory. I wonder where this thought may lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
OP asked a question in the thread title,The answer is complicated. Yes I believe in reincarnation. Simply because it is on my mind. I think of the possibility and I think of the consequences of this thought. I believe those who deny it are missing out. It's a genuine field.Quote:
DO YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION? why or why not?
These are the definitions I am using:Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.
Evidence: ground for belief or disbelief.
Subjective evidence: evidence that one cannot evaluate; personal experience.
Out of body explorers: individuals who engage in the practice of projecting their consciousness into nonphysical dimensions of experience.
Hope that clears things up. :)
If those are your definitions, then your posts contain generally useless information (ex. evidence one cannot evaluate; projecting consciousness into nonphysical dimensions). Thanks for clearing it up, though.
Well aren't you just a sweetheart! :kiss:Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
My post does exactly what it was meant to do, just as it was meant to do it. That is, it serves as a reminder that there are individuals who have had personal experiences which may indicate that reincarnation is more than just a myth.
There is a reason why personal testimony is an acceptable form of evidence in the court of law. It is far from useless. It would be dishonest and closed-minded to write off an experience as false or delusion simply because it takes place in another reality frame, especially when the findings have been corroborated with the experiences of many others.
Again, I'm not saying that any of this proves reincarnation in any way. I'm simply saying that in the very least it demands that the theory be taken into consideration as a possibility. I disagree that it is useless to encourage others to be open-minded by sharing information that would logically necessitate a degree of open-mindedness. What seems useless is making a point to label the information that I've shared as useless, particularly when one lacks personal experience and insight into the subject matter.
The reality is that the brain IS like a reducing valve for whatever is out there. This is undeniable, it is limited by the senses.
There is more to reality. And 'science' is the measuring of what is 'out there' by using nothing mroe than the brain's senses and some extension of it. That and intuition of consciousness.
Outer body experiences may experience a vaster world than science hence is out of this realm.
What does "it takes place in another reality frame" even mean?
My belief now on reincarnation is that it cannot happen because there are no new bodies to incarnate into. Instead, if you want to experience something new, you organize to merge with the embryo of a lifeform that lived the experience you want to have.
What evidence or data do you have that indicates "there are no new bodies to incarnate into?" There are over 300,000 new births per day!Quote:
Originally Posted by EbbTide000
VinceFieldQuote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
I came online on Saturday 1-March-2008 after waking from an astonishing dream. Dr Robert Van De Castle (my signature) began emailing, phoning, and skiping with me. I was brand-spanking-new to the online international dream community on Saturday 1-March-2008. As a result of being brand-spanking-new to the dream community and working with the legendary BobV, I took for granted that what was happening between us was the norm for all dreamers, everywhere.
In short
Psi-dreaming happens because ... it's all over. You and I are one being and based in the deep future, where oganic life is ancient history.
So
When people like you and I try to dream together, we merge and come into contact with what came into being at the end of time.
From the perspective of the end of time, what's happening, in the world now, is fully known, as ancient history. Causing precognitive dreaming, remote viewing dreaming, share and mutual dreaming and finaly, astonishing waking-life synchronicities.
The waking-life synchronicities are, when we (you and I) of the deep-future, comunicate, through waking-life coincidences.
Those
300,000 new births per day!
Lived there lives billions of years before the BigBeing was born. The explosion of the Big Being's birth gave all bodies from Big Bang till the BigBeing's birth, eternal life. Before the BigBeing exploded into being (at the end of time), life was just biological (soulless) machinery. And when we died we were totally gone. There was no soul or after life.
The only way this can be proven is by (continually) collecting data from experiments like this.
***
http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...-reloaded.html
***
Our waking-life is the BigBeing's (and our deep-future Selves) Lucid Dream .
The reason no one will play my dream game is because I have a mental illness (Discociative Disorder with Imaginative Reconstruction and Borderline Personality) and they fear that if they participate, I'll go crazy and have to go to hospital or something. And they don't want that on there conscience.
That wouldn't happen (I won't go crazy). I hope, one day, folks will be brave and give it a try.
Learn to read between the words my brother :alien:Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
Why should I have to read between words? Just speak plainly.
VinceField said "What evidence or data do you have that indicates "there are no new bodies to incarnate into?" There are over 300,000 new births per day!"
