Dear Joseph,

To belief in incarnation is just a belief. And science looks for knowledge, not for beliefs. When we speat about beliefs, we are, for examle, in the religious domain not the scientific domain. If knowledge has somthing to do with beliefs, these beliefs were tested and corroborated. Once a belief is tested and passes, say, the Popperian test of falsifability, such a belief is taken as knowledge. I am of the opinion that incarnation, if it exists, belongs to the religious domain, not to the scientific domain.

From a scientific point of view it is not reasonable to believe in reincarnation. Science has to to do with knowledge not with beliefs. Even so, science cannot prove, nor can it disprove if incarnation is or is not the case. Those who belief in incarnation take it as a dogma, not, say , as a tested reality. And the idea of dogma is at total variance with the idea of science.

KInd regards,

Orlando

Dear Joseph Tham ,

I think one crucial point is whether the believers in reincarnation claim that their belief belongs to the domain of logic or is beyond logic.

In the second case, the belief is obviously also beyond science.

In the first case, a scientific way were the attempt to disprove the belief by looking for inconsistencies. Without inherent inconsistencies, there are again two possibilities:

a) The belief cannot be formulated in a rigorous way. Then again, it is beyond science.

b) The belief has at least the same status as some mathematical constructs: In mathematics, the absence of any relation to reality is not considered as a deficit.

Due to a lack of recorded data, natural science cannot be applied, and if I'm not mistaken, this implies that Occam's razor cannot be used, too.

BTW, I would never claim that any of the beliefs I feel comfortable with are based on logic; by such a claim I could gain nothing but lose something.

If there were a way to empirically test such belief or facts supporting such belief then it would become a scientific belief. For now, it is a widely held belief in the eastern society traditions. Like all religious belief, its value or effectiveness is only found through long personal experience. I am not attract to this particular conception for multiple moral reasons. I allow to justified social injustice. You have a hard life at the bottom of the social food chain; do not try to complaint about the unfairness of such society but this is the result of the fact that in your previous life you were not good and this life is the justified punishment of your sins of previous life and if you support the current punishment maybe you next life wil be better. This is a powerfull way to justify social hiearchy and injustice. It attribute all unfairness to the person own responsibility in these alleged past lifes. This is very convenient for the privilege classes since all their privileges become earned right deserved by previous lifes. So I see it mostly as an very powerfull ideological tool which once inserted into a child's mind will doom the child to blame himself for any unfair social condition he is afflicted and just try to improve its condition for the next life.

It is a better ideological tool than materialism which says that when you die then there is nothing. You are gone. Once this is inserted into a child's mind then there is no insentive to think beyound once own interest in this life. You can do whatever crime as long as it is good for you and if you will be into a very bad situation just suicide and there is no consequence. This is really the worse anti-social destructive meme there is. I prefer the christian and muslim paradize ideology. It encourage the person to work for the common good at whatever cost for the current life without a need like in the case of the reincarnation ideology to reach a superhuman enligthment for breaking the wheel of reincarnation.

Regards,

- Louis

yess

There are cases of people who remember former incarnations.

Just google out.

I think i have an experimental evidence for that

Jerzy

How do you know Yoshua

In boddhizm people are tought to care about all forms of life as each can be someones incarnation

I love also one is being persued to devolope spiritually

Thing i dont like is that you cn do anything which does not harm anyone .

But how you know that your action is of this kind

One should to good things only

Being not bad is not enough

Jerzy

“From a scientific point of view, is it reasonable to believe in reincarnation?”

Reincarnation seems as quite scientific event. As that is shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, the existent “consciousness of living beings on Earth” is an informational system, which fundamentally differs from an informational system “Matter” and so fundamentally cannot “emerge” as a result of any evolution of any material object.

Thus it is quite natural that (i) - a number of estimations of the probability of accidental appearance of Life on Earth practically exclude such appearance of Life scenario; and (ii) - that there are no any cases when some conscious non-living material objects would be observed.

