Would this be decent evidence for reincarnation?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Statistically they are meaningless without evidence to back them up.

This is the evidence in question. The past life memories of young children. This is something you can put to the test but unlike most paranormal claims we're looking at a statistically significant hit rate with an absence of any of the usual con-artist techniques. Sure it's not proof of reincarnation as there may potentially be another explanation for it.

This isn't evidence of anything yet, though, is it? It's evidence of maybe 'something', but reading through all of your posts, that 'something' seems to be reincarnation.

This is the crux of the debate, and also what I'm trying to get through to you about. There is just as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for 'me' being everyone in the world; nothing.

They very well could be evidence of something, which is to say, they could be evidence of nothing at all.

There will have to be a good explanation for this high level of accurate predictive statements. If someone can get 9/10 details right there is a reason to explain how they are able to do this. Reincarnation is suitable explanation, certainly the children themselves claim to have lived before. No reason we know about why they couldn't have done, yes so we don't know how it's supposed to work but I'm sure we don't know quite a lot.

No, it isn't. How many times does one have to say this to you?

You're putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of reincarnation. Nothing. Nada. Zero. There could be evidence of 'something' (yet to be pursuaded), but that is NOT evidence of reincarnation. It appears, from our short exchange, that the only thing this supports is your own belief in wanting it to be true. This is un-scientific, and reveals why we are skeptical.

But, again, that does not thus equate to the thesis of reincarnation being right. You're putting the cart before the horse and presuming the thesis is correct using the suppositional 'evidence' that is provided. This is the wrong way around.

It would be a straightforward explanation for how a child can know details of a former life. You don't have to go out of your way to make it more complicated if you don't have to. No reason we know of why that couldn't happen it's well outside of our knowledge or experience of the world. Whether it means religions had it right it could just be a lucky guess on a certain detail.

*sigh*

See above. There is no evidence for reincarnation. You are believing something without any foundation for it to be true. Not all the variables are accounted for. In fact, as you would surely agree, not even all the variables are known.

It's still not even proven that there is anything to research!. Claims of causation and/or correlation does not equate to the same! This is logical and skeptical inquiry 101. Presumption of the conclusion based on incomplete/un-verified data leads to sloppy science and discounted claims.

Eliminate all other possiblities. What you are left with must be a semblance of the truth.

If an explanation is straightforward and would fit the evidence you have then there is a high probability that it is true.

FALSE.

I have nothing further to say other than to reiterate the above. There is no evidence of anything.

The research currently conducted seems eons away from that at the moment.

It's probably because 95% of scientists share your attitude to anything like this and won't want to touch it with a barge pole. This isn't getting properly researched. Same goes for a number of other phenomenon that are poo pooed.

Irrelevent.

If there is something to be found, it will be found. I completely understand why people think those who believe in reincarnation are loons do so. The author of the book your cited has respectibility and academic integrity precisely because he does not draw a conclusion from the incomplete evidence to which he is researching in. In fact, reading from the book reviews, he discounts a lot of what he investigates as derviatives of coincidence. He doesn't claim that reincarnation is true (that I can read), and if he did, then I would also have to dismiss him too based on the principle of standard scientific investigation and the collation and dismissal of unverifyable evidence.

It could be explained away perfectly by natural, easily verified data.

By chance you're only going to get a certain hit rate of guesses. If you have something significantly better than chance then something significant will account for it.

Assertion. No evidence.

It could be nothing, just a blip of coincidence.

If it was just one case perhaps but it occurs throughout the world and in all cultures including cultures that don't generally believe in reincarnation such as our own.

Which may be true, whatever 'it' is, even if 'it' exists (which, do I have to remind you, IS NO PROVEN!). Still not evidence for reincarnation.

It could be lies.

Young children aren't very good at lying, you can tell because they cover their mouths with hands as though to conceal the lie. Adults are much less obvious and may touch their finger to their lips briefly.

Irrelevent.

Bares no relevence as to whether reincarnation is true, or whether there is even a phenoenon worth researching into.

Not good enough. 'Apparently the best explaination' to me = no evidence, just presumption and guesswork. Again, I refuse to accept this as 'true' until all avenues of exploration have been conducted and all other explanations dismissed. This is not the case. Even the book you cite admits this.

We have evidence of something interesting and now we have to find a good explanation for the evidence we have. A good explanation is that consciousness is somehow separable from the body and can be transferred into other bodies via some kind of process we don't as of yet understand. There could potentially be a better explanation if you can think of one.

SEE: Above. No evidence, just assertion of what is true.

I don't know of a better explanation because I have no reason to believe that any of your assertions are true. But I can think of an infinite number of other explanations as to what is occuring if we take it as given that there is something going on at all.