...and that's before we take into consideration the fact that we don't neccessarily have to reincarnate back to this planet...there are billions out there and, given the possibility of infinite Universes, the sky could well be the limit.
IMO there are 3 main possibilities
1. We die...that's it. Maybe that is it...
2. We die and go to heaven (not for me really)
3.The Buddhist approach...we die (or rather our body does) and we shed our current persona and revert to our skylike mind...and we are reborn. I've been mulling this question for most of my 70 years and last year I latched onto lucid dreaming (not very well and not very often) I heard about melatonin etc and then I heard about the pineal gland and DMT.
I watched the Rick Strassman video https://youtu.be/QIlZWFYGgGc about DMT and I consider it potentially mindblowing. Although there still has to be much more research, I really don't think that his theories can be dismissed out of hand. Certainly the Buddhists have our attention when it comes to Lucid dreams and meditation so we ought to pay some attention when they posit reincarnation as the experience that follows death.
I suppose it really depends what we're doing here at Dream views...are some of us here just for the entertainment value of LD? Surely there are many who see deeper meaning within what we experience during sleep? I've had many mundane fairly meaningless dream...but I've had a few thought-provoking ones that hint at something deeper.
For now at least my money's on reincarnation...and, at 70 I'm studying Buddhist practice to maybe try and prepare for the possibility because I've ingested enough science and astronomy (plus a large spread of other knowledge) to know that the Universe is far, far, far stranger than we can even begin to imagine.
Just holding up for Vince with this really. You seemed to be fixated on finding flaws in his sentence rather than content of his post.
You askedQuote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
"reality frame" in this case seems like a strange word I admit.Quote:
"it takes place in another reality frame"
But when following the conversation it is quite obvious he meant the personal anecdotal area that is not touched by science but actively used in court. the one that deals with objective evidence and frowns upon personal data. Apperantly in this field there is no room for data produced solely by consciousness. I'm not putting words in ur mouth u never quite said that. You actually said it is a lower form of evidence which is fine by me.
I don't mean to get into the discussion so i wanted to let vince answer but the question you asked seemed kind of dull! evoking a response rather than an actual discussion.
Conversations related to topics like this are always filled with vague mumbo-jumbo. You'll have to excuse me if I'm trying to decipher what he says before I can understand what he means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
I agree, there's a lot of vague skitter-billing when discussing these kinds of topics. It is a vague subject though. I can't imagine anyone who actually grasps reincarnation. There's actually some subjective evidence that points to it but it's vague. So anyone claiming to be in the know is especially prone to be deluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
Excuse me for being a little carried away sometimes or lost in detail. I tend to ^^
"Reality frame" is a term that I've picked up from Thomas Campbell, who uses it to describe the various dimensions of reality. The physical dimension is one reality frame or dimension of reality/experience. Dreams take place in another reality frame. OBEs are yet another reality frame/dimension of experience. And there are undoubtedly many many more.
I didn't respond initially because I detected a degree of passive aggressiveness from Descensus and don't care much to engage with that. But it seemed some others didn't quite get what I meant either so I hope that clears it up. I suppose I thought the term was a bit more explanatory than it seems it is, probably because I knew what it meant the first time I heard it. My apologies.
I don't believe anything I've said is unnecessarily vague or "mumbo-jumbo." I always make it a point to be as clear and concise as possible.
What is the difference between a reality which is split into frames and a reality which is not split into frames? And I'm not asking for further definitions, I'm asking for a specific, tangible distinction.
Lovely photo, by the way.
