WARNING! DO NOT copy text from another source and paste it here without citing the source! Otherwise, it can be considered plagiarism, which is illegal.
If you do it again, your account here will be closed and you will be banned!
2 Likes
My most immediate beef with this is the obvious observation that at around ages 4+ (give or take), kids start learning cooperative play and role playing. Thus, they invent stories, and based on the feedback, they tailor their stories to fit in with whatever they are playing. This, coupled with the well-known effect of false memory, and how one with suggestive language and positive reinforcement can make people “remember” things that didn’t happen, even if one does not mean to implant these memories. Couple this with interviewers that do not have a strictly scientific method and actively try to do falsification, it is easy to be tricked. Case in point: the satanic panic of the 1980s.
Edit: ah, so the text was lifted from a Wikipedia page. I had a very strong feeling that it was lifted from somewhere, as the language was uncharacteristic for the other stuff you have written here. I also find it interesting that you did not quote the following from the very same Wikipedia article:
Past life regression has been critiqued for being unethical on the premises that it lacks any evidence to support these claims, and that the act increases one’s susceptibility to false memories. Luis Cordón states that this can be problematic as it creates delusions under the guise of therapy. The memories are experienced as vivid as those based on events experienced in one’s life, impossible to differentiate from true memories of actual events, and accordingly any damage can be difficult to undo.[6][32]
And this illustrates my point above quite beautifully.
2 Likes
When consider the processes of mind and the consciousnesses, it runs with the sensory organs which are most of the time connected with the outside environment. When, outside feedings are not taken in, mind is processing internal things.
In order to happen this, active and healthy sensory system to be made. How it is made in backword direction is due to effects of mind and consciousness itself. This phenomenon continues through out the life cycle.
If, someone deeply concentrates his mind on this and see how thoughts come into to mind and go, he can understand this and memorize past incidents well. No need of medical therapy.
Anyone can improve mental qualities which are favorable to health and to other goals. Good actions bring good results, bad actions bring bad results. Karmic action is this and it is a kind of subtle energy form.
It is unevidenced superstition.
This is also unevidenced superstition.
I have explained several times that you are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, are you simply going to ignore the fact your claim is irrational, and simply keep dishonestly repeating it? The fact that something can’t be disproved, does not lend it any credence at all.
That’s not research, that is a bare claim, about anecdotal claims.
“Claimed to remember”, this is not objective evidence, it is a claim about some claims.
Another claim, about some claims, dear oh dear.
More claims, about other claims…hilarious
Word salad.
Another unevidenced superstitious claim.
What on earth are you talking about? I have to ask, is English your first language, only this make no sense, our health must necessarily encompass our mental health.
Two more unevidenced claims.
Not so fast, @Sheldon, not so fast. Notice the formulation:
Reincarnation is the belief that…
That actual reincarnation, i.e. serial rebirth of some property of a living being called “soul”, is not documented and must be regarded as unevidenced superstition is another matter, and we do not disagree there. Sure, the formulation “Reincarnation is the belief that a single eternal soul is reborn” is somewhat misleading and awkward, in that the term reincarnation, in this instance, refers to the belief instead of the actual claimed phenomenon, but given the overall way @Udenidhammikag_1948 formulates him/herself in general, I’m giving him/her the benefit of doubt.
2 Likes
There is not a single thing in this universe that not subjected to changes. It includes all living and non living entities. Even metals evaporate at very high temperature.
Consciousness is the same and subjected to changes moment to moment without any speciality of types of living beings or devin beings if such type is exist. And consciousness is a continuous process like a stream and without discontinuation and gaps. In this condition , a permanent soul cannot be present and changing soul is present,though it has previous moment characteristics. There are many arguments between Buddhist and Hindus about soul and non soul concept with dualism and non dualism of consciousness. Dualism is no self concept.
If discontinuation of consciousness happens at the very last moment of sequence of thought process of a dying person, reincarnation cannot be happened. As consciousness is a continuous process, what it do here is, it leaps or catches the new place while leaving old place. Then immediately it starts to activate making a new body or form.
All evidence points in the direction of consciousness being an emergent property of a neural network of sufficient complexity, i.e. a sufficiently advanced brain. Thus, consciousness is a consequence of a biological organ (the brain), and if the brain dies, the consciousness disappears with it. This model only rests on what is observably there (a big and complex neural network that we know is critical for the control and survival of the organism).
On the other hand, concepts like reincarnation rests on consciousness being something extra, something extra-brain that just temporarily occupies the brain. And it must be made of something that can interface and interact with such a neural network. It must be able to survive without nutrients, and there must be yet another external mechanism that decides which organism to attach to next, after the host dies. And neither this “soul”/host-changing consciousness nor this mechanism has even remotely been shown to exist. Thus, the concept of reincarnation rests on ideas about supernatural stuff that has not been shown to exist. So, for the idea of reincarnation to have any scientific traction,
- reincarnation must be shown to exist, scientifically, in a reproducible and reliable manner
- this host-skipping parasitic consciousness (or soul, if you want) must be shown to exist
- the mechanism to select the next host must be shown to exist
And no, just wishing these points to be true is not enough.