All equally sound as reincarnation based on the fact that there is no evidence for reincarnation.

Parsimony doesn't equate to adequate, especially not in this case, and especially when the data is so lacking.

I think the data is lacking because it isn't being seriously researched. To many scientists something like this would be the equivalent of a religious heresy as they're deeply invested in a materialist worldview this wouldn't really support.

So here we see the first casual reference to a bias against the context to which you are basing your claims.

This would explain why you are so willing to accept something that has ZERO evidence to back it up yet casually dismissal of this fact when people such as myself and several others on this thread bring it up.

And the context of your claims is that paranormal/supernatural occurances have NEVER once been found to be true or accurate. Not once. Everything that was once thought to be magic has turned out to be not magic, to quote Tim Minchin. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You need to provide this in order to disprove our skepticism. I at least am a pragmatist. If evidence turned up to support your claim, I would consider it. So far I have read nothing, so your claims are easily dismissed.

Now I realise that you are inferring there could be something else 'physical' or material at play that we don't know of. This could be true. But it's not the same as equating this unknown to what you refer to as reincarnation. That is a step out of the bounds of logic and into the realm of guess work, belief, and faith.

[Zone]

This isn't evidence of anything yet, though, is it? It's evidence of maybe 'something', but reading through all of your posts, that 'something' seems to be reincarnation.

Reincarnation would be a good explanation for it. There could some other reason for it we haven't thought of like some kind of quantum entanglement thingie or two consciousness managed to transfer memories across time somehow. But Occams Razor things don't have to be complicated than they need to be.

This is the crux of the debate, and also what I'm trying to get through to you about. There is just as much evidence for reincarnation as there is for 'me' being everyone in the world; nothing.

At best you could be part of some kind of collective overmind which includes everyone/everything in the world. I suppose reincarnation would fit into that quite well as all the conscious energy or whatever it is would remain as long as there is life on the planet. Or perhaps life exists in the first place because of this energy combined with ideal physical conditions. Call it the Gaia Field Matrix or something like that. You can use your imagination a little bit seeing as anything at all is possible. Once you develop a set belief though you're going to tend to reject evidence that may not fit with it and I think most scientists and atheists are doing this.

No, it isn't. How many times does one have to say this to you?

You can state your opinion as many times as you like you have to back it up with some kind of reasoning beyond the fact that you don't like the idea. Atheists are keen to point out to theists that the universe doesn't care about what you like.

You're putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence of reincarnation. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

Why do accurate past life memories of young not count as evidence? They may not count as definitive proof as there may be some other reason for it. It should be something interesting whatever it is. Well worth some serious research.

There could be evidence of 'something' (yet to be pursuaded), but that is NOT evidence of reincarnation.

I agree, but what else do have in mind that's a better explanation for memories of a different life in the past?

It appears, from our short exchange, that the only thing this supports is your own belief in wanting it to be true.

Why would I want it to be true? I'm not particularly eager to be born as someone else as happy enough the way I am. I think it would be good for young babies and people like that who die very prematurely as then you can just circulate them over. It's still a big loss for their parents either way though I don't think it automatically makes everything better.

This is un-scientific, and reveals why we are skeptical.

I think you're being unscientific because what you have is a belief and you're accepting and rejecting evidence based on this rather than being objective.

See above. There is no evidence for reincarnation.

There is evidence for something and reincarnation would be a good explanation for what we observe. That's what we have here.

You are believing something without any foundation for it to be true.

I think you're doing that yourself. I think this is a problem atheists tend to have.

Not all the variables are accounted for. In fact, as you would surely agree, not even all the variables are known.

That's why it's worth taking seriously as evidence so it can be more thoroughly researched.

It's still not even proven that there is anything to research!.

But there is.

*points at video*

There look. There are other like that one and they aren't being recorded.

Claims of causation and/or correlation does not equate to the same! This is logical and skeptical inquiry 101. Presumption of the conclusion based on incomplete/un-verified data leads to sloppy science and discounted claims.

I agree with this entirely 100%. You don't assume anything to begin with, this includes assuming that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain we don't know that's true.

FALSE.

I have nothing further to say other than to reiterate the above. There is no evidence of anything.

But there is statically significant evidence *points to video* there has to be an explanation for this phenomenon. Reincarnation is a perfectly good one if you can rule out any motivation or capability of a hoax. This is why young children who aren't good at lying or acting are ideal.

Irrelevent.

If there is something to be found, it will be found. I completely understand why people think those who believe in reincarnation are loons do so. The author of the book your cited has respectibility and academic integrity precisely because he does not draw a conclusion from the incomplete evidence to which he is researching in.