For what it's worth I can definetely see from ur posts that you do this :)Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
LOL the term "frame" is simply an analogy. Reality is not split into frames, but rather it seems to be a gradient or spectrum of interconnected yet different dimensional realms of experience, each existing at a different rate of energetic vibration. Each different level of experience, whether it is the physical world, a dream, or the various dimensions experienced during OBEs, is being considered a "reality frame," as we seem to experience the greater reality one frame or one dimension at a time, although again, reality is not split in this way. It is just a convenient way to describe something that we have no proper words to define.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
And thank you for the kind words. :)
Reincarnation doesnt happen. One lifetime is more than enough. When you die God will raise you from the dead and carry you to heaven or hell, so try to live a righteous life filled with Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
It's a point of view calielizabeth. It's just a pity when we don't preface bald statements like that with the magic abbreviation IMO because that's all it ever is...unless there's sigma 5 scientific proof and God, reincarnation and all other spiritual events are definitely outside that standard, so are mainly down to our personal beliefs and observations. So could I recomend that we all do that to avoid irritating each other? Are we all agreed? IMO from now on?Quote:
Originally Posted by calielizabeth
Attachment 8277
It's great that you're mediating conflicts troublesome to the discussion, but "IMO" not only should be implied but understood considering the topic is "DO YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION? why or why not?" There is no mention of needing to provide an in-depth scientific (or something of a similar nature) explanation to prove what it is that you believe, so it should really be a given that generally nearly everyone that posts is responding with their opinionated belief and that there is going to be a lot of disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeSid
There is a very big difference between testimony about things we all experience any day or could experience any day, or for that matter has been verified to be able to experienced any day. We're talking about things that are plausible and we know that we are capable of, like murder, rape, or assault. You can't use this as total justification for anecdotal evidence. I agree somewhat that you can't simply dismiss it altogether because it's all there is to go by at the moment, but that is far from placing it in the same category as testimony in court. There is a reason why anything not experienced first-hand is known as hearsay in the court of law, and I'm willing to bet that testimony of paranormal experiences or altered states of consciousness isn't likely to be used to pin somebody down for murder, hit and run, assault, or anything else for that matter (if it is even considered at all). I'm not going to say you are flat out wrong and reincarnation is impossible just because of this, but you picked a really bad example man.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Yes, I agree that there is a difference between witnessing a murder and having a nonphysical experience like an OBE or LD, although hallucinations and false perceptions do occur in the physical dimension of experience as well. We probably cannot be absolutely sure if our experiences out of body are valid or simply vivid hallucinations. But my point remains the same that there is a degree of credibility given to perception, and the fact of the possibility of OBEs and LDs being valid experiences in a legitimate greater reality necessitates consideration of these personal testimonies in the out of body state as potential evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Perception is grossly overlooked. My friend accused me of having flawed perception of an event I clearly memorized. I'm fine with flawed perception of a memory but saying the event never had any basis in reality in the first place is taking it one step too far. In the same way, I always wonder how people must view someone that explains a near death experience when the listener presumes the NDE-experiencer is full of shit. Must not be very nice for the storyteller.
I'm open-minded. I'm into shamanism and the spiritual shebang. I believe our best bet for understanding reincarnation is talking to recently deceased dead people. They are contacted in altered states. Subjective experience is all we have to work with but if you can take two independent parties to produce the same myths from going into altered states and talking to dead people. You have some really solid evidence.. This evidence could antagonize reincarnation altogether. But there is no denying the possiblity before excluding every possible angle. I believe we conscious beings have the pMind and the means to unconver deep mysteries like these.
I've thought it through before the scientific method is just as applicable to subjective experience. Measure and repeatability are just as prominent in any subjective experience.
different levels of conscious, dimensions planes of existence. Like where your conscious goes when you dreamQuote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
What do you mean "where your consciousness goes"? Things like this don't make sense to me. The aggregate neuronal connections in your brain aren't going anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by arson519
He didn't say "where your aggregate neuronal connections go," he said "where your consciousness goes." These are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
Has it been proven that consciousness is born from and confined to the brain?
They're really not different things. We have no reason to believe that consciousness isn't tied to the brain and every reason to believe it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Still not conclusive. And even if consciousness is tied to the brain it doesn't have to mean that it is glued to it.
There are many reasons to believe that consciousness is not born from and confined to the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
Near death experiences. Out of body experiences. Remote viewing. Psychic abilities. Past life memories. Paranormal activity.
The idea that something that is (according to science) not conscious (brain matter) can give rise to consciousness is a bit absurd, and again, is nothing more than a scientific belief.
There is reason to believe that there is a correlation between consciousness and the brain. Nothing more.
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by IHadADreamWhere
The light at the end of the tunnel is not seen at death that we know of. It is reported by those who did not die in the final sense. They see the light just before coming back to the physical world. The light is only experienced by the mind, the mind forms in the brain. They are perhaps floating outside of physical reality and then get pulled back here. Then they see that light. It is because they did not die. We will never get first hand reports of true death (for obvious reasons).
