Gadgetine

Do you believe in reincarnation?

dimitar_berbagod

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Can't say I believe in reincarnation, but if it is real knowing my luck I'll come back as another bald bloke :(
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
The materialist theory that consciousness is created by or dependent on the brain is full of holes. It's reasonable to be open to other ideas.

Tell me about some of those "holes" in the theory.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
aussieavodart said:
The materialist theory that consciousness is created by or dependent on the brain is full of holes. It's reasonable to be open to other ideas.

Tell me about some of those "holes" in the theory.


A pretty good example of what I'm talking about:

[youtube:31mcyn77]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4[/youtube:31mcyn77]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity


And I've already mentioned Dr Ian Stevenson's work.


Pimm Van Lommel's research is worth a look as well:

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
A pretty good example of what I'm talking about:

{snip video about a guy playing with a "brain wave" instrument}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

And I've already mentioned Dr Ian Stevenson's work.

Pimm Van Lommel's research is worth a look as well

Huh?? I don't understand the point of all that. A guy looking at his "brain waves" with an electrical instrument...a detailed discussion of which parts of the brain have which functions...a slightly goofy scientist (?) who has a rather whimsical interest in proving the existence of reincarnation...a look at the occurrence of "near death experiences" in hospital patients...

What does ANY of that have to do with whether or not the brain is the source of consciousness?? :dunno:
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
aussieavodart said:
A pretty good example of what I'm talking about:

{snip video about a guy playing with a "brain wave" instrument}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

And I've already mentioned Dr Ian Stevenson's work.

Pimm Van Lommel's research is worth a look as well

Huh?? I don't understand the point of all that. A guy looking at his "brain waves" with an electrical instrument...a detailed discussion of which parts of the brain have which functions...a slightly goofy scientist (?) who has a rather whimsical interest in proving the existence of reincarnation...a look at the occurrence of "near death experiences" in hospital patients...

What does ANY of that have to do with whether or not the brain is the source of consciousness?? :dunno:


Isn't it obvious?


The example of the youtube video clearly demonstrates that our thoughts aer capable of affecting the physiology of our brains. Thought is immaterial and precedes neural activity in this case, unless you are wiling to contend that the brain is responsible for making the mind meditate which would be an incoherent position to take.

Your opinion of Ian Stevenson as a faux-scientist or a goofball is irrelevant. Science is supposed to be settled on evidence, not personal views about the character of the researchers. Why not read the man's peer-reviewed research before making up your mind?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
Isn't it obvious?

The example of the youtube video clearly demonstrates that our thoughts aer capable of affecting the physiology of our brains.

Yes. So what? Our thoughts are capable of affecting not just the physiology of our brains, but the rest of our bodies, too. What's your point?

aussieavodart said:
Thought is immaterial and precedes neural activity in this case, unless you are wiling to contend that the brain is responsible for making the mind meditate which would be an incoherent position to take.

I'm not sure what you mean by those first ten words. Please explain.

aussieavodart said:
Your opinion of Ian Stevenson as a faux-scientist or a goofball is irrelevant. Science is supposed to be settled on evidence, not personal views about the character of the researchers. Why not read the man's peer-reviewed research before making up your mind?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's probably going to take a lot more evidence than what Stevenson was able to concoct before I believe in reincarnation.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
aussieavodart said:
Isn't it obvious?

The example of the youtube video clearly demonstrates that our thoughts aer capable of affecting the physiology of our brains.

Yes. So what? Our thoughts are capable of affecting not just the physiology of our brains, but the rest of our bodies, too. What's your point?

That brain activity can be driven by something that can't be quantified or measured- it doesn't require brain activity to exist.

aussieavodart said:
Thought is immaterial and precedes neural activity in this case, unless you are wiling to contend that the brain is responsible for making the mind meditate which would be an incoherent position to take.

I'm not sure what you mean by those first ten words. Please explain.

His brain activity was being manipulated through the use of his attention span. The activity we saw on the ECG was a product of something we can't measure but know exists.

aussieavodart said:
Your opinion of Ian Stevenson as a faux-scientist or a goofball is irrelevant. Science is supposed to be settled on evidence, not personal views about the character of the researchers. Why not read the man's peer-reviewed research before making up your mind?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's probably going to take a lot more evidence than what Stevenson was able to concoct before I believe in reincarnation.

What sense does it make to not review ANY of the evidence before demanding more of it?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
Bryan said:
Yes. So what? Our thoughts are capable of affecting not just the physiology of our brains, but the rest of our bodies, too. What's your point?

That brain activity can be driven by something that can't be quantified or measured- it doesn't require brain activity to exist.

Huh??? Of course brain activity can be quantified and measured! Certainly in principle! In fact, the "brain wave" machine that guy was using in the video was doing that, although it obviously wasn't doing it at a very high level. Not high enough to show what the guy was actually thinking.

aussieavodart said:
aussieavodart said:
Thought is immaterial and precedes neural activity in this case, unless you are wiling to contend that the brain is responsible for making the mind meditate which would be an incoherent position to take.

