Ian Stevenson and his studies on reincarnation.

[LuisDantas]

This kind of leads to the premise "why a spiritual path at all" if the persona does not survive. Well, I think because a) we should strive to be good people regardless but b) something does go on, even though it wont be 'us' in the sense of the persona. From that, we should strive to become conscious beings and do good.

Pretty much. Just because we as individuals are not recurring/reincarnating, it does not at all follow that our parts in the flow of life are not to be cared.

 

[johnhanks]

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.

Yes, I had assumed that some such rationalisation would be necessary to overcome the population paradox. The other massive rationalisation required is for these incarnated "souls" to have no awareness or recollection of their "eternal" existence prior to the current incarnation - convenient, that, isn't it? But why - apart from papering over the massive disconnect between belief in reincarnation and almost everybody's lived experience - would that discontinuance of awareness be a necessary part of the system?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Come to think of it, what human experiences are 'provable by science'?

None, technically.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, I had assumed that some such rationalisation would be necessary to overcome the population paradox.

My disconnect with you and many others comes from my acceptance of a structure of different planes to the universe and how it all works. I’m certainly not gifted enough to figure any of this out myself. I’ve come to accept my position from years of considered studying of the paranormal, Theosophy and the teachings of the easter/Hindu masters.

What you call a ‘paradox’ in one worldview is sometimes not a ‘paradox’ at all in another worldview.

The other massive rationalisation required is for these incarnated "souls" to have no awareness or recollection of their "eternal" existence prior to the current incarnation - convenient, that, isn't it? But why - apart from papering over the massive disconnect between belief in reincarnation and almost everybody's lived experience - would that discontinuance of awareness be a necessary part of the system?

Again you’re coming from a worldview that sees the physical as the only ‘real’. The soul does have the collected wisdom and memories of past life experiences; the normal consciousness expressed through a physical body has only the memories of that physical body. Look at each new physical body as a blank slate for the soul to gain experience from and to try to impress its higher influence on. One thing the teachers I respect all say “YOU are not the body or the mind”.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Simply put: do you think the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson are credible in their suggestion/evidence for reincarnation? Why or why not?
http://www.smileyvault.com/

They're credible to the credulous.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, I had assumed that some such rationalisation would be necessary to overcome the population paradox. The other massive rationalisation required is for these incarnated "souls" to have no awareness or recollection of their "eternal" existence prior to the current incarnation - convenient, that, isn't it? But why - apart from papering over the massive disconnect between belief in reincarnation and almost everybody's lived experience - would that discontinuance of awareness be a necessary part of the system?

That assumes that souls really are eternal...something that I'm willing to consider but personally doubt.

The real problem here is that we're trying to speculate on the nature of something that is not/has not been reliably demonstrated to actually occur. Yes, some people report experiences that suggest this phenomenon does indeed occur, but overall, we just don't know. It's good questions people are raising, but I'm not sure its worth spending much time on, since we can't yet clearly and concisely define, much less measure a "soul" or any of its asserted characteristics.

 

[outhouse]

Boy, that comment couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who actually knows Dr. Stevenson's work would know he's strong on evidence and light on speculation.

But I'm sure that's your opinion about anything in the paranormal world that you don't know about. As an earlier poster said 'scoffers will scoff, that's what they do'.

You are promoting intellectual dishonest to say the least. :slap:

I know he perverts evidence. And his guesses are utter garbage scientifically speaking.

My comment stands correct until you can provide evidence showing otherwise.


This is a science thread, not one of wishful thinking and want.

Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition.

Stevenson was naive and that the case studies were undermined by his lack of local knowledge

Stevenson asked the children leading questions, filled in gaps in the narrative, did not spend enough time interviewing them, and left too long a period between the claimed recall and the interview; it was often years after the first mention of a recall that Stevenson learned about it


there were problems with the way Stevenson presented the cases, in that he would report his witnesses' conclusions, rather than the data upon which the conclusions rested. Weaknesses in cases would be reported in a separate part of his books, instead of during the discussion of the cases themselves. Ransom concluded that it all amounted to anecdotal evidence of the weakest kind.[42]

 

[George-ananda]

You are promoting intellectual dishonest to say the least. :slap:

I know he perverts evidence. And his guesses are utter garbage scientifically speaking.