So it seems as quite reasonable to conjecture that Life appeared on Earth as the result of the action of some non-material informational system, which existed in the “Information” Set [see the link above] in parallel with Matter; and “consciously” had be able a few billions of years ago to compose from some material atoms some [bio-] structures, which could/can exist in the aggressive material environment.

At that these structures were/are able to obtain energy from the environment by some very specific and “unnatural for Matter” ways, and to use this energy, again by some very specific and “unnatural for Matter” ways to support their existence and reproduction.

I.e. this non-material informational system made for herself some stable material residence in the Set, and further, as that seems quite evidently follows from analysis of Life development on Earth, steadily developed the residence so, that she could activate more and more her functional modules in this more and more similar to some “computer+program” system – up to the utmost developed version of the system above “homo sapiens sapiens consciousness”.

It seems rather reasonable to conjecture in this case, that the next non-material “hosts” in a next upgraded material residences were the same “hosts” in the former residences, which time-to time occurred in the Set outside Matter after deaths of their former residences, and returned to the new residences. Though a case, when after death some consciousnesses doesn’t occur in the Set “completely outside Matter”, but use some living beings organisms as some “transitory” residence, seems as cannot be excluded.

Or, by another words, consciousnesses of recent humans, and the humans also, have ages a few billions of years lready, and they have walked through practically infinite number of reincarnations.

And seems that are no any rational reasons to conjecture that this process of the consciousness development is finished in the “homo-two-sapiens” version; besides some religions dogmas that humans are made already completely by God(s). And that this process – and the reincarnations – continues now, and will continue in future, on the consciousness way “more and more outside Matter” in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set…

More see the link above and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720.

Cheers

For all you guys, who claim that There is no such thing as reincarnation or that this is only the case of personal belief I would advise to acknowledge that the reincarnation case has had a rather long history of scientific research, pioneering by Ian Stevenson. Just look at this google site:

https://scholar.google.si/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_vis=1&q=ian+stevenson+study+in+reincarnation+evidence&btnG= . Look into this rich literature reporting about true research, not beliefs or non-beliefs. And after such examination, you may re-evaluate your opinions that are, without any knowledge of the already accomplished research on this matter, only beliefs and not science.

No.

Dear Igor,

As you know, almost nobody will take the time to read the list of scientific publications that you point to. I just read the first page of one of these publication and did not find it convincing at all. A better strategy would be for you to just quote a paragraph that you find very convincing. Everybody would read it and could evaluate if it is convincing. LIke all ancient religious belief, people did not come to believe in them throw scientific discussion. Half of humanity believe in re-incarnation. We can't laugh at it as we can of the belief of crazy cult such as scientology. I was not born in a tradition which has re-incarnation and so far remained uterly unconvinced. I am currently going at a buddhist temple for meditation and the monk recently tried to convince us that meditation work better when we accept re-incarnation. I am not going to argue with the monk, but the belief so far is aesthetically respulsive to me. I do not need in general to have scientific argument for my religioius belief and my repulsion for re-incarnation have more to do with what I expressed above: it is a terrifying tool for justifying social injustices. I sometime suscribe to belief not on the basis of their empirical support but on the basis of the moral consequences that derive from it being true. I follow here the pragmatic of Peirce in the moral domain. And pragmatically speaking I find re-incarnation not very good.

Regards

- Louis

We should respect almost all beliefs. I fully respect people who believe in reincarnation. My parents had many beliefs that were strange to me; it is okay. From a scientific point of view, we may not be able to have testable hypotheses. But non-scientific beliefs may be as valuable as scientific ones. I am not sure that we should give special status or privilege to scientific beliefs.

I think such a debate remains unsettled even if put for an infinitely long period of time. In some communities, it is one of the deep rooted beliefs. Nowadays, several religious sects and cults are found which try to convince people of the concept of reincarnation. Of course, there are also people who are firm in this belief and claim to be living a peaceful life out of that (and seem to be true in reality too). It is up to your own judgement. For me, if there really exists something like reincarnation, okay, let it exist, and if not, that's also okay. It's because, I am not going to decide my course of life based on the trueness or falseness of this matter. Of course, those who dissipate this idea actually want to implant it in the minds of the audiences too, and in most cases the purpose is to attract the people towards a particular religious sect. I think unless this concept is used for unfair purpose like forcing someone to join certain religious groups, it has no harm. But the matter is how one can believe if no belief is coming in the mind. I think my discussion went a bit out of track and I apologize for that.