I'm not sure what you mean by those first ten words. Please explain.

His brain activity was being manipulated through the use of his attention span. The activity we saw on the ECG was a product of something we can't measure but know exists.

What in the world makes you think we can't measure it (in principle)??? :dunno:

aussieavodart said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's probably going to take a lot more evidence than what Stevenson was able to concoct before I believe in reincarnation.

What sense does it make to not review ANY of the evidence before demanding more of it?

Sure, I'll do my best to keep an open mind, but I just don't have the time to read a huge amount of material devoted to something I consider to be highly unlikely (like the possible existence of leprechauns). If someone like Stevenson is serious about believing in the possible existence of reincarnation, I'll have to let his peers comment on what he says, before _I_ waste any time on it. I actually consider the existence of the "Loch Ness Monster" to be more believable than reincarnation, but I don't waste any time on that, either.
 

s.a.f

Senior Member
Reaction score
67
Bryan said:
I actually consider the existence of the "Loch Ness Monster" to be more believable than reincarnation, but I don't waste any time on that, either.
Thats exactly how I feel about religion.
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
Cassin said:
Some of you might enjoy this

17109084.JPG





"Buddhist Practice on Western Ground: Reconciling Eastern Ideals and Western Psychology [Paperback]"

Forum rules

This forum is for thoughtful and meaningful topics only. Do not use threads like a "chat room". Useless and off-color topics, trolling, vulgarity, and replies with no valuable content will be deleted. No discussions on Religion. Posts here will not increase your post count.

:uglylol:
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
monty1978 said:
Slightly off topic but wtf I'm bored! I dragged my *** through half of the Tibetan book of living and dying in an attempt to better myself only to find that sogyal rinpoche (spelling?) was an assaulter of women. Semi killed the whole buddhist thing for me :dunno:

So! a few (1000) catholic priests touch some little children, does not stop people believing in little baby Jesus!

Besides, buddhist believe the body is just a vessel and only the soul has any real importance. It is not like Sogyal Rinpoche used his buddhist super powers to attack these women's souls!!! I bet he released a couple of hundred frogs and fish to make up for it!!! :whistle:
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
monty1978 said:
I hear you but he did apparantly do much good. His high standing and loose moral behaviour went far to dispariage the results of his teachings, I found it hard to marry the disparit, what's the word, ethics.

I did say semi though. I do follow many of the principles of buddhism, at least try to. Suppression of ego is the one I find hard lol!

Bit like the doctor nipping out for a cigarette......................but still... :whistle:
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
monty1978 said:
oni said:
monty1978 said:
I hear you but he did apparantly do much good. His high standing and loose moral behaviour went far to dispariage the results of his teachings, I found it hard to marry the disparit, what's the word, ethics.

I did say semi though. I do follow many of the principles of buddhism, at least try to. Suppression of ego is the one I find hard lol!

Bit like the doctor nipping out for a cigarette......................but still... :whistle:

Weren't they assaults of young vulnerable women though? Not exactly a cigarette smoking doctor. I mean I read that they were manipulated by him to do his bidding as a result of his standing. I mean for me that sounds great lol but seriously he's supposed to be whiter than white!

He was only a human in a position of power, with vulnerable women. I would not say he was a case of Daz Ultra.......... :uglylol:
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Bryan said:
Huh??? Of course brain activity can be quantified and measured! Certainly in principle! In fact, the "brain wave" machine that guy was using in the video was doing that, although it obviously wasn't doing it at a very high level. Not high enough to show what the guy was actually thinking.

I didn't say brain activity couldn't be measured.

What in the world makes you think we can't measure it (in principle)??? :dunno:

Brain activity was being measured, not consciousness.

Now, if you are of the opinion that brain activity IS consciousness then Wilber (the guy in the clip) would have been either dead or unconscious, he wasn't either of those things.

Sure, I'll do my best to keep an open mind, but I just don't have the time to read a huge amount of material devoted to something I consider to be highly unlikely (like the possible existence of leprechauns). If someone like Stevenson is serious about believing in the possible existence of reincarnation, I'll have to let his peers comment on what he says, before _I_ waste any time on it.

Fair enough, even though I'm no fan of science by consensus or what is culturally acceptable.

And for what it's worth Stevenson didn't actually 'believe', as such. His works are titled as 'suggestive' of reincarnation where all other possible explanations have been ruled out.


Another interesting bit for anyone interested:

Is the Brain Really Necessary?

This was the question asked by British neurologist John Lorber when he addressed a conference of pædiatricians in 1980. Such a frivolous sounding question was sparked by case studies Lorber had been involved in since the mid-60s. The case studies involve victims of an ailment known as hydrocephalus, more commonly known as water on the brain. The condition results from an abnormal build up of cerebrospinal fluid and can cause severe retardation and death if not treated.

