Hello,
The Division of Perceptual Studies at Univ of Virginia (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/) claims to have recorded many reincarnations with the details (photos, etc.) over 50+ years. How can reincarnations be explained from the scientific / rational perspective of Dr. Dawkins who says that there is no soul or consciousness?
Regards
The other thread started in another section was removed due to double posting of the exact same post, which violates the rules. Please read the rules. Further violations of the rules could lead to banning.
Thank you Mriana. Sorry I did not know the rules. I posted the same message in 3 other forums to get a faster response. Please delete my post from other forums too.
Will do and you are welcome. There is a link above every section of the forum that says âview rulesâ. This button pops up another window so you can read the rules.
Reincarnation canât be explained by science or any other rational means. I can see your link has lots of books re kids talking about their reincarnations, but there are lots of books about lots of wild ideas without a shred of actual evidence supporting them. Reincarnation is smoke and mirrors. Long anecdotal stories (such as those books) donât establish any rational mechanism, cause, effect. All they do is peddled What If Pipe Dreams.
The DOPS Mission Founded in 1967 by Dr. Ian Stevenson, the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is a highly productive university-based research group devoted to the investigation of phenomena that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms regarding the nature of the mind/brain relationship. Researchers at DOPS are focused on studying phenomena related to consciousness functioning beyond the confines of the physical body, and phenomena that suggest continuation of consciousness after physical death.It doesn't make any sense to invoke "mind/brain relationship" and then go on to talk about mind after death of brain.
The body mind âproblemâ is exactly that; whatâs happening within the physical brain to create the mind.
Scientists have learned to recognize that a huge portion of our brains computing (like ~80-95%) happens âsubconsciously.â
Near death experiences are exactly that: near death. In every case the brain has remained viable. Once cell structure degrades, itâs game over 100% of the time
I found this little tidbit, thatâs probably worth sharing:
I havenât read anything on reincarnation honestly but only the fictional stuff Iâve seen in movies. And I wondered, were the past lives ever really horrible? Like Iâve only seen where the person used to be a king or a prince or somebody well off. Are there cases where the person was say a slave?
Summer, Fall, Winter, SpringâŚevery year of OUR lives, we see this cycle pattern, where the plants ar0und us, blossom, age, dieâand return to bloom, and so on and on and onâŚI view such as perhaps a hint of OUR own life, age, death cycle; itâs just thereâs some biological âfail safeâ feature in our brains that prevents us from delving into what surviving memory fragments that somehow survive/carry over into THIS life.
I donât intend to sound like an eco-activist ( although their decade in the '60s was quite an adventure! ), but perhaps nature whispers to us the very answers we seek; answers right there in open plain sight.
I donât hold the concrete answers and will never put up a facade to the contrary; I explore life with an open mind.
I appreciate the comments but they do not answer the question. Is there any way for this question to go to Mr. Dawkins? I heard his lecture where he said that mind and consciousness are simply part of the body (brain, etc.). His comment clearly does not make sense when we see the details of the cases that I have mentioned. I am interested to get his opinion. Thank you.
I think then youâd better write Mr. Dawkins, itâs been quite a while since he last checked in with us.
Besides, Iâd bet he said: âmind and consciousness are produced by the brain/bodyâ - thatâs rather different from being a âsimple partâ of body or mind.
Thanks. How do I get in touch with him though?
BTW irrespective of being the intrinsic or extrinsic part of the body, the mind and memories would not survive death as an extension of Mr. Dawkinsâ perspective and hence memories wonât carry over which is needed for reincarnations.
allow me to rephrase that:
Irrespective of being the intrinsic or extrinsic part of the body, the mind and memories would not survive death as an extension of a sober scientific perspective and hence memories wonât carry over which is needed for reincarnations.That's one of the things that made humans so amazingly unique, we learned how to get around that road block to advancement, when hominids evolved language, art, writing.
Before taking the time to look up Richard Dawkins address, (Iâm tempted to do it for you, but then youâll never learn how to utilize google, ask and ye shall receive, even if you need to poke around before finding pay dirt.) refine your question.
How can reincarnations be explained from the scientific / rational perspective of Dr. Dawkins who says that there is no soul or consciousness?Since, firstly I doubt Dawkins claims that consciousness doesn't exist. That would make an interesting thread in itself. But, if you misrepresent Dawkins from the get go, why do you think he'd bother to answer you?