Well there you have it. This world is a simulation (wait, IMO) and that makes pretty much everything imaginable with in the realms of science. What? You say neither seems to happen, at least on Earth, well based on what? There is no physical plane in reality, so all physical worlds are simulations. This one is not a simulation of a 'real' one. How could you possibly tell if it is not what is happening on Earth? Luckly gab moved this in the religion section, so I feel ok talking about my belief system here. Hinduism is the primary source where you find reincarnation (Buddhism is branched off of this) and it is probably not a coincidence that we believe both in reincarnation AND that the world is composed of dream matter. Seriously, seeing this as a simulation truly opens up one's mind as far as what makes sense and what is possible. In fact all experience realms will be simulations where the closest metaphor would be "a dream some powerful entity is having in which we are DCs." This includes Heavenly realms and our own dreams. Reincarnation is not the only option, remembering that all realms are simulations, then any religion's expectations for after life are possible. Christians can experience the Heaven they expect and atheists may be given the choice of non-existence (but when they realize it is a choice, I bet they pick something else most of the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So there you have it. The culture that believes in reincarnation also believes in every other option and that this world does not exist in the traditional sense to begin with.
You've listed all things that can be debunked or at the very least placed in the "unreliable testimony" bin.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Observe patients with brain damage and tell me their consciousness isn't affected.
If you throw your radio on the ground ,you will no longer be able to hear the show but that doesn't mean the radio host is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
I've already agreed that there is a connection between consciousness and the brain. Any sensible person knows this. Again, I'm speaking specifically about the idea that the brain gives birth to consciousness. Scientists agree that the matter that the brain consists of is not conscious, and yet they believe that it somehow magically creates consciousness. This is as much of a belief as the ideas that you are combating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
If you encode music on to a CD and break the CD and the player, the music is gone. Consciousness is not analogous to free floating radio waves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitakaro
Well no, they believe it somehow physically creates consciousness. The New Age woo-woo types accept the magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Why is calling it a belief some kind of pejorative?
The belief that the brain somehow physically creates consciousness is just as magical as any other "woo-woo" New Age idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
It's not. Simply establishing that the scientific stance on this issue is just as grounded in belief as any other.Quote:
Why is calling it a belief some kind of pejorative?
I just saw a show in which a noted astrophysicist state we should not try to apply scientific law to that which can not be proven either to exist or not. While fun for debating the process takes away from science.
Either accept certain claims for your own involvent or do not, I have endless info on how such things and the cosmo works, BUT, it is all going to start with my claim that life is like a dream, or even more so like a video game. Think video game: When we agree to play we know we will get killed in the end, but we keep doing it. You do not keep the power-ups, but maybe you remember who you get them. You do not keep the increased attributes you have earned, but you now remember how to best manage such traits and where to get them.
In this ghost of the city of pyramids one will find everything in the real city of pyramids, except in this so called city, one realizes that their world is temporal unlike the real city where those who inhabit there do not realize that there is no city of pyramids.Quote:
Originally Posted by sivason
It's not magical, by definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Still searching for a point here.Quote:
It's not. Simply establishing that the scientific stance on this issue is just as grounded in belief as any other.
Yes, this is how you believe brain-consciousness interaction worksQuote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
but as long nobody of us can present evidence that holds true to the scientific method both our models will remain believes/theories.
You failed to understand me there. In this model the radio waves where not the Consciousness, they where the method of interaction between the radio(brain) and the radio show(Consciousness)Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
(of course it would have to be some form of point-to-point communication like tcp and not something as unrefined as radio-signals but this is not rly important here)
It is just as magical as any other "woo-woo" belief, as it is an unproven assumption. Give it some deep thought and you'll likely realize just how magical the idea that matter lacking any degree of consciousness can give birth to consciousness is. It's David Blaine status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Descensus
It's pretty clear. This is essentially a matter of science vs mystical experience/belief, and in this case, not only is science unable to disprove the mystical side of the argument, but it cannot prove many of it's own ideas either. The point is that believing that consciousness is born from the brain is no more valid a belief than believing that consciousness exists independent of the brain. The fact is that consciousness and the brain are intimately related. That's about all that science has proven. This says nothing about the origin of consciousness, nor it's ability to exist independently of the brain. There are a handful of different areas of experience and study which indicate that it is possible that consciousness is fundamental and physical matter is secondary. I find it best to keep an open mind and not jump to any conclusions.Quote:
Still searching for a point here.