Two young children with hydrocephalus referred to Lorber presented with normal mental development for their age. In both children, there was no evidence of a cerebral cortex. One of the children died at age 3 months, the second at 12 months. He was still following a normal development profile with the exception of the apparent lack of cerebral tissue shown by repeated medical testing. An account of the children was published in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology.

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/i ... essary.htm
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
monty1978 said:
Slightly off topic but wtf I'm bored! I dragged my *** through half of the Tibetan book of living and dying in an attempt to better myself only to find that sogyal rinpoche (spelling?) was an assaulter of women. Semi killed the whole buddhist thing for me :dunno:


Don't let that kill it for you. There are plenty of places that teach those kind of things sans all the religious connotations, cultural rituals and abusive clergy that organized Buddhist religion is prisoner to.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
aussieavodart said:
Bryan said:
Huh??? Of course brain activity can be quantified and measured! Certainly in principle! In fact, the "brain wave" machine that guy was using in the video was doing that, although it obviously wasn't doing it at a very high level. Not high enough to show what the guy was actually thinking.

I didn't say brain activity couldn't be measured.

I _do_ consider brain activity to be consciousness.

aussieavodart said:
What in the world makes you think we can't measure it (in principle)??? :dunno:

Brain activity was being measured, not consciousness.

So what exactly would you consider to be a measurment of consciousness, and not just "brain activity"? :)

aussieavodart said:
Now, if you are of the opinion that brain activity IS consciousness then Wilber (the guy in the clip) would have been either dead or unconscious, he wasn't either of those things.

The "brain-wave machine" in that video was just a very superficial electrical device that someone could put together with spare parts bought from a local Radio Shack store. To claim that the guy was either dead or unconscious just because he was able to alter some of the electrical signals that simple device was capable of detecting is beyond ridiculous.

I'm still waiting to hear about some of the "holes" in the materialist theory that you claim to have. To me, everything still makes perfect sense.

aussieavodart said:
Sure, I'll do my best to keep an open mind, but I just don't have the time to read a huge amount of material devoted to something I consider to be highly unlikely (like the possible existence of leprechauns). If someone like Stevenson is serious about believing in the possible existence of reincarnation, I'll have to let his peers comment on what he says, before _I_ waste any time on it.

Fair enough, even though I'm no fan of science by consensus or what is culturally acceptable.

Neither am I, but I have to draw the line somewhere! Rather than spend a lot of time seriously looking at all kinds of odd claims (reincarnation, leprechauns, ghosts, poltergeists, the Loch-Ness Monster, etc.), I'll let some very smart scientist-types examine and question the evidence first. If they find it to be reasonably credible, then I'll be able to take it seriously myself.
 

virtuality

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
So what exactly would you consider to be a measurment of consciousness, and not just "brain activity"? :)

Measuring and quantifying brain activity is still in its early days.

When we process specific information, a certain part of our brain goes into increased activity state. At the moment, information processing can be measured, ie it gives an insight into our brains and our consciousness. What happens when we don't process information? Let's say I'm a very good Buddhist and I manage to get into that zone where the brain is almost inactive, does that mean I would have no consciousness?

I'm with Bryan, I want to believe consciousness=brain activity, but I don't think it's that simple.

We can control our brain activity to a certain degree, we decide what to think or how to use our senses, ie we have a consciousness. But there is something more in the brain that fires random signals which we can't control nor predict and they are part of the consciousness.

I know our neuronal networks get hard wired in a certain way through our genetic make up and education, ie we have a personality that is deterministic. But, I still don't think we can quantify the next random signal in our brain.

Science doesn't yet know nor understand what consciousness is. There are lots of theories, some have more proofs than the others. Yes, we know about the electrons jumping around following a given neuronal path. Now that we have a better understanding of quantum physics, scientist have discovered that particles play a role in our biology as well. But, some of the quantum particles have this property of being in more than one places, as far as I know this property hasn't been quantified yet...
 

Cassin

Senior Member
Reaction score
78
oni said:
Cassin said:
Some of you might enjoy this

17109084.JPG





"Buddhist Practice on Western Ground: Reconciling Eastern Ideals and Western Psychology [Paperback]"

Forum rules

This forum is for thoughtful and meaningful topics only. Do not use threads like a "chat room". Useless and off-color topics, trolling, vulgarity, and replies with no valuable content will be deleted. No discussions on Religion. Posts here will not increase your post count.

:uglylol:

For the record...I do not like that rule and I want it gone. The sheer number of people who complained about religious topics were the ones that got that rule made when they complained to the site owner. And for the record it was the people who pushed non belief that got that rule put up there. Pretty damn annoying to be honest. Anyone that said anything positive got their *** jumped on and 'yelled at' so much it became a problem.

IMO people who push belief and non-belief are equally as bad in every way but for this specific instance, on this site, it was the non belief crowd that got it banned.
 
Top