It seems you havenât even thought out the difference between âconsciousnessâ and âsoulâ - since they are definitely not synonymous.
A little self-skepticism goes a long way. Give it a try.
As for the answer to your question as written.
The answer is a simple, there is no evidence of oneâs consciousness being recycled into a new body. It makes no sense Lotâs and lots of anecdotes donât make evidence.
Lots and lots of people believe in aliens from other worlds visiting us. Lots and lots of people believe Atlantis existed. Lots and lots of people believe that our amazingly complex global biosphere was created within a weekâs time. Lots and lots of people believe in King Arthur and the holy grail. But, none have any actual evidence attached, only vague stories and self-certain personal faith. etc.
Iâd suggest the bottomline is: Science is about stuff we can find evidence for. The rest is mind games within this tremendous Mindscape we possess and live within.
Based on the videos I have seen about Mr. Dawkins, I gather (please let me know if I missed anything) that Mr. Dawkins does not think that memories of a life persist after death. If it is true (and again let me know if it is not), then how can we explain reincarnation where kids not only remember their alleged past life in great detail but also seem to be physically aligned with the events in the alleged past life?
I gather (please let me know if I missed anything) that Mr. Dawkins does not think that memories of a life persist after death.I can't speak for Dawkins. Though, I don't think any rational science respecting person believes that memories persist after death - unless those memories were recorded through other means.
I know of no serious evidence supporting any aspect of reincarnation claims.
As for your kids, itâs as simple as people fooling themselves, either innocently, or intentionally.
Itâs at the same level as believing that USAâs 2020 election was rigged and that thousands and thousands of trump votes were âdisappearedâ.
I had the same perspective till I read the cases offered by UVA ((https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/), especially the one with âJames Leiningerâ. The details in that case are clearly beyond coincidence: Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot - ABC News
Based on the videos I have seen about Mr. Dawkins, I gather (please let me know if I missed anything) that Mr. Dawkins does not think that memories of a life persist after death. If it is true (and again let me know if it is not), then how can we explain reincarnation where kids not only remember their alleged past life in great detail but also seem to be physically aligned with the events in the alleged past life?Not spiritual memories, but naturally selected DNA configuration. In the end, all hardwired (DNA) memories are a result of successful survival mechanisms. Consider your DNA as an information library which is constantly modified and refined for successful survival strategies.
When a person dies his thoughts disappear, but if he/she was successful in leaving offspring, his/her DNA continues to shape the family and by extension the species. This is a slow process and usually evolves over long periods of time, where small advantages bring greater chance for survival and leaving successful offspring.
Occasionally a beneficial DNA mutation brings a leap in abilities and that species takes a leap forward .
One instance is the insect that learned to fly billions of years before there were birds
In humans one such beneficial mutation was most likely responsible for increased brain folding and increased intelligence.
Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomesâŚAlec MacAndrew
Introduction
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2.Conclusion
The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
This had nothing to do with memories lingering in the air, this is all physical evolutionary processes where natural selection is the deciding factor which individual lives long enough to breed and beget offspring.
One can make a case for the influences from social laws, customs, and conventions, which are passed on by parents and the immediate social environment.
Yes, but that would bodily physical biological memory.
Of course, every child thatâs born is a reincarnation of its evolutionary lineage, if you want to look at it that way, but thatâs an entirely different ballgame from what anon is considering, isnât it?
We all might have a couple molecules of Joan of Arc in us, but that doesnât mean sheâs able to reincarnated herself in a child. ?
We all might have a couple molecules of Joan of Arc in us, but that doesnât mean sheâs able to reincarnated herself in a child. - CCv3
I'm thinking back to when I was a child - Way back to when I was a tot When I was an embryo - A tiny speck. Just a dot When I was a Hershey bar - In my father's back pocket-Laurie Anderson
Yes IMHO this is different. So how can this go to Mr. Dawkins? Can he be reached by email, feedback form on a website, etc.?
physically aligned with the events in the alleged past life -- anonphysically what?
Yes IMHO this is different. So how can this go to Mr. Dawkins? Can he be reached by email, feedback form on a website, etc.?Come on now Anon, get serious already.
If youâre sharp enough to upend Dawkinsâ arguments, you ought to be sharp enough to figure out how to get a communication to him. Stop asking us to do your work for you. Especially if you canât even constructively explain and debate your idea with us peons.
{Then again, I see Lausten has some even better thoughts to share with you. Will you try to process what heâs explaining?}