My comment stands correct until you can provide evidence showing otherwise.


This is a science thread, not one of wishful thinking and want.

Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition.

Stevenson was naive and that the case studies were undermined by his lack of local knowledge

Stevenson asked the children leading questions, filled in gaps in the narrative, did not spend enough time interviewing them, and left too long a period between the claimed recall and the interview; it was often years after the first mention of a recall that Stevenson learned about it


there were problems with the way Stevenson presented the cases, in that he would report his witnesses' conclusions, rather than the data upon which the conclusions rested. Weaknesses in cases would be reported in a separate part of his books, instead of during the discussion of the cases themselves. Ransom concluded that it all amounted to anecdotal evidence of the weakest kind.[42]

Classic. Anyone can go out to the internet and cherry-pick the negative comments about anybody of notoriety.

To actually know something worth knowing you have to spend time wading through people's biases. I believe I've done that with Dr. Stevenson to a great extent. No work involving human subjects can't be criticized but the key point to those who really look is that there is strong evidence for things that cannot be explained away.

 

[George-ananda]

They're credible to the credulous.

We know you don't consider yourself among the credulous. But when a skeptic criticizes a parapsychologist you become quite credulous towards the skeptics claim.

 

[George-ananda]

Satori8, good post, welcome to this discussion. Sounds like you’ve done some thinking.

For reincarnation to be valid, there must be some essence of a soul. I wrote a bit on this earlier in the buddhism section, but Buddhists believe in not self, whereas Hindus and others who believe in reincarnation or an afterlife believe in a self. My own opinion, if we go on, I do not believe the 'little me' aka ego goes on.

Have you considered that this ‘little me’ does continue for awhile on what some people call an astral plane. The paranormal evidence for this is considerable; Near-Death Experiences, Astral Projection, Spirit Communications, etc.. as well as the teachings of Theosophical and eastern/Hindu masters.

Because mind is really only a serious of thoughts and emotions. It is a construct we create to deal with the world at large. Buddhism also teaches impermanence and if you check anything, everything dies or eventually 'changes form' in some way. Nothing is static. Even the universe may collapse on itself someday. Maybe. So if nothing is permanent, then there is no permanent self, because how could there be?

I like what you say above. The only thing that is not impermanent is God/Brahman and all this impermanence is his divine sport/play. (One analogy I heard is this universe is like a movie. and God/Brahman is like the screen the movie plays on. In this analogy only the screen is permanent and not subject to change).

Buddhists do believe something transfers, but what you are conscious of now wont be it. And even people who believe in reincarnation, do not believe for the most part, the 'personality' survives.

I like what you say here too. But again I would consider the ‘between life’ periods is what some western people think of as a ‘heaven’ continuation (but really is another impermanent state on the astral plane).

This kind of leads to the premise "why a spiritual path at all" if the persona does not survive. Well, I think because a) we should strive to be good people regardless but b) something does go on, even though it wont be 'us' in the sense of the persona. From that, we should strive to become conscious beings and do good.

If you think enough, you would not want a particular persona to be you forever. Fortunately, it won’t be.

 

[outhouse]

Classic. Anyone can go out to the internet and cherry-pick the negative comments about anybody of notoriety.

To actually know something worth knowing you have to spend time wading through people's biases. I believe I've done that with Dr. Stevenson to a great extent. No work involving human subjects can't be criticized but the key point to those who really look is that there is strong evidence for things that cannot be explained away.

Anyone can be intellectually dishonest :slap:

 

[George-ananda]

Anyone can be intellectually dishonest :slap:

So. Does that imply everybody is intellectually dishonest?