The Catch22 in this whole discussion is that reincarnation may or may not exist but, if the Buddhists are right, all one's past life and humanity is stripped away and the slate seems to be wiped clean ready for the next incarnation so (except for a few unproven claims of past-life) what exists to provide proof one way or the other? So it's really only down to personal beliefs...and Snoop is right...the question was do we believe or not, so IMO is really superfluous to this debate I suppose.
P.S. Strassman's recorded venous DMT trips also talk about the "stripping away" of one's humanity, a layer at a time.
P.P.S. If Strassman is right about the importance of the pineal gland's DMT role at the point of death, the gland first appears in the developing fetus at around 49 days...the ancient Tibetan Book of the Dead records that the period between death and reincarnation is around 49 days...
As I said before, I'll stick with that line of research for a while...
...
I think that in order to answer this question we will first need to know exactly where consciousness comes from.
The way I see it, there is no real reason for a brain to make someone feel alive and conscious, it could have easily been a working organ without causing consciousness to an individual.
So where did this consciousness originally come from?
Why does an active brain result in someone feeling aware of the environment?
Also, one pretty interesting point is this:
what is it that says that our current life is a "first and last time" we became alive?
What were we doing until our birth?
The natural answer would be "nothing, since we weren't alive".
But couldn't this happen again at some point in the future, so that after we have died, we might enter another body and be born the same way again?
I see no problems in that, but it would be cool to learn more about this.
Reincarnation? Well, I don't believe in it.
You can talk all the "consciousness is something transcendental that would stay the same after death and go live again in another body" like you've actually got any clue, but this seems like shooting in the dark. It's especially funny that not understanding consciousness means the proposed transcendental suggestion would be true. Even if it can't be physical, and must be transcendental, what then? We don't know what that means. We can't just say it means spirits or god or realms or what not. We can't even be sure we can logic it anyways. Forget about this being speculations, you don't even know if you can use common sense on something that doesn't work using physical laws that our logic only understands. Yeah, c'mon, say "prove that logic only works in the real world" like you've tried it in transcendental matters then tested it and got similar results. Untested logic barely even work with science and the real world! Put a scientists in a volt for years and he'll come up with nothing. He needs to test to even confirm his steps are right. And speculations like these come along with people flying banners of gap arguments and speculative hypothesis shouting as if they're talking proven stuff. At most, this should just be "what would you imagine the ToE might be?"
I hope I'm not coming out as rude. I just want to point out this, that's all.
I feel like some of it may be directed at me. Which I would find unpleasurable. Considering I want to make a new thread of my thoughts on Reincarnation and would appreciate not to be ridiculed for my ideas.
Wait, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been so disrespectful. I'm sure you only meant to share and receive regarding reincarnation, and not be putting it as a scientific statement or something to receive scientific criticism. (I think you're not proposing it as fact)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
But if I got it wrong, and you are proposing it as a fact, then my statement still stands but o/c I don't mean any ridiculing or anything like that. I'm just criticizing the idea of reincarnation's plausibility given the evidence for it.
Again though, I'm sorry if I was rude, please forgive me.
I'm probably being oversensitive ^^
You say that about a scientist that needs to do tests to confirm his steps. As if his logic is bound to be flawed and need to be tested but Einstein did his work solely in his messy office and only got verified years after he died. And a lot of it got verified. You see, logic works here if you can apply it. In the same way we can apply logic to the transcendental. It woulden't be a fact without testing it but the possibility is there.Quote:
Forget about this being speculations, you don't even know if you can use common sense on something that doesn't work using physical laws that our logic only understands. Yeah, c'mon, say "prove that logic only works in the real world" like you've tried it in transcendental matters then tested it and got similar results. Untested logic barely even work with science and the real world! Put a scientists in a volt for years and he'll come up with nothing. He needs to test to even confirm his steps are right.
Simply put. Admitting that consciousness is an unsolved problem is required to admit that the possibility of a spiritual solution is an open book. When discussing consciousness this seems at the least fair. :P
Well in most cases experiments show a step is wrong, then the scientist needs to work it out again until he gets to the right step. Experimenting is very important.