Beliefs about reincarnation and the after-life can influence people's behavior. If there is an afterlife, and I do not behave properly then I will go to hell. So I better behave in this life. Maybe there is a similar incentive effect of the belief in reincarnation.

Dear Joseph,

I can see many incentive effect in the belief in reincarnation:

-Seeing self-improvement worthed even towards the end of this life since it carries over.

-One's good action improve one's chance in a better next life

-One's bad action reduce one's chance in a better next life

-Solidarity with all forms of life since re-incarnation is not limited to our own species.

-Solidarity with other people outside our ethnic group since re-incarnation is not necessarily limited to happen within the same ethnic group

- Taking a vastly greater perspective on life than only our own life making belong not only to this generation but to the ancestors and so it reinforce the sense of belonging to a long tradition and a great respect for it since we then belong to it not only now but in the past.

Etc

Here are the negative effect of the belief :

- make one accept a hierarchy of classes. If I belong to a low class it is because I did not yet deserve in this life but if I behave well as a member of this class then I will re-incarnate in a better one.

- These lower classes just deserve what they deserve. If they would have better in their previous lifes they would not be in this low social state.

If we add to the re-incarnation, the belief of the possibility to break the re-incarnation cycle by rising to a state of illumination then it create a kind of paradize but I find it very egocentric contrary to the christian and muslim paradize because one's illumination is not closely connected with what we do for other but only connected with one's state of illumination and I find this uterly egocentric and contrary to the social nature of humans.

Regards,

- Louis

Ask Bridey Murphy...?

It seems that it is necessary to repeat a few points, that are written in the SS post above:

(i) - to say something about the phenomenon/notion “Consciousness” - as that is evidently true in any other case , of course, also, any discussion can be rational only if the main notions are properly defined - it is necessary before to understand on some sufficient level – what is “Consciousness”;

(ii) in the mainstream philosophy and science this, utmost fundamental in the philosophy and science, phenomenon/notion, and the other, utmost fundamental in the philosophy and science, phenomenon/notions, “Matter” , are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; thus any claims in the mainstream about Matter and consciousness, if aren’t some, often only banal, descriptions of their observed traits, quite logically are also transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

(iii) the phenomena/notions above are sufficiently enough defined only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [the links see the SS post above, now a day ago], where it is proven that Matter and Consciousness, including the observed versions of “consciousnesses of living beings on Earth”, are fundamentally different dynamical informational systems; which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and infinite “Information” Set.

From what follows at least a few consequences that are important for this thread question:

- any consciousness, including on Earth, fundamentally cannot be the result of any evolution of any material object/structure; and

- correspondingly the consciousness on Earth, before the time when the first bio-structures appeared on Earth, existed, as some “primary-consciousness”, principally completely outside Matter and in parallel with Matter, in the absolutely fundamental and infinite “Information” Set; thus

- appearance of the first bio-structures and further development of Life on Earth was the result of action of firstly this primary-consciousness, and further resided on more and more complex bio structures more and more developed versions of this informational non-material system.

Thus the appearance of first bio structures on Earth was the first “reincarnation” of the consciousness, which, again, was and is able to exist at least in some very truncated functionally “BIOS” version, in the Set outside any material matrix, including outside material bodies of living beings, including of humans’ bodies; and she occurs outside any, including human’s one, material body after the body’s death.

That above is practically undoubtedly rigorously true.