 

[satori8]

Hello! I'll try to do the discussion! I'm no expert I consider myself more of a seeker. Maybe not a novice, Im beyond that, But Im no adept.

Satori8, good post, welcome to this discussion. Sounds like you’ve done some thinking.



Have you considered that this ‘little me’ does continue for awhile on what some people call an astral plane. The paranormal evidence for this is considerable; Near-Death Experiences, Astral Projection, Spirit Communications, etc.. as well as the teachings of Theosophical and eastern/Hindu masters.

Yes I do actually astral travel when I go to sleep. I think much of this is uncovering the mysteries of the mind, and this is for our development.

I like what you say above. The only thing that is not impermanent is God/Brahman and all this impermanence is his divine sport/play. (One analogy I heard is this universe is like a movie. and God/Brahman is like the screen the movie plays on. In this analogy only the screen is permanent and not subject to change).

I love Buddhism but this is the part where I differ. I do believe in a God. Its kind of more of an innate sense within me. But also, Buddha did not speak on God so we don't know if he believed or not. I don't think God is a personal God like, a person sitting on a throne with a beard. I think may be more indescribable.

I like what you say here too. But again I would consider the ‘between life’ periods is what some western people think of as a ‘heaven’ continuation (but really is another impermanent state on the astral plane).

Yes in Buddhism there is taught heavenly realms which are impermanent. I do not see a static heaven because I do not believe in permanence in the form of us, or what we experience.

If you think enough, you would not want a particular persona to be you forever. Fortunately, it won’t be.

Yes, I pretty much have realized my persona will not continue. My objective is to discover what would be construed as a true self, if that is possible.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, I pretty much have realized my persona will not continue. My objective is to discover what would be construed as a true self, if that is possible.

Think about it, people's 'persona' changes slowly day to day. And that continues even after physical death on the otherworldly planes. Death is not the great change or loss of 'persona' that people think it is; IMO.

 

[satori8]

Think about it, people's 'persona' changes slowly day to day. And that continues even after physical death on the otherworldly planes. Death is not the great change or loss of 'persona' that people think it is; IMO.

Yes but what about reincarnation and rebirth? Why the loss in consciousness then, or prior lives, if the persona, or aspects of it, can survive?

 

[outhouse]

So. Does that imply everybody is intellectually dishonest?

Nope only the information your failing to pass off as science.

Place it into context of theology, or supernatural or mythology or pseudoscience and ill agree whole hearted.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes but what about reincarnation and rebirth? Why the loss in consciousness then, or prior lives, if the persona, or aspects of it, can survive?

Good question.

The astral plane is a continuation of our persona after death. But sooner or later after more continual changing, the astral life ends and our consciousness moves to even higher realms; the Mental plane and then the Causal plane. The Causal plane is where our reincarnating soul exists. This soul knows all our past experiences and retains the cream/wisdom of all these experiences.

If the soul desires further and new experiences on the physical plane for its advancement, it births a new astral form. This astral form will unite with a fetus and start a new experience. The new human will start as a blank slate with no memories. The soul guides this new form with its development. The level of soul affects the development of the new ‘persona’. Some ‘personas’ are more sensitive to higher spiritual actions and feelings (old soul/new soul concept).

I formed my understanding from my study of paranormal phenomena and the teachings of Theosophical and eastern/Hindu masters. But I don’t claim my explanations can’t be improved upon.

 

[outhouse]

I formed my understanding from my study of paranormal phenomena and the teachings of Theosophical and eastern/Hindu masters. But I don’t claim my explanations can’t be improved upon.

Or proved in any aspect what so ever.

 

[satori8]

Or proved in any aspect what so ever.

He's not going to be able to prove these realms on a forum board. Just like anything, one can only get proof from experience.

 

[outhouse]

He's not going to be able to prove these realms on a forum board. Just like anything, one can only get proof from experience.

Well, you seem to be admitting a personal perception of evidence, if so, its not scientific.

In that case it is called pseudoscience and will remain there until verification beyond faith and want.