Well o/c us being able to logic the trancendental is a possibility, if we ever find it exists. And since there are still gaps when it comes to the science of human consciousness, we can't claim for sure that it's surely materialistic. Though even if it turns out to be the first time we actually conclude that there must be more than material to it, if such transcendence occurs, then that would open a whole new world of possibilities. I would imagine that it would bring facts we never even imagined before. I mean, forget about spirits or souls or whatever, much more amazing things might be discovered, things we couldn't even imagine.
O/c IF such thing happened, but I would bet it'll turn out materialistic. I'm just weary of saying it would be transcendental since we only hear about that in religious stories or philosophy.
O/c I'm open to it, but I wouldn't put much hope on it. Don't get me wrong, the idea of transcendence and afterlife appeals to me. I really wish there would be much more to our existence. I mean I love my life, but more is better. But I can only hope. These things seriously only lead to disappointments, they never turn out to be more than stories :(
It's not helped by the fact so little research seems to be done. Rick Strassman's DMT experiment ended in 1995 and I can't currently find anyone who seems to be really pushing it forward. Mind you, I get the same feeling about Stephen LaBerge and dream research.Quote:
Originally Posted by LouaiB
Anyone here ever read Dr. Ian Stevenson reincarnation research? It's really stunning and surprised not many people know about it.
Ian Stevenson, MD Child Reincarnation Stories, Walter Semkiw, MD Reincarnation Expert & Ian Stevenson Advocate
NeverOnce, thank you
This months Australian Readers Digest's cover story is titled "Unlocking the mystery of Past Lives. What children can tell us about reincarnation". Page 32 to 38.
Paragraph 2 on page 35 reads:
"For more 45 years, a team at the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia (UVA) has been collecting stories of people who can recall their past lives. (...)"
I only mention the artical in this months Reader's Digest (May 2015) because it is a synchronicity. I havn't bought Reader's Digest in years. I don't usually even notice it but two weeks ago I did and parted with nearly $7.
♡Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverOnce
Here is the article in NeverOnce's link:
The Reincarnation Research of*Ian Stevenson, MD
of the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies
Advances in Reincarnation Research: A Tribute to Ian Stevenson, MD, by Walter Semkiw, MD
A Presentation for the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE)
Dr. Ian Stevenson, MD, who died in 2007, served as Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the*University of Virginia, School of Medicine. *He was also honored as the Carlson Professor of Psychiatry at that institution.* For forty years, Dr. Stevenson investigated children who spontaneously remember past lives that could be factually validated. *He chose to only study children as he reasoned that children were unlikely to fabricate past life memories.* In total, Dr. Stevenson studied almost 2500 children who reported past life memories.* In approximately 1200 of these cases, Dr. Stevenson was able to objectively validate the child's past life memories.
Most of*Stevenson's cases come from Asia, India or other areas where the doctrine of reincarnation is accepted. In locations where reincarnation is not an accepted belief system, it is thought that parents inhibit a child’s expression of past-life memories. The childhood cases studied by Ian Stevenson have a common pattern, marked by the following features:
1.*As soon as the child can communicate, the child starts to describe a previous lifetime. Often, the child declares that his or her name is different from the name given to the child by its biologic parents. The child insists that the current family is not its true family, but that his or her real family lives in a different village or town. The child remembers the names of various family members and geographic locations from the past lifetime. Physical features of the past life house and neighborhood may be recalled.
2. The child remembers details of its death in the prior lifetime. In approximately 50 percent of Dr. Stevenson’s childhood reincarnation cases, a violent or premature death occurred in the previous lifetime. Dr. Stevenson has found that individuals who died of traumatic wounds, such as bullet or knife wounds, often are born in a subsequent incarnation with birthmarks or scars that mirror the wounds incurred in the past lifetime. In the contemporary lifetime, the child may have a phobia related to the cause of death in the past life.
3. Based on information provided by the child to the biologic family, the child’s family from the prior incarnation is eventually identified. When the child meets this family for the first time, the child is able to identify family members by name or by relationship. The child often knows family secrets that only members of the prior family would know. As a result, the family from the past lifetime often accepts the child as the reincarnation of their deceased relative.
The biologic parents of the child in the current incarnation often fear that the child will leave them for the family from the prior incarnation, as the mutual bond between the child and past life family becomes so strong. This fear turns out to be unwarranted, as the bond between the child and the contemporary parents endures. A long-term relationship, though, typically ensues between the child and family from the prior lifetime.