Returning to this thread question, in this case indeed a number of other questions arise, for example

– the primary consciousness was unique system in the Set or in the Set there were and possibly are now [here next question appears – the primary consciousness(es) existed in parallel with, say, the tribal Universe Superconsciousness-Creator, or she/they was/were some conscious? or accidental? action of Creator?, etc.] or any number of such informational systems existed/exist in the Set? So

- when the first bio structure , let a bacterium, firstly divided with creation of the pair of its clones – these residences where occupied by clones of just the primary consciousness, or at that some already existent “sister” used the appeared opportunity to have a stable material house?

Etc., the thread’s question is indeed rather interesting, and rational discussion so could be rather useful and intersting. However, again, that is possible only in the framework of the conception above. In other case the discussion will be, and is sometimes now, only a next typical senseless mainstream exchange by non-grounded, non-provable, non-disprovable, and so senseless, “opinions”.

More see the SS post above and papers that are linked in the post.

Cheers

Louis Brassard: I just read the first page of one of these publication and did not find it convincing at all. A better strategy would be for you to just quote a paragraph that you find very convincing.

Dear Louis, it was and is not my intention to persuade anybody into reincarnation. I only pointed out that this theme has already been an object of a scientific study and therefore that we can also make our opinion (belief?) on a more rational basis than just on the basis of our birthplace and education. My impression from reading the comments was that the theme of reincarnation is treated as being only as a matter of belief with full ignorance of a body of serious research. Therefore, my comment is actually a challenge.

Dear Igor,

Your point is well taken.

Regards,

- Louis

I think that from a scientific perspective we cannot proof reincarnation. We also cannot proof the Christ rose from his grave three days after Jesus had died on the cross ( Resurrection and Ascension). Similar I could say for many other religions. This does not mean that such beliefs are wrong, I only want to say that they are beyond science, maybe even bigger than science.

“…I think that from a scientific perspective we cannot proof reincarnation…”

From the scientific perspective the reincarnation seems as rather well scientifically grounded, see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

And though that

“… We also cannot proof the Christ rose from his grave three days after Jesus had died on the cross ( Resurrection and Ascension).……”

- indeed is true, that isn’t some ground for the first quotation would be true.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked, say, in the SS post May 20; besides it would be useful to read https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209 also.

Cheers

No

Afraa Ibrahim You are answering "no" to which question. No clear. Please clarify.

Eberhard Weber: I think that from a scientific perspective we cannot proof reincarnation. We also cannot proof the Christ rose from his grave three days after Jesus had died on the cross ( Resurrection and Ascension).

Well, there is – from purely methodological reasons – quite a difference between reincarnation and resurrection of the Christ. The latter represents a unique event, something that cannot be observed readily. It is difficult if not impossible to conceive the scientific validation or falsification of such event (it would be the same with the claim that life emerged just by chance). the hypothetical incarnation is something that by its very nature should be a continuous phenomenon and at least some of the researches I referred to in a previous post, developed some methodology to fit hypotheses. They may still be misled, wrong, whatever, but in principle, a continuous phenomenon can be a subject of validation and falsification.

Is it reasonable to believe in reincarnation?

NO.

Rad Maythil: Is it reasonable to believe in reincarnation? No.

Scientifically thinking, there is no place for a priori belief into anything. At the beginning of philosophical-scientific thought in the West, Socrates formulated this principle in the famous proverb: “I know that I don’t know anything”. Therefore, yes, it is not reasonable to believe in reincarnation. Nevertheless, at the same time let’s have an open mind towards this possibility. Moreover, if this is a challenge for us – let’s get deep into the already published research and judge it with rigor and open-mindedness at the same time.

Dear Igor, I understand you perfectly -- the same way I understand Carl Sagan's statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, reincarnation is not just one happening or a single instance. To consider (even to consider) reincarnation as a possibility we have to treat so many absences as reality across space and time -- starting from the existence of a soul without a body. Quite a string of things need to fall in to place for incarnation to happen, and I feel even the starting point (a soul without a body) asks me to stretch my reasoning beyond the breaking point. But I am ready to open my mind if I get a hard knock. :)

Warmest.

Opinion:

Question:

• The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Conclusion:-

I don't believe in reincarnation, but god will provide you an eternal life in the heaven

“…To consider (even to consider) reincarnation as a possibility we have to treat so many absences as reality across space and time -- starting from the existence of a soul without a body.…..”