Of the possibilities reincarnation is at the top of the list if you rule out any trickery. There's no real problem with the concept it would just mean there's quite a lot more we don't know than we knew we didn't know.

In fact, reading from the book reviews, he discounts a lot of what he investigates as derviatives of coincidence. He doesn't claim that reincarnation is true (that I can read), and if he did, then I would also have to dismiss him too based on the principle of standard scientific investigation and the collation and dismissal of unverifyable evidence.

You can't say reincarnation is true as a fact I'm not even saying that. I think it will be best explanation we currently have for it if it not a hoax which I don't think it is. Historically this is something that has happened throughout the world in all cultures so that's significant.

Assertion. No evidence.

If something is statistically much higher than chance then chance is unlikely to account for it.

Which may be true, whatever 'it' is, even if 'it' exists (which, do I have to remind you, IS NO PROVEN!). Still not evidence for reincarnation.

Instances of young children accurately recounting details of someones life who died in the past "exist" so I'm not sure what you mean. Reincarnation would be the simplest explanation even if it could be something else.

It could be lies.

We can be fairly sure it isn't given the nature of the evidence and the sources. These are very young children not adults. They may lie about whether they ate all the cake or something but a mass conspiracy is going to be beyond them.

Irrelevent.

Bares no relevence as to whether reincarnation is true, or whether there is even a phenoenon worth researching into.

There is a phenomenon certainly and it will be evidence for something. But simple explanations are often the best ones.

SEE: Above. No evidence, just assertion of what is true.

Are you sure you're making any assertions yourself? It seems to me like you're just against the idea in principal and would be happier if there was no evidence for it.

I don't know of a better explanation because I have no reason to believe that any of your assertions are true. But I can think of an infinite number of other explanations as to what is occuring if we take it as given that there is something going on at all.

Yes but which is the easiest/most simple explanation for memories of a different lifetime in the past? You don't have to make anything more complicated then it has to be.

All equally sound as reincarnation based on the fact that there is no evidence for reincarnation.

The past life memories of young children is the evidence being used here. This is evidence that is falsifiable in that you can test their claims to see if it fits with actual details of real people and places.

So here we see the first casual reference to a bias against the contexst to which you are basing your claims.

There shouldn't be any kind of bias at all if there is no belief or faith involved. In science there shouldn't be any though I think some kind of a metaphysical belief has implanted itself in there. I understand the motivation for it but it ought to go so we can be free to look into anything of interest that could come along.

And the context of your claims is that paranormal/supernatural occurances have NEVER once been found to be true or accurate. Not once. Everything that was once thought to be magic has turned out to be not magic, to quote Tim Minchin.

There's no reason reincarnation has to be magic either perhaps it's a natural process/energy but a part of nature we don't understand so would seem like magic to us. Anything at all is possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The evidence statistically extraordinary given the success rate of accurate predictions made by children. But it's difficult to say what is extraordinary once you move into territory you're not familiar with.

You need to provide this in order to disprove our skepticism.

I think you may have a strong personal belief or conviction concerning the nature of reality/life/consciousness than skepticism. One that would exclude something such as reincarnation from even being viable.

I at least am a pragmatist. If evidence turned up to support your claim, I would consider it.

*points back to the evidence*

Are you trying to blank it out?

So far I have read nothing, so your claims are easily dismissed.

I've given a few logical arguments based on some evidence but no definitive claims. I'm open minded on this one.

Now I realise that you are inferring there could be something else 'physical' or material at play that we don't know of. This could be true. But it's not the same as equating this unknown to what you refer to as reincarnation. That is a step out of the bounds of logic and into the realm of guess work, belief, and faith.

It can be something else but unless there is a compelling reason why it couldn't be reincarnation I would consider it the most likely given that it is a straightforward explanation. I don't have any beliefs that would prevent it.

[gall]

I've watched a few programs on these claims and they never hold up to any sort of investigation. A large part of it is based on the total falsehood that Children somehow don't lie or make up things. Have these people never been around children? Children pretty much constantly make up things and it's easy to twist them around. If this was an adult nobody would take him seriously. Why does being a child make him more credible.

Shouldn't his being a child make this less creditable?

There is nothing but superstition here.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's not just children making up stories, but they could be unintentionally or accidentally be fed information by someone asking the child questions. It's like how some investigators fed children who were suspected victims of sexual abuse the answers they wanted to hear, and the children parroted them, leading to false convictions.

But what Zone doesn't seem to understand is that before reincarnation is a "good explanation" for a child seemingly being able to recount a past life is that he has to prove that the mind can be separated from the body upon death to begin with, let alone be inserted into a new body.

I think Occam's Razor needs to be used here, in that the simplest explanation is the most likely. And I think the child is either making up stories or being fed information to make his story sound credible. Like I said, it would have a tiniest bit more credence if he could describe a part of the world far away from where he lives, but even then it's not evidence for reincarnation. There could be a chance he watched a documentary on TV when he was a toddler, for instance, and is just remembering that as something that actually happened to him.

[Captain Colostomy]

The problem with being too open minded is that your brain leaks out your ears.

Zone, what is your thoughts on near death experiences? People who claim to speak to Jesus, and he answers? Psychics like Sylvia Brown? Where do you personally set the bar on credibility, and why? It's one thing to admit a fascination with woo, and quite another to insist isolated instances of personal testimony to be science worthy.

It might be of small service to you to brush up on the difference between science and pseudoscience here. Or not. Your call.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Testimony isn't worth much for a reason. It's been shown time and time again that memories can be created through suggestions. In fact one of my profs brought up the point that it's unscientific to guess what someone is thinking, we can only analyze and deal with their behaviours. And ultimately that is true, regardless of how much inconvenience it's causing psychologists, you cannot. This is a similar case, you're claiming the child's testimony is real and that his memories are real. These are things that, right now anyways, cannot be proven. This isn't science, it's pseudoscience.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's definitely not science to say that reincarnation is a reasonable conclusion to make in instances like this. There are so many more logical explanations that Zone seems to want to dismiss out of hand because the idea of living again after you die seems like it'd be fun.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that you have to prove first that a consciousness can exist separate from the brain, and that somehow this consciousness can be implanted into a new brain. It's an uphill battle because there's just no way to prove that some kind of conscious energy which used to be active in a person's brain can somehow survive after brain death, float around for a while without being dissipated by other energy sources, and somehow make its way into the brain of a developing embryo/fetus and to be revived again. If Zone has a hypothesis for how this can happen, I'd like to hear it. But whenever someone proposes something like reincarnation, they only go back to the "he couldn't have remembered this any other way" and rely on woo.

Woo is not science.

[Angrboda]

I kind of zoned out on the tl;dr of the last page, so apologies in advance. The long and short of it is that there are solid scientific reasons for dismissing the results of reincarnation studies, and it's not because people are dogmatically opposed to the supernatural. The studies involved are examples of extremely poorly designed studies, with the result being that there is not adequate justification for assigning any degree of confidence, whether 0% or 100%, to their conclusions. I'd go into detail, but I'm feeling lazy. There is one scientist who devoted the bulk of his life to research into the question, and his studies are generally considered the most significant in the field and are probably what one should focus on. If memory serves, there are a number of good articles on his work at csicop.org, and Mary Roach's book Spook goes into the subject (and she's funny as hell to read, so, recommended).

As to the question of why children are used, yes, there are mundane reasons having to do with our biases surrounding the testimony of children. However, the more significant reason is that the younger the subject, the less potential that the person's testimony has been contaminated by acquisition of information from mundane sources. The younger the subject, presumably, the greater confidence that the subject could not have obtained their knowledge of the target through any other means but reincarnation. (It's worth noting that most conventional depictions of reincarnation posit that the reincarnated soul has no memory of their past lives. This is plentifully represented in myth across cultures as diverse as the Greeks with their myth of the river Lethe to the Chinese goddess Meng Po Niang and her five flavored tea of forgetfulness. Thus the studies of 'memories' of reincarnated subjects appears to involve the addition of some hefty ad hoc assumptions, because, without them, there would be nothing to study.)

When people talk about the possibility of souls, dualism, transmigration, and asserting that the link between consciousness and the brain has not been proven, it's typically abundantly clear that much of the person's confidence in the matter is a product of being greatly ignorant of the subject, and basing their speculations on the acquired wisdom of experience and a folk psychology acquired from the culture at large. Their views are ill-informed on the subject because they themselves are ill-informed on the subject, and much of the facts which might qualify their opinion on the matter are in the realm of 'unknown unknowns'. But there appears to be a similar phenomenon on the other side of the coin in people who, equally as ignorant of the specific facts of brain science, assert that the mind is the brain. From these sort of people, you'll receive explanations on the order of suggesting that if you smush enough computational units together, in a complex way, consciousness will pop out; or the ever popular, 'consciousness is an emergent property'. To my view, these 'explanations' are little more than saying that 'it's magic', as these 'explanations' don't actually explain, and are little more than modern substitutes for previous folk wisdom. The view that the mind is the brain seems to be as often informed by ignorance of the subject as the assertion that the mind isn't necessarily the brain is, and the degree, kind of ignorance, and actual sources of confidence in the two assertions often appears remarkably similar.

[Zazzy]