4. Personality traits, personal preferences, and habits often persist from one incarnation to another.
5. Gender*usually stays the same.* In 90 percent of Dr. Stevenson’s cases, the child returns assuming the same sex as in the past lifetime. Thus, in ten percent of cases, gender is reversed from one lifetime to another. The observation that gender only changes in 10 percent of*reincarnation cases can bring insights on homosexuality, transsexuallism and gender identity problems.
6.*Physical appearance is similar from one lifetime to another
Stevenson cases show that physical appearance can remain the same from one incarnation to another. Two cases in particular dramatically demonstrate how facial*features can remain consistent from one lifetime to another.**Ian Stevenson studied*Suzanne Ghanem*and*Daniel Jurdiin the late 1960's,*when they were small children.* Photographs of these individuals from their prior incarnations were available.* Stevenson revisited Suzanne and Daniel in 1998 and found that*these two people, now full grown adults, had the same facial features as in their past incarnations.**These cases were published in Tom Shroder's book,*Old Souls. Two other Ian Stevenson reincarnation cases, in which photo comparison's are available (and provided to the right) that demonstrate similar facial features involve:*Burmese Twins
In his book,*Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Dr. Stevenson advised that researchers*systematically study “facial resemblances between subjects and previous personalities.”
To review other Stevenson case with similar appearance, go to:*Ian Stevenson, MD Reincarnation Cases with Physical Resemblance
7.*Relationships are renewed through reincarnation
As noted above, Stevenson cases that demonstrate physical resemblance involves*Burmese twins, who were sisters in their past lifetimes.* They were part of astudy involving 31 sets of twins, whose past lives were objectively validated. In 100% of these cases, the twins had significant past life relationships, concretely demonstrating that souls plan lifetimes to be reunited with loved ones through reincarnation.
Society for Scientific Exploration
I also would like to share that I had the opportunity to visit Dr. Stevenson at the Univeristy of Virginia at Charlottesville in the year 2001.* He was a very gracious host and he*spent an entire day with me.* I was very honored that at the conclusion of my visit, he offered to sponsor me for membership in the*Society for Scientific Exploration, an academic organization that he co-founded. I did join the SSE and I highly recommend this organization.
The world owes a great debt to Dr. Stevenson for the important work he did over his long career.* IISIS hopes to build upon his contributions and as a gesture of respect and acknowledgement, a posthumous**IISIS Award*has been given to Dr. Stevenson.*Reincarnation research continues at the University of Virginia under the guidance of*Jim Tucker, MD.
It should be noted that Dr. Stevenson wrote in a very academic style as his target audience was fellow scientists.* On the IISIS website, his past life cases are presented as*reincarnation stories*to make his academic work easier to understand. For those interested in appreciating the*scientific rigor of his research, such as his use of multiple witnesses to establish corroborated testimony, please refer to the original reports written by Dr. Ian Stevenson.
Web Site:*University of Virginia, Division of Perceptual Studies
To be honest this is the only thing I "believe" that is related to religion/spirituality. I have this blind faith about soul/consciousness continuing after life and I could swear reincarnation exists. Even for me it is funny to read what I just typed, I can't help but think it is stupid to "claim" knowledge. But I just "know" and I can't help it. :rolllaugh:
Now overthinking and analyzing myself I came up with these,
I CLAIM KNOWLEDGE ON REINCARNATION BEING THE TRUE AFTERLIFE SCENARIO BECAUSE,
1. It gives my heart a warm, safe, beautiful feeling and it feels like "I'm home".
2. It gives my heart a warm, safe, beautiful feeling and it feels like "I'm home".
3. It gives my heart a warm, safe, beautiful feeling and it feels like "I'm home".
This subject is not open to logical reasoning or experiments. This is a matter of "belief". And if one digs deeper, might get close to finding out why she "prefers" to believe in what she believes in.
