Ian Stevenson and his studies on reincarnation.

[George-ananda]

Well when it comes to reincarnation specifically, I have a problem with that too (surprise!).

I haven't read much of Ian Stevenson specifically, but I assume reincarnation is that the soul of a person has lived as the soul of someone else before. And after I die, my soul can be reborn or reincarnated in someone else.

I would recommend as you seem interested in these topics that you acquaint yourself with Ian Stevenson’s work. One problem with your theorizing below is that it doesn’t match the real world evidence of work like Stevenson’s (as the tip of an iceberg). So I have to conclude there are some flaws in your theorizing below.

First of all, the population on Earth is growing exponentially, which means that everyone cannot have lived many lives before and new "souls" must be created into some humans (which begs the question of why not everyone then). Or have some been animals in previous lives? Still, the total population of animals also varies - did a lot of souls really die after the meteorite hit us 65 million years ago and did some of them wait for milions of years until populations rose enough that a free "slot" in some animal allowed them to be reborn?

So if population is growing, new souls must be "created", and if population is declining, souls must either "die" or be destroyed, or they must be able to wait for a long time until a free body is created where they can live again. This means that souls can be created and destroy (or at least not return to a body immediately), so why would not all who are born have new souls and why would not all souls die or go into waiting mode indefinitely when someone dies?

The issue with the above thinking is that it assumes a closed and fixed number of souls in the human reincarnation system. But think about it; at one point in time there was probably just a handful of early humans; and before that, no humans. There are essentially an infinite number of souls in the universe. Only a tiny, tiny sliver can ever incarnate as a human. An increasing human population allows more souls to have the human physical experience; and shorter periods between them if desired.

But there is more! Because I have given a lot of thought to this and arrived at the conclusion that we humans do not have a soul.

By soul I then mean an "essence" of us or our personality that exists even if our bodies die. If soul means "someone's personality" or "the software that runs on the computer that is our brain", then we do of course have souls. But the metaphysical soul does not exist in my opinion.

Because if there was a soul that didn't die when the matter dies, why is that soul so affected by chemicals such as drugs or alcohol, or by tumors in the brain or stroke or brain damage? Specific cases of dementia or tumors in the brain are known to change someone's personality completely. Where then is the soul that should direct our actions? If it is the soul that is the real "me", why does it get exactly as drunk as my physical brain?

I had a minor surgery earlier this year, and when I was in anesthesia, I was truly gone. And that even though my brain wasn't dead! Where was my soul then? It was like a complete time loss. Not even blackness. Not even nothing. Just like before I was born.

How can people have memory loss in certain situations? Will my soul remember anything at all from my life when I die? Because we know today that memory resides in the physical brain, and certain types of brain damage will destroy it. And I would imagine death is such a damage.

So if the soul doesn't really control me when I'm drunk or have a brain illness so my actions (and therefore everything people see as "me") are governed by the physical brain, and my soul won't remember me after I'm dead, then it is no more than a parasite that tags along for the ride. Then what use is it and what evidence is there for its existence? And is the soul "me" or is it someone who observes me while the real "me" is my brain which dies along with my body?

I believe that the day I die (or perhaps before if I get dementia or have a stroke or any other disease that causes me to lose myself or my personality), my meat computer stops working and everything that is me dies with it, except for anything I've left behind like music or art or stuff like that. But I will be gone for good. It's like a computer, when you switch it off, the soul of Windows 7 does not keep on living.

It might sound terrible and negative and pessimistic, but I feel that this makes life even more worth living, more wonderful and beautiful, and we must really make the best of the time we have, because when it's light out, we are truly and forever gone.

I do not fear death, as that nothingness is not something I will experience, as I'm gone then. I won't lie in the coffin thinking "oh, I can't think anymore - how strange!". But I do fear death in the sense that just before I go, I'll be very sorry that I won't be able to experience anything more. I'll then miss the world and I'd love to see how it carries on without me. But the moment that I'm dead, all those emotions will be gone. But the day I die, it's the end of the line and I imagine sadness will be the dominating emotion at that point.

And that day, when it is your last day, just going outside in the sunshine and smell a rose one last time would be worth more than all the gold and diamonds and money in the galaxy. So make sure you fully live life here and now and smell the roses and enjoy it all because it won't last forever. Nothing lasts forever.

Well let me explain my take on the soul from my exposure to Theosophical and eastern/Hindu teachings. This is a vast subject that I don’t know how to put in a post reply, but basically:

Consciousness is not physical. Consciousness expresses itself through the planes of nature by taking ‘bodies’ on each of those planes. For example the Causal Body (reincarnating Soul), Astral Body (temporary between life state) and Physical Body. Damage or death to the physical brain just stops or impinges on consciousness’ physical experience (which we mistakenly think is all there is). But the Astral Body and Causal Bodies are unaffected by the physical bodies demise but actually can express themselves better without the gross outer sheath of a physical body.

The guru teaches that you are not the causal body, the astral body, or the physical body but the consciousness that experiences them which is non-physical.

 

[ruffen]

I do find the topic very interesting, and I will try to learn more about Stevenson's work. I am skeptical but I find the existence of souls more likely than the existence of God. I'll give it that at least.

The guru teaches that you are not the causal body, the astral body, or the physical body but the consciousness that experiences them which is non-physical.

May I ask how the Guru knows this? Or has he learned it from yet another Guru?

 

[outhouse]

The guru teaches that you are not the causal body, the astral body, or the physical body but the consciousness that experiences them which is non-physical.

The guru teaches non scientific pseudoscience with ZERO credibility

 

[danieldemol]

Danieldemol, G’Day Mate......welcome to this discussion. I like you already because you’re Baha’i. Unfortunately, I know Baha’i doesn’t really accept reincarnation …...but lets not lose sight of the Oneness of Mankind....


...Impossible to say. I think though, like a lot of things, it’s not an all or nothing thing. Many children have vague recollections of things that fade as they age. What’s rare are children that have detailed memories of facts that can be investigated...


...Well that probably wouldn’t be too helpful as you would have adult responders who could already have made sure their memories match researchable facts.



The study being discussed in this thread was conducted by a non-Hindu, Dr. Stevenson...

Namaste Thanks George,

I have a special fondness for Hindus as it happens. They are very easy to get on with and make excellent marriage partners too

I'm inclined to think that as long as we do what we can to improve the wellbeing of humanity in this life we will be better of in the next life, whether it is on to a new physical body or not so from my perspective it is not a substantial difference. My interest in posting to this thread is more the thought of brainstorming ways to improve the study data collection methods.

Do you think it is possible to conduct a survey just to determine how many children have memories containing verifiable details of past lives?

If there are adults who want past lives to be true enough to make them true by fabricating evidence, what methodology did Dr Stevenson use to seperate such people from his study?

Did Dr Stevenson himself have a prior belief in re-incarnation?

If Dr Stevenson did have beliefs favorable to re-incarnation, what steps did Dr Stevenson take to counter his own biases? For example did he have a Dr qualified to conduct psychological investigation/investigative questioning assisting his research who could view investigative sessions and provide suggestions at the end of each session for objectivity improvement who did not have a prior belief in re-incarnation?

Was Dr Stevenson's work academically reviewed by peers in the relevant field?

Did Dr Stevenson himself have relevant qualifications in psychology and investigative questioning or was he a Dr of a non-relevant discipline?

Also what is your angle on the questions put to Satori regarding astral projection?

Kind regards

 

[danieldemol]

If there was a soul that didn't die when the matter dies, why is that soul so affected by chemicals such as drugs or alcohol, or by tumors in the brain or stroke or brain damage? Specific cases of dementia or tumors in the brain are known to change someone's personality completely. Where then is the soul that should direct our actions? If it is the soul that is the real "me", why does it get exactly as drunk as my physical brain?

I had a minor surgery earlier this year, and when I was in anesthesia, I was truly gone. And that even though my brain wasn't dead! Where was my soul then? It was like a complete time loss. Not even blackness. Not even nothing. Just like before I was born.

How can people have memory loss in certain situations? Will my soul remember anything at all from my life when I die? Because we know today that memory resides in the physical brain, and certain types of brain damage will destroy it. And I would imagine death is such a damage.

So if the soul doesn't really control me when I'm drunk or have a brain illness so my actions (and therefore everything people see as "me") are governed by the physical brain, and my soul won't remember me after I'm dead, then it is no more than a parasite that tags along for the ride. Then what use is it and what evidence is there for its existence? And is the soul "me" or is it someone who observes me while the real "me" is my brain which dies along with my body?

Hi Ruffen,

I personally feel that we each should try to live a full life whether or not we have another life to follow, after all, a life wasted is still a life wasted.

Imagine if you are driving a car and the wheel or the accelerator jam. Your ability to control the car are obviously inhibited by the car's de capacity, however this does not disprove the car has a driver.

Suppose if cloud inhibits the rays of the sun from reaching the earth, the sun is still there behind the clouds.

 

[George-ananda]

I do find the topic very interesting, and I will try to learn more about Stevenson's work. I am skeptical but I find the existence of souls more likely than the existence of God. I'll give it that at least.

Very glad you find this interesting. To comment on the above actually/ultimately our spirit is God; beyond the body, mind and even the soul. The entire material existence and all its planes are all the divine play of the Lord. God/Brahman alone is real and that is our spirit. Sorry if I'm moving too fast.

May I ask how the Guru knows this? Or has he learned it from yet another Guru?

No, it's beyond learning and must be experienced. I can use terms/analogies to try to explain but it can't be comprehended except in a crude manner with words. When the mind and the bodies on all planes are stilled one becomes pure spirit with no illusion that each plane is all of existence. An analogy is like a raging stream reflecting the moonlight. If the water becomes perfectly still we can get a perfect reflection of the moon. Taming that stream is what is not easy.

I used the term Guru because it's known in the west. What I'm really talking about are Self-Realized masters. The realize who they really are; which is God/Spirit and not the bodies and minds.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think it is possible to conduct a survey just to determine how many children have memories containing verifiable details of past lives?

I really doubt it. It just seems too rare of a phenomenon but maybe.

If there are adults who want past lives to be true enough to make them true by fabricating evidence, what methodology did Dr Stevenson use to seperate such people from his study?

He worked almost totally with children. And then did follow-up interviews with them as they aged. But he took great pains to research the possibility that the child learned the verifiable facts through normal channels. Typically a child reports remembering living in a village they’ve never been to and names people, places and things that happened.

Did Dr Stevenson himself have a prior belief in re-incarnation?

No, he was generally acquainted with the subject as we all are.

If Dr Stevenson did have beliefs favorable to re-incarnation, what steps did Dr Stevenson take to counter his own biases? For example did he have a Dr qualified to conduct psychological investigation/investigative questioning assisting his research who could view investigative sessions and provide suggestions at the end of each session for objectivity improvement who did not have a prior belief in re-incarnation?

He is very detailed about all his methodology in the book I read several years ago. I don’t remember the details

Was Dr Stevenson's work academically reviewed by peers in the relevant field?

Yes many people have reviewed and commented on his work. He is generally praised as being very careful and conservative in his approach and conclusions. The hardcore atheist/materialists look for any angle they can find to slam him. And that’s where things stand; always in controversy like God, Souls, Miracles, etc...

Did Dr Stevenson himself have relevant qualifications in psychology and investigative questioning or was he a Dr of a non-relevant discipline?

One thing that is not in controversy is his very high-ranked and prestigious academic qualifications. I want to say he held some top position in psychiatry from the University of Virginia (don’t quote me on the details).

Also what is your angle on the questions put to Satori regarding astral projection?

I believe astral projection occurs and some are gifted at it but I don’t have any personal experiences to talk about. It is a weird, weird universe we live in.

 

[danieldemol]

I really doubt it. It just seems too rare of a phenomenon but maybe.

If Dr Stevenson was able to find 20 cases which he considered suggestive of re-incarnation in the space of just 4 weeks in India, it is probably common enough to be subject to survey.

He worked almost totally with children. And then did follow-up interviews with them as they aged. But he took great pains to research the possibility that the child learned the verifiable facts through normal channels. Typically a child reports remembering living in a village they’ve never been to and names people, places and things that happened.

The wikipedia article points out the example of Corliss Chotkin as an example of Stevenson's work that "relied entirely on the word of one woman, the niece of Victor Vincent, a fisherman."

If Dr Stevenson was prepared to include such examples in his work without noting that such examples did not withstand rigorous scientific investigative process, is it really fair to say he took great pains to ensure the authenticity of his work?

No, he was generally acquainted with the subject as we all are...

Given that Dr Stevenson was likely exposed to a favorable opinion of re-incarnation from a young age due to his mother's interest in theosophy, and considering that he excluded cases he investigated which were not suggestive of re-incarnation from his report (according to wikipedia), is it correct to consider him the same as a person who prior to the investigation did not have any belief in re-incarnation, or is it possible that he had some pre-existing bias in favor of re-incarnation at least at the sub-conscious level regardless of whether or not he admitted to such predisposition?

I believe astral projection occurs and some are gifted at it but I don’t have any personal experiences to talk about. It is a weird, weird universe we live in.

Is astral projection a technical term for outer body experience?

Thanks for your patience

 

[George-ananda]

If Dr Stevenson was able to find 20 cases which he considered suggestive of re-incarnation in the space of just 4 weeks in India, it is probably common enough to be subject to survey.