3 Likes
Hi! I like the icon of the two old guys from the muppets show.
@Udenidhammikag_1948 You’re preaching, and evading debate, not only is this dishonest, it is against the forum guidelines.
False equivalence fallacy.
Unevidenced claim.
Define soul accurately, and then demonstrate sufficient objective evidence such a thing exists, or is even possible.
Unevidenced claim.
Unevidenced claim.
What did you want to debate? Only this is a debate forum, not a forum for you to endlessly preach your superstitious beliefs.
That’s not how reincarnation works. The consciousness is transferred to an appropriate host at death. It isn’t random. A person gets what he deserves - good, bad, or indifferent.
Technology and science has improved today. Many equipment and instruments have been invented for the comfort of people and being used in almost every field. People’s life has become easier than the past.
Similarly, In the medical field, there are so many instruments to examine and test the physical condition of human body. Many parameters are detected by modern sophisticated electronic gadgets.
However, no instrument is invented to measure the condition of the mind and it is a difficult task. What neurologist doing with the brain and nerve system is completely a different work. They think human body as a machine and brain as a hub for signal processing. But, how emotions emerge is a separate criteria.
It is true that a complex structure is required for better awareness and should be discussed with the level of awareness of living beings including plants etc and how it happen.
@Udenidhammikag_1948 You’re still just preaching, did you want to debate anything?
Do you have any qualifications in the field of neurology? Are you published, is your work peer reviewed? If not then why should anyone care what you think, especially as you have zero objective evidence to support it, and have use a raft of logically fallacious arguments, and dishonestly moved on without addressing them?
Debate requires honesty and reciprocity, you’ve offered neither.
Consciousness is a scientific word and it’s a vast subject. There are so many attributes of it that general people don’t understand.
The word reincarnation is allergic to some people. Specially for theistic people and those who associate the God.
No it isn’t.
That’s an irony overload, given you’re the one trying to add unevidenced superstition to it.
I doubt it, some people are just not gullible enough or suggestible enough, or simply biased enough, to indulge unevidenced superstition.
You seem to have ignored another question, quelle surprise.
You also failed to address your false equivalence fallacy?
1 Like
People are discussing things like this;
Above is extracted from the you tube video. Renowned quantum physicist, John Hagelin (PhD, Harvard), presents the thesis that consciousness is a unified field that contains nature’s programming code and transcending through meditation is a pathway to hack / access consciousness.
None of which evidences any deity, or your lie about having a proof for one.
Don’t believe me? Read any global news network, hell read the Catholic Herald…
Though the comedy gold of you going from unevidenced mysticism like numerology, to theoretical physics is palpable.
1 Like
There are many theories for origin of the universe proposed by the scientist, though none of them are reliabialy supported by the acceptable evidence. All are hypothetical and based on predictions and assumptions and will change with new findings and views. Presently, the Big Bang theory is the latest version brought forward to the world and asked for common people to believe it as correct saying that it represents the whole history of the universe.
The beginning of life in earth is also same. There is no reliable proposal of it and has different views among scientists. No reliable source to say how inert materials converted to life without pre-informations and made complex strutures by mere evolution. The natural selection and Microbiology can do this without outside agent? This is still debating.
Common understanding is, the universe begins, subjects to evolution, destroys(not reliabialy described by science yet) and reappears with huge time intervals. No sound proof for not to say so.This happen according to natural universal laws and not by a powerful unseen single force.
Mysteries of the current universe is same as old days.Under these circumstances, has any newly reliable proof about the concept of consciousness or life has been found by the science to change the thousand years of general awareness and believings of people?
That’s a lie, there is overwhelming evidence and scientific support for the big bang theory.
That’s another lie.
Not sure what common people means, but this is not entirely duplicitous.
Liar…there is no accepted scientific theory for the origin of life.
Another falsehood, evolution explains the origins of species, it has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Another lie, there is again overwhelming scientific evidence and universal scientific support for species evolution, it is an accepted scientific theory, and nothing in it evidences or needs any deity or guiding sentient influence.
This is gibberish? I have no idea what it even means, but both of those scientific theories are universally accepted by elite scientists in the respected fields of study, as the evidence is both overwhelming and definitive.
Liar…our knowledge is not complete, nor is it ever likely to be, but it has expanded exponentially under modern science, and in a relatively short time.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Not having an alternative explanation to a claim, does not make it true, nor does the number of people who believe a claim.
You are consistent I will give you that, irrational gibberish and outright lies however are not compelling arguments.
You’ve used the word “reliably” many times in your post. I’d like to know what you think “reliable” means. Just note that it doesn’t mean 100% proven.
The Big Bang Theory has plenty of evidence to support it. Evolution has a ton of evidence to support it. None of these are based on hypotheticals, predictions, or assumptions that don’t have evidence to support them.
And, Yes!, scientists don’t agree on everything in either, but that is the nature of science.
And “change thousands of years of general awareness”? Reliable data and theories have been put forth that have changed thousands of years of general awareness. Take the earth being the center of the universe. There’s been hundreds of years of evidence that say this “belief” is no longer valid.
1 Like