There is no “many absences ….-- starting from the existence of a soul without a body”. Including “Soul”, more correctly – of the “consciousness” – exists quite objectively really, and if somebody don’t know – what is consciousness?, then he should also doubt in that she exist “with body” also.

And there are a huge number of people, including seems vast majority in the neuroscience, who indeed think that the soul/consciousness is absent and that just body, in its part “brain”, “feels”, forms “qualia”, etc., and even thinks, as the result of some chemical processes. Another large people group thinks that conscious functions “emerge” in brain because of “quantum entanglement”, “quantum orchestra”, etc..

Both these “chemical” and “physical” approaches above, which assert, for example, that humans’ mental activity is completely determined by some material processes, which only forms in some “ignorant religious” people some illusions about existence of some independent soul/consciousness above, have, nonetheless, no any rational grounds; and are nothing else then equally practically religious beliefs.

Such situation exists in the mainstream philosophy and science by evident reason – in both these branches of human’s knowledge the utmost fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; from what quite logically follows, that any attempt to make some rational inferences on fundamental level, including relating to the problem “existence/absence” of consciousness, results only in some transcendent/uncertain/irrational inferences/allegation/ “theories”, etc. As that is the proposition in the quotation above is also.

A next time in this thread: a rational elaboration of the fundamental – and further concrete – problems that relate to the phenomena/notions “Consciousness” and “Matter” – in this case the relations “consciousness/“mind”/“soul” – material body”,

are possible only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where it is rigorously proven that there exist only some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;

and it is shown that “Matter” and “Consciousness” are really existent – and fundamentally different, since are organized, exist, and evolve/develop be basing on fundamentally different laws/links/constants – essentially closed independent on anything in the Set and on each other informational dynamical systems .

Including, when somebody says about “as reality across space and time”, both, Matter and Consciousness, exist, and uninterruptedly change/operate, in mostly different own space/time/spacetimes.

Besides, though, two points: (i) - that the both spacetimes fundamentally have one common “true time” dimension, which is common for all seems absolutely infinite number of dynamical systems/processes in the Set; and (ii) these spacetimes partially are crossed, that follows from seems evidently real fact that non-material consciousness governs by practically material body.

Nonetheless that doesn’t change in a few other facts: it seems as practically for sure the informational dynamical system “consciousness on Earth” existed in the Set – the Set is absolutely infinite “room” for existence of everything - before Life appeared, and even possibly before Matter’s creation in this Universe;

when appearance of Life, starting from first practically purely material bio-structures, wasn’t an accidental material process - it is well known that probability of that is extremely negligible.

So that was an action of some non-material system; and it seems as quite rational to conjecture that further few billions of years of development of Life was again governed by this system aimed at upgrading of her stable material residence to realize more and more her analytical capabilities.

Including for that seems it turns out to be optimal that material residences’ upgrades are more liable if some changes are firstly appear and are fixed on genetic level, and next capabilities are realized in next new material residences, what, in turn, was/is more easily realizable if current residences cease existence, i.e. body must dead; and some time the system returns in purely non-material state in the Set.

Further the consciousness seeks for and founds new and possibly upgraded body; etc.; what is just some “reincarnations process”.

The consideration above is based on well grounded conjectures, and seems doesn’t contain some logically irrational points; however that is only some initial scheme, which really has a numerous versions of concrete realizations. Including here some essential impact of very possible tribal Universe Creator/Superconsciousness/God, cannot be excluded now, etc.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts

Cheers

Blessed are those who can believe in everything, including they have proved everything.

As a first year high school kid I had some difficulty in remembering the spelling of "believe" and then I realized there is a "lie" in "believe" and that solved my problem :)

“…Blessed are those who can believe in everything,… As a first year high school kid I had some difficulty in remembering the spelling of "believe" and then I realized there is a "lie" in "believe" and that solved my problem..”