The wikipedia article points out the example of Corliss Chotkin as an example of Stevenson's work that "relied entirely on the word of one woman, the niece of Victor Vincent, a fisherman."

If Dr Stevenson was prepared to include such examples in his work without noting that such examples did not withstand rigorous scientific investigative process, is it really fair to say he took great pains to ensure the authenticity of his work?

Given that Dr Stevenson was likely exposed to a favorable opinion of re-incarnation from a young age due to his mother's interest in theosophy, and considering that he excluded cases he investigated which were not suggestive of re-incarnation from his report (according to wikipedia), is it correct to consider him the same as a person who prior to the investigation did not have any belief in re-incarnation, or is it possible that he had some pre-existing bias in favor of re-incarnation at least at the sub-conscious level regardless of whether or not he admitted to such predisposition?



Is astral projection a technical term for outer body experience?

Thanks for your patience

Well, here’s my take on your above post.

To really know something on a controversial topic takes a lot time and effort. What sites like Wikipedia try to do is be fair and cover the positive and negative opinions out there on any person. I study the paranormal a lot because I find it fascinating. There are different camps that comment on these subjects. One of those are the so-called ‘Skeptics’ who are really just hard-core defenders of atheistic-materialism. They have a lot of backing and make a lot of noise. Their only real interest in the paranormal, is to grab any angle they can find to slam the other side in the controversy. This does not mean some of their criticisms do not have some validity but buyer beware. Wikipedia is sure to give them their share of air time on any paranormal issue.

There is no way for the average observer to judge the validity of the criticism. Human nature says if they’re pro or con paranormal, they will latch to what they WANT to hear. As I said in the first sentence, if you really want to know something you actually have to dive below the surface.

Now, on to Dr. Stevenson. I have actually read 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation from the library and the book is thorough to say the least. I have read many other things on or about Dr. Stevenson including criticisms. My considered opinions are:

1) That there are no satisfactory non-paranormal explanation for this phenomena.

2) The cases do suggest reincarnation as the most reasonable explanation


As you’re a Baha’i, you might be better off not giving reincarnation too much thought and focus on your very good religion.

 

[outhouse]

. My considered opinions are:

Not relevant to any scientific aspect of this discussion.

I study the paranormal a lot because I find it fascinating.

That's fine, I do as well in some cases.

The difference between you and me is I don't try and pass of my garbage as anything but pseudoscience. Your trying to peddle your cart into a science class saying it doesn't smell like garbage and taste like flowers, when we watched you pick up the trash for a week prior.

Ian's work is what it is because he didn't follow a scientific method, those that told you of his horrible work were not just skeptics, they were people that witnessed him spraying perfume on garbage and calling it a flower. :slap:

 

[George-ananda]

Not relevant to any scientific aspect of this discussion.




That's fine, I do as well in some cases.

The difference between you and me is I don't try and pass of my garbage as anything but pseudoscience. Your trying to peddle your cart into a science class saying it doesn't smell like garbage and taste like flowers, when we watched you pick up the trash for a week prior.

Ian's work is what it is because he didn't follow a scientific method, those that told you of his horrible work were not just skeptics, they were people that witnessed him spraying perfume on garbage and calling it a flower. :slap:

Danieldemol,

Remember in my post I said:

There are different camps that comment on these subjects. One of those are the so-called ‘Skeptics’ who are really just hard-core 'to the death' defenders of atheistic-materialism. They have a lot of backing and make a lot of noise. Their only real interest in the paranormal, is to grab any angle they can find to slam the other side in the controversy.

 

[outhouse]

Their only real interest in the paranormal, is to grab any angle they can find to slam the other side in the controversy.

This is false and it show the total weakness of your argument.

If you take a country Like India where spiritual aspects as your talking are not questioned and believed through culture from birth, you will factually get different results then America or other western countries that don't follow the same belief.


To date, the concept of soul has never been proven and remains pseudoscience.


If you started calling it what it really is PSEUDOSCIENCE you wouldn't have a problem here in a science thread.

BUT what we do not accept in a science thread is bad work, or biased work, or faith based perceptions counted as real science.

Take your pseudoscience to the same faith section if you want biased confirmation and acceptance, because you wont find that in a science thread no matter how hard your faith pushes you.

 

[ruffen]

I watched a documentary about Ian Stevenson on YouTube, and I'm not convinced at all. This is not scientific evidence, but anecdotes that prove nothing, I'm afraid.

 

[George-ananda]

I watched a documentary about Ian Stevenson on YouTube, and I'm not convinced at all. This is not scientific evidence, but anecdotes that prove nothing, I'm afraid.

This post sounds like it might be a text-book example of what I said in post #109.

Who is responsible for creating this YouTube video you didn't say. I have my strong suspicion.

I can go to YouTube and find a video that makes any person in this controversial field look like a sage or a fool. But what is the truth?

 

[outhouse]

This post sounds like it might be a text-book example of what I said in post #109.

Who is responsible for creating this YouTube video you didn't say. I have my strong suspicion.

I can go to YouTube and find a video that makes any person in this controversial field look like a sage or a fool. But what is the truth?

The truth is, your promoting pseudoscience.

 

[Shermana]

I watched a documentary about Ian Stevenson on YouTube, and I'm not convinced at all. This is not scientific evidence, but anecdotes that prove nothing, I'm afraid.

What does it prove then? Just a string of coincedences? Fabrications?

 

[ruffen]

This post sounds like it might be a text-book example of what I said in post #109.

Who is responsible for creating this YouTube video you didn't say. I have my strong suspicion.

I can go to YouTube and find a video that makes any person in this controversial field look like a sage or a fool. But what is the truth?

I am sorry for not providing the source. It is a talk by Stevenson himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0


For example he mentioned a girl (starting at 2 minutes) who claimed to be the reincarnated dead wife of an American citizen. At 6 or 7 years old, she was still speaking about the husband of the deceased woman, and calling him several times a day. How she got his phone number one can only wonder, it may have been a miracle or evidence for reincarnation, it may not be. Who knows. But once that is established and Dr. Stevenson has visited her several times and she through her entire life has been told that she is the reincarnated wife of this guy, of course she would be attached to him when she was 27.

Anyways, I see no evidence, just claims and anecdotes that would be extremely easy to fabricate if Stevenson has any books to sell or lectures to give or in any other way has a personal economical interest in doing so.

 

[ruffen]

What does it prove then? Just a string of coincedences? Fabrications?

It does not prove anything. That is the problem of it.

It might be fabrications. It might be coincidences. How many have contacted him with "interesting" children who claim to be reincarnated, but where he couldn't find enough "evidence" to create a nice case out of it? Do the families involved get any economical compensation for telling their stories?

It might be confirmation bias. We are a large population on this planet. Rare events and strange coincidences happen all the time, and if you selectively seek them out you'll get results that seem remarkable. I wonder how Stevenson finds these reincarnated kids in the middle of nowhere in poor neighbourhoods in southeast Asia, the Middle East or Africa. Does he put up posters that say "if you think your kid may be reincarnated please contact me"? Or does he go door-to-door to thousands and thousands to find good cases?

I do not know much about Stevenson, but he could also be a con-man. He might fabricate everything to sell books. It is possible.


But I do not find "proof" for any of these possibilites, just as I do not find "proof" for reincarnation.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I do not know much about Stevenson, but he could also be a con-man. He might fabricate everything to sell books. It is possible.

If all of his research was a fabrication, then that is one hell of a feat. While the evidence for his research is highly subjective, I don't think anyone could fabricate as many cases as he had.

Personally, I do think his studies show a suggestion for reincarnation that helped me two years ago when I began my own insight into multiple lives. While I do not believe in full reincarnation (I believe in something more akin to Buddhist rebirth), I also don't think he was a crack pot or a con man. I think he was a highly educated man who conducted academic and scientific research on an unorthodox subject that, like anything else in science, has both its proponents and opponents.

 

[George-ananda]

I am sorry for not providing the source. It is a talk by Stevenson himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0


For example he mentioned a girl (starting at 2 minutes) who claimed to be the reincarnated dead wife of an American citizen. At 6 or 7 years old, she was still speaking about the husband of the deceased woman, and calling him several times a day. How she got his phone number one can only wonder, it may have been a miracle or evidence for reincarnation, it may not be. Who knows. But once that is established and Dr. Stevenson has visited her several times and she through her entire life has been told that she is the reincarnated wife of this guy, of course she would be attached to him when she was 27.

Anyways, I see no evidence, just claims and anecdotes that would be extremely easy to fabricate if Stevenson has any books to sell or lectures to give or in any other way has a personal economical interest in doing so.

What would a real-world childhood reincarnation memory have to look like before you would even consider it evidence?

My point is, as children don't live in scientifically controlled environments, you can always say there's 'no evidence' if that's your inclination.

Personally, my conclusion is that this evidence (when seen in conjunction with multiple other types of phenomena and the teachings of people I personally respect) is strongly suggestive of reincarnation.