I’ll go with “not yet discovered biology”, until you come up with evidence for “soul”.
No, it’s all in the progress and in the results. In your case, that would be 0 and 0.
Alright, I get it. I already conceded above. Why you gotta kick me when I’m down man? 
I’m trying to see if I can kick a visible soul out of you.
Oh? So given that the “woo whackos” and the “scientists” are asking exactly the same questions, how do you distinguish one from the other? Do you take a scientist and replace his white coat with a funny hat to make him a woo whacko? Or vice versa?
On what basis are you so confident that consciousness doesn’t continue after death? What evidence do you have for that?
Recent research shows that brain damage doesn’t entirely remove function.
Apparently the theory that brain function is located in specific areas of the brain is also being shown to be not entirely right.
Seems that the brain is far more plastic than previously believed, and functionality is mobile. As functionality is removed from one area of the brain, it reappears in other areas.
I recall seeing a TV documentary in which they showed a guy who became blind but regained a form of sight by using echo location. The sight area of his brain switched to processing sound.
Similarly, I recall reading about the cases of people who were discovered to have virtually no brain; ie: their heads were filled with fluid, and their brain was limited to a thin membrane like structure enclosing the fluid. Despite that, they were by all indications perfectly normal people and their peculiar physiology was discovered purely by accident.
Since these people functioned with minimal brain mass, this suggests that there is more to the mind and brain than a mere active lump of meat.
Not at all. I understood you were being ironic. It’s just that in addition to being sarcastic your comments were misleading because you tried to imply that either I don’t think consciousness is a legitimate area of scientific study (I said clearly that it is) or that these scientists are studying reincarnation and ghosts and other woo (I am sure they aren’t).
Tell me which pieces currently support past lives.
It’s not the exact same study at all. Look at a neurology journal and then re-read Stevenson’s self-delusions.
Unfortunately you are speaking much too broadly. This can happen in certain cases, particularly with children. It does not always occur. And the fact that the brain can adapt to trauma does not suggest that there is more to consciousness than the brain. If the brain were only a component of consciousness and not even an important one, why would it need to adapt?
I believe past lives exist. But that doesn’t mean your fear of fire was caused by a past life. It may be hard to find out why the fear, I think it would be easier to get rid of it by learning all you can about fire.
Speaking of back from the dead!
If I recall correctly(based on what I read on your website), your belief in past lives is based on a bad dream you once had, coupled with a self-diagnosis of a heart attack that was never verified by a medical professional.
An errant link brought me here, and I see the posters are much the same as years ago. Some things never change. I have been busy writing books, etc. Still love you all.
“Nothing in this world is to be feared, only understood.” - Marie Curie
I agree
I don’t find it terribly reassuring if I thoroughly understand the bear that’s about to devour me.
Curie died in 1934 of aplastic anemia brought on by her years of exposure to radiation.
In a past life I was the king of Spain.
Now I eat humble pie.
She gave her life so others may live.
Non sequitur.
I don’t think I would quote a famous scientist if I were arguing against science.
For those who accpt past lives…why do so few remember them?
I was mostly referring to the part of understanding someones fear of fire. I already conceded that I have no evidence for past lives, so I’m not arguing against the science of it anymore.