The phenomena/notions “lie” and “believe” aren’t something the same ones, though indeed, in humans’ practice meet together rather often – for example there exist two main principles of propaganda: “the more blatant lie the more people will believe that it is true”, and “if hundreds of times to repeat a lie many people will believe that it is a truth”.

But that relates only to a specific property of human’s consciousness, which, if a human is a normal human, i.e. is able to think objectively and logically, she/he hasn’t too much corresponding problems when analyzes events, processes, etc. in her/his environment.

But only in some principal limits: because of that any new information about the environment any human obtains only experimentally, when any experimental outcome principally cannot to prove something, first of all existence of something, she/he so only can believe in that her/his, and any other human’s inferences about the environment are adequate to the objectively really existent environment.

Correspondingly all humans’ knowledge about the environment is nothing else then some beliefs; and so, for example, in the mainstream philosophy a few thousands of years simultaneously there exist two main opposite doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism”, which are based on opposite - principally non-provable and non-disprovable - postulates: “Being is the being of eternal Matter”, and “Being is the being of eternal Consciousness/Idea/Spirit…”; and a huge number of sub-doctrines/schools…., which also are based on non-provable and non-disprovable postulates well co-exist thousands of years as well.

As well in the science all theories, models, etc. are based only on eventually non-provable and non-disprovable postulates, which are based only on experiments, and so scientists can only believe that their mental constructions are true; and these beliefs by no means differ principally from, say, a belief in a God. However the theories are testable experimentally, and so, when an experiment’s outcome isn’t in consistence with a theory, from that follows that this theory at least has limited applications.

But any mainstream philosophical doctrine, since philosophy studies utmost fundamental phenomena, is based on postulates that are non-testable, and so any such doctrine doesn’t differ from any religions at all. The main mainstream philosophical postulates above are simply some versions of, say, a postulate “Being is the being of eternal God Who created everything”.

Or, by another words, in the mainstream philosophy the utmost fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; completely as that is for any God in any religion.

From the situation above there exist two main exclusion. One relates to purely abstract product of the consciousness “mathematics”, where in many cases the “existence problem” usually doesn’t exist, it is “solved” in a next mathematical theory simply by initial propositions “Let A is….”, “Let B is…”; and further a mathematical construction is derived basing on the initial propositions, including initial sets of operations.

The other case, which principally differs from mathematics, because of it relates, as that is in all other sciences, including the indeed philosophy, to external environment, is the “The Information as Absolute” conception [the link see above], which is also based on experiments - where some information is detected.

Note here, that “experimental outcome” doesn’t mean that the outcome is, for example, some digits on some instruments that appear in some, say, physical interaction. The experimental outcome is these objective digits + interpretation of this fact in framework of corresponding, say, theory. If there is no interpretation the digits on an instrument’s screen mean nothing.

And humans used “experimentally”, of course, information to communicate with each other tens of thousands of years, however taking no attention to the problem – what is the phenomenon “Information”? – something like they all this time used, of course, the logics, however only when Aristotle indeed detected the logics as some specific phenomenon, humans began to use it consciously.

And if a human consciously detects some information, at least as “data”, then from this experiment a number of very interesting and fundamental consequence follow, first of all that the phenomenon “Information” is absolutely fundamental, when, besides, in this case it is no necessity to prove the first point of any proof of something – “existence of this something”, any information turns out to be absolutely logically always – i.e. eternally – existent - it logically cannot be non-existent.

And that there don’t exist something else besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, including transcendent in the mainstream “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Gods” [if exist], etc., are nothing else then some – principally non-transcendent since Information, in spite of that is absolutely fundamental, isn’t a transcendent phenomenon - informational systems.

And, further, that Matter and “Consciousness on Earth” are fundamentally different informational systems, which are organized/exist/evolve/develop basing on fundamentally different laws/links/constants, and so any consciousness principally cannot, for example, “emerge from Matter” by any ways, and so consciousnesses exist essentially outside Matter and Matter’s spacetime; when a living being’s body dies, its/her/his consciousness turns out to be outside Matter practically completely, etc.

More see SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers