Do you believe in past lives?

[Polar_Iceman]

@Marley23

No. That’s the best way to waste a ton of time reviewing sloppy “research” by people who, however innocently intended, are trying to prove that something impossible is true and who are prone to making extravagant claims about their findings because they’re desperate to believe them. The best way to get a definitive answer would be to research the brain and come up with some way for this to be possible. If it’s not possible, that rules out all these accounts by themselves. (Spoiler alert: it’s not possible.)

So the logical sequence of questions/research would seem to be:

1. Determine how consciousness arises from a lump of wet meat; Ie: the brain.
2. Determine if the consciousness has an existence separate and distinct from the meat.
3. If consciousness is a distinct entity, determine the nature of its physical existence in terms of known physical laws.
4. Determine if consciousnesses are interchangeable between different brains.
5. Determine what happens to those consciousnesses that have not been reinserted into new brains.

Could we have the answers to these questions by Tuesday???

[Czarcasm]

It’s not like it’s a pop quiz that nobody is prepared for-the answers to those questions have been sought after for thousands of years.

[Polar_Iceman]

@Czarcasm

It’s not like it’s a pop quiz that nobody is prepared for-the answers to those questions have been sought after for thousands of years.

Yes, but given the widespread interest in, and significance of both the questions and answers, I would think that there would have been a concerted formal effort to get the answers.

I would imagine something like a “The Manhattan Project” equivalent would be appropriate. It could lead to the most profound body of knowledge in the universe; or it could yield one big fizzle.

Unfortunately, for those of us participating in this thread, there is only one way we are ever going to get an answer. I for one, agree with Woody Allen: “I’m not afraid of death, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

[Marley23]

@Polar_Iceman

Yes, but given the widespread interest in, and significance of both the questions and answers, I would think that there would have been a concerted formal effort to get the answers.

I wouldn’t expect that. There’s been no shortage of effort put into this by believers like Stevenson, but it’s not not concerted because many of the believers can’t agree with each other and because this stuff isn’t taken seriously by people who don’t already believe in it. And that’s really the way it should be. This stuff may be entertaining, but it’s nothing even close to science. We’re talking ghost stories here.

I would imagine something like a “The Manhattan Project” equivalent would be appropriate.

The Manhattan Project cost around $2 billion, and adjusted for inflation that’s about $26 billion today. The idea of spending even a small percentage of either total on research of souls and reincarnation and other woo is just horrifying. There are so many underfunded areas of research out there and the U.S. doesn’t have any space shuttles anymore, and you want to waste money on this?

It could lead to the most profound body of knowledge in the universe; or it could yield one big fizzle.

This stuff fizzled in the 19th century.

[Polar_Iceman]

@Marley23

I wouldn’t expect that. There’s been no shortage of effort put into this by believers like Stevenson, but it’s not not concerted because many of the believers can’t agree with each other and because this stuff isn’t taken seriously by people who don’t already believe in it. And that’s really the way it should be. This stuff may be entertaining, but it’s nothing even close to science. We’re talking ghost stories here.

The Manhattan Project cost around $2 billion, and adjusted for inflation that’s about $26 billion today. The idea of spending even a small percentage of either total on research of souls and reincarnation and other woo is just horrifying. There are so many underfunded areas of research out there and the U.S. doesn’t have any space shuttles anymore, and you want to waste money on this?

This stuff fizzled in the 19th century.

From the little I know of the subject, the research on the subject has followed the same trajectory of pretty much all scientific research; ie: it starts out with a group of individuals going around in circles; it has numerous dead ends; it has numerous false findings; there is slow progress; it proceeds in fits and starts.

Then someone makes a breakthrough and it jumps ahead.

From what I have read about the history of science, these breakthroughs almost always occur immediately after someone discovers/invents a new instrument that is capable of measuring something which was not measurable before.

I don’t know what instrument we are talking about in this context; maybe a ghost catcher???

Regarding the cost of doing a “Manhattan Project” on the subject: I am not too phased about that.

From what I have read (someday, I will have to keep a log of the stuff I read, so that I can say more than “from what I have read”) the “Citations Index” has reported that more than 90% of all scientific research is never read by anyone; it just vanishes into oblivion.

So considering the fact that less than 10% of all publicly funded science is never even published (I read that somewhere), I think we can safely redirect some of this research funding to studying woo and the world would be no more badly off.

I agree the loss of the shuttle is heart breaking; our inability to return to the moon is painfully embarrassing.

On a daily basis, I deal with scientists and engineers who I would not trust to fix a flashlight. Basically, from a scientific and engineering viewpoint, we are screwed. And this is coming to you from a fully qualified and experienced scientist/engineer!!!

[Polar_Iceman]

Whoops! Damn that five minute editing limit:

Should have read: “less than 10% of all publicly funded science is ever published…”

[Czarcasm]

@Polar_Iceman

Whoops! Damn that five minute editing limit:

Should have read: “less than 10% of all publicly funded science is ever published…”

Yeah-I’d like a cite for that.
You talk about breakthroughs and moving ahead, but in the case of past lives and related woo thousands of years have produced absolutely nothing positive and truckloads of negative. Science isn’t looking for something until you find it, no matter how long it takes.

[Marley23]

@Polar_Iceman

From the little I know of the subject, the research on the subject has followed the same trajectory of pretty much all scientific research; ie: it starts out with a group of individuals going around in circles; it has numerous dead ends; it has numerous false findings; there is slow progress; it proceeds in fits and starts.

Examples, please. There was no solid evidence for this stuff in the 19th century and little or nothing that could be counted as real research. That’s still the case.

Then someone makes a breakthrough and it jumps ahead.

What breakthroughs? What jumps?

I don’t know what instrument we are talking about in this context; maybe a ghost catcher???

Ghosts don’t exist.

Regarding the cost of doing a “Manhattan Project” on the subject: I am not too phased about that.

I’m not surprised.

So considering the fact that less than 10% of all publicly funded science is never even published (I read that somewhere)

I don’t suppose you could be bothered to find out where you read it?

I think we can safely redirect some of this research funding to studying woo and the world would be no more badly off.

The problem is that even if this stuff is published - and published by what scientific journal? - it’ll still be useless. So yes, in that sense you’re asking for a guarantee that this time and money would be wasted.

On a daily basis, I deal with scientists and engineers who I would not trust to fix a flashlight. Basically, from a scientific and engineering viewpoint, we are screwed.

So your attitude is, ‘We’re screwed, so fuck research - let’s give Ghost Hunters a lab?’

[Polar_Iceman]

@Marley23

Examples, please. There was no solid evidence for this stuff in the 19th century and little or nothing that could be counted as real research. That’s still the case.

What breakthroughs? What jumps?

Ghosts don’t exist.

I’m not surprised.

I don’t suppose you could be bothered to find out where you read it?

The problem is that even if this stuff is published - and published by what scientific journal? - it’ll still be useless. So yes, in that sense you’re asking for a guarantee that this time and money would be wasted.

So your attitude is, ‘We’re screwed, so fuck research - let’s give Ghost Hunters a lab?’

No, I think you are misunderstanding my comments; I’m not suggesting that we abandon all research. I was saying that there is so much useless research being conducted now, that adding a couple of woo projects to the mix wouldn’t make much difference, and may actually yield a benefit.

After a long career in the science & engineering business, I have learned a number of things; these are applicable to the current discussion.

1. In all controversial issues there is institutional bias.
2. Data is always filtered to support the institutional bias.
3. When the momentum is sufficient, institutional bias becomes dogma.
4. Anyone who challenges the dogma does so at their peril.

I have just done a Google search on both “reincarnation” and “life after death”; I got 2.9 million and 2.2 million hits respectively. Evidently, there is a lot of information out there dealing with the subject; a brief scan of a couple of links suggests that there is some serious scientific work being done on the subject; and there are apparently serious journals publishing this stuff on a peer reviewed basis.

This would seem to contradict many of your comments above; it would seem that mainstream science has succumbed to a bad dose of bias/dogmatism, as noted in my points above, and this is preventing scientists from entertaining the possibility that there may be something of value in examining the subject.

Your own comment probably summarises the situation very concisely: “The problem is that even if this stuff is published - and published by what scientific journal? - it’ll still be useless. So yes, in that sense you’re asking for a guarantee that this time and money would be wasted.”

You have taken a position on the subject that telegraphs a conclusion and precludes any objective argument; this is in direct opposition to the scientific method.

Personally, I am open minded about the subject and am willing to listen to the arguments presented by both sides. However, so far the bulk of data (not to say it is any good) seems to be coming from the “pro” side, while the mainstream scientific community seems to offer only dogma.

Yes, I admit I have been very slack in keeping track of where I read what. However, I did find two references in my files: one regarding citation analysis, the other relating to research in general:

0701012.pdf

An interview of the former editor in chief of “The New England Journal of Medicine”, Marcia Angell in “Discover”; July 2008. Page 49.

[Polar_Iceman]

@Czarcasm

Yeah-I’d like a cite for that.
Science isn’t looking for something until you find it, no matter how long it takes.

Oh? Higgs Boson???

[John_Mace]

@Polar_Iceman

So the logical sequence of questions/research would seem to be:

1. Determine how consciousness arises from a lump of wet meat; Ie: the brain.
2. Determine if the consciousness has an existence separate and distinct from the meat.
3. If consciousness is a distinct entity, determine the nature of its physical existence in terms of known physical laws.
4. Determine if consciousnesses are interchangeable between different brains.
5. Determine what happens to those consciousnesses that have not been reinserted into new brains.

Could we have the answers to these questions by Tuesday???

Great idea. You should fund that.

[Marley23]

@Polar_Iceman

No, I think you are misunderstanding my comments; I’m not suggesting that we abandon all research. I was saying that there is so much useless research being conducted now, that adding a couple of woo projects to the mix wouldn’t make much difference, and may actually yield a benefit.

That’s exactly what I understood you to be saying. You’re saying that some research doesn’t turn out to be useful, so let’s put our energy into something that is totally useless. The fact that a particular study doesn’t yield a published result doesn’t mean it was a waste of time. It especially doesn’t mean it was not worth doing first. The research may turn out to have been a dead end (there’s not too much reason to publish your work if your theory failed right away), but failure is part of science. I think you are wrong to assume that we can really identify the stuff that’s not worth doing. Even if we could, why waste it on this?

One of the interesting things about the early spiritualists - the people who popularized seances and things - is that many of them really were committed to science in a general way. They felt humanity might have really discovered a way to communicate with the dead, and they took pains to rule out human interference and to try to prove that what they were observing was legitimate. Do you know what happened over the next few decades? It turned into stage magic. Concepts that were intended to rule out human interference - securing the medium’s body, for example - were just co-opted into the service of illusions. That’s because ultimately, this was just entertainment. It wasn’t a serious area of scientific inquiry even though people like Arthur Conan Doyle managed to put huge amounts of time and their reputations into it.

So what’s next? Should we start investigating unicorn poop as an alternative fuel? If it’s real, it could really reduce our dependence on oil. Of course, there’s no evidence unicorns are real or that their crap is magic, but what do we have to lose? A lot of scientific research is a waste and the discovery could be really valuable. Should we start researching the possibility that Lennay Kekua is real?

After a long career in the science & engineering business

What did you actually do?

I have just done a Google search on both “reincarnation” and “life after death”; I got 2.9 million and 2.2 million hits respectively.

I got 2 million for [cats smarter than people] and 16.9 million hits for "cheezburger. So what?

a brief scan of a couple of links suggests that there is some serious scientific work being done on the subject; and there are apparently serious journals publishing this stuff on a peer reviewed basis.

You think a Google suggests there’s research that’s apparently serious? Take a look, pony up the cites, and let’s discuss whether or not it’s serious. DonnieBarko suggested we should take Stevenson seriously and you can see how that turned out.

You have taken a position on the subject that telegraphs a conclusion and precludes any objective argument; this is in direct opposition to the scientific method.

My position is based on the evidence.

Personally, I am open minded about the subject

Your mind is as clearly made up as mine is. You’ve said several times that there aren’t a lot of facts on this matter and you’re insisting lots of conclusions are possible, and now you’re making accusations about closed mindedness and dogmatism. There are facts here. They’re just not on your side. Factually there is no solid evidence for any phenomenon like this and no reason to think it’s even possible. It’s not unscientific to point that out. What’s unscientific is all this handwaving and the vague suggestions (without evidence) that anything is possible. Your understanding of research doesn’t strike me as very scientific either.

[Razncain]

Polar Iceman–I have just done a Google search on both “reincarnation” and “life after death”; I got 2.9 million and 2.2 million hits respectively.

Marley23–I got 2 million for [cats smarter than people] and 16.9 million hits for "cheezburger. So what?

Ha!

[FinnAgain]

Google Vomit strikes again.

[Czarcasm]

@Polar_Iceman

Oh? Higgs Boson???

Another poster elsewhere covered that:

@QuickSilver

Scientist doing the research had reason to believe there was a Higgs Boson particle. There was observable, repeatable evidence to suggest there was a Higgs Boson particle. Once it was observed, nobody claimed others would only be able to see it if they were properly trained to see the Higgs Boson particle.

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, the Higgs Boson was predicted by the Standard Model. And it was proven to Sigma 5. The idea that it’s at all analogous is an absurdity.

[Doubticus]

@Polar_Iceman

Oh? Higgs Boson???

Nope. Brain, Boltzmann.

[Marley23]

@Polar_Iceman

So the logical sequence of questions/research would seem to be:

1. Determine how consciousness arises from a lump of wet meat; Ie: the brain.

There’s already been plenty of research into this, by the way. There are different theories on how consciousness developed and I don’t feel qualified to summarize them, but it’s not as if the door is wide open because nobody has ever thought to look into it. We don’t need ghosts and souls floating around to explain consciousness. The brain is sufficient.

[Polar_Iceman]

In light of the general dogmatism and hostility toward my suggestions that this topic deserves a serious looking at, I decided to read a random selection of some of the millions of hits that pop up in Google.

I didn’t take too long before I detected a pattern, and I started to laugh. In fact, I ended up laughing so hard that I had to put down my beer before I spilled any.

It turns out that mainstream science has been infiltrated by the Whackos of Woo, and serious research on this topic has been surreptitiously carried out by hundreds, if not thousands, of them world wide, for a long time.

This fifth column of whackos operate under various guises, but mainly they call themselves biologists, molecular biologists, neuro-biologists, neurologists, bio-neurologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc , etc.

They have very cleverly hidden the true intent of their research from the mainstream by partitioning it into parallel functional branches, and describing it with sciencey sounding, high fallutin gobbledygook such as: what is consciousness; how does consciousness arise; where does consciousness reside; what factors affect consciousness; how does consciousness respond to changing circumstances.

In other words, these Woo Whackos are asking the same questions the afterlife/reincarnation crowd are asking. Not only that, but they are very sneakily doing research to get the answers!!! And a lot of it is probably being paid for by the taxpayer!!!

And to top it all off, they have been sneaking the results of their studies into respectable, peer reviewed journals. And nobody has noticed what they are doing!!!

However, now that the secret is out, we can expose these whackos and name their research for what it really is: “Woo Studies”.

I have to hand it to those sneaky guys in the white lab coats; they have done an end run around mainstream scientists and pulled off a good one.

[Marley23]

@Polar_Iceman

In light of the general dogmatism and hostility toward my suggestions that this topic deserves a serious looking at, I decided to read a random selection of some of the millions of hits that pop up in Google.

You also decided to post no cites or anything that supports your viewpoint.

They have very cleverly hidden the true intent of their research from the mainstream by partitioning it into parallel functional branches, and describing it with sciencey sounding, high fallutin gobbledygook such as: what is consciousness; how does consciousness arise; where does consciousness reside; what factors affect consciousness; how does consciousness respond to changing circumstances.

Please let me know which of those fields of inquiry covers reincarnation. I guess that’s be a “changing circumstance?”