Not true, there has been credible scientific research that shows that reincarnation exists by Dr. Ian Stevenson, I suggest you read itQuote:
Originally Posted by figurefly
Ian Stevenson, MD Child Reincarnation Stories, Walter Semkiw, MD Reincarnation Expert & Ian Stevenson Advocate
One thing that is open to logical reasoning is belief. Beliefs give rise to warm, safe, beautiful feelings generally when they provide comfort to the ego. It has little to do with truth and more to do with the ego's attachments, desires, and aversions. The thought of reincarnation may give another person the complete opposite feeling if they have aversion to the idea of living another life on earth. Again, this feeling has little to do with the truth of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by figurefly
Is it peer reviewed?? Cuz there are lots of bs scientists tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverOnce
This is exactly why we call it "belief" and not "knowledge".Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
I was commenting on the statement "I claim knowledge on reincarnation...." and your statement that the subject is not open to reasoning. I believe that beliefs should always be held up to the scrutiny of logic and critical reasoning. Otherwise one is simply deluding oneself. In this case, that means accepting both possibilities for and against the existence of reincarnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by figurefly
I don't believe in reincarnation because it seems incompatable with the world as I know it, the laws of nature as I know them and I have never seen or heard or read anything that suggested that reïncarnation is possible.
There is a wide array of evidence which suggests that reincarnation is not just possible, but probable. Some of it is even posted right here in this thread! Education defeats ignorance!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
We had a long discussion in another thread and I didn't like it, and I'm not going to do it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Are these studies peer reviewed??Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
My point was that not being informed of something does not excuse acting like it doesn't exist, especially in our current Google era when almost any information you can think of is a click away. This is why you go to jail for committing a crime whether or not you knew the act was illegal. I'm simply encouraging research and acquiring knowledge before jumping to conclusions about something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Some are, some aren't. You can google it! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LouaiB
^^ Well...
A whole lot of misinformation, personal opinion, and decidedly not fact-based theory is also just a click away -- indeed the questionable, anecdotal, and opinion-based stuff is likely the overwhelming majority of content on the internet... so just clicking doesn't necessarily equal informed. Web-based research must be done very carefully, lest the "knowledge" acquired leads us to extremely incorrect conclusions, jumping or not.
Yes, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Much discernment is needed in navigating through it all.
You're right, I haven't done much research so I acknowledge my immaturity, ignorance or unwillingness to learn or whatever you want to call it.
Just like I haven't spent much time researching Zeus, the existence of aliens (especially those that visited the earth), ECK (a divine spirit from a religion founded by John Paul Twitchell in 1965, Las Vegas), Krishna, Brahman, the gods of the Mayan religion, Cronus, Rea, the existence of demigods and probably hundreds of other gods and godlike figures, my unwillingness to learn about things also extends to the existence of the Yeti, Vampires, Werewolves, the Eastern Bunny, Santa Claus, dragons, the Loch Ness monster, Ghosts, psychic powers that many mystical guru's are claimed to have by MILLIONS of followers.
I think you get the point. In defense of aliens and Vampires, Vampires make for great fiction and aliens are possibly quite fascinating creatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouaiB
Spoiler for Uuuhhhh....:
Sure, you're not interested in such things. There is nothing wrong with that. My point is that until you do research these things, you lack the knowledge to form an accurate belief about them. Without this knowledge, you are left with little more than preconceptions and misconceptions. Of course, it may not be all that important to know about most of these things, but I would surely be discreet in voicing my opinions about them without being informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
The fact that I have never come across any reason that I found compelling enough to believe that these things exist, convinces me to rule out their existence and be confident that there is no reason to research it. And I won't change my mind about it until I come across such a reason.
Do you think that these things and dozens, maybe hundreds of simlar things to the things I listed are likely to exist? Do you think that there might be an invisible untouchable unsmellable undectable monster in your closet that will only be detectable when it decides to eat you exists? If not, it's probably not because you have spent time researching this possibility.
How could you come across a reason when you have never looked into it, and how will you ever come across such a reason when you presume that there is no reason to research it to begin with? Are you expecting to see that stuff on the 6 o'clock news?! Do you see the flaw in your logic here? You're doing things backwards. Only by researching will you know if there is a reason to believe that these things are possible. Until then, like I said before, you are trusting your preconceptions and misconceptions (these two usually go hand in hand), which is never a better choice than educating oneself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Personally, I've had enough extraordinary experiences and come across some compelling evidence for things which I would have never believe were possible had I not done research and put in a little effort to provide the insight that nothing should be rejected out of hand.
No. I do no expect to find it on the 6 o'clock news. And for your information, I do not watch the 6 o'clock news or any o'clock news or any news for that matter. With the exception of this case: someone happened to start the television, open a channel where the news programme is being broadcast and I happened to be there, then I will obviously be watching the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
Spoiler for I'm sorry. What I actually meant to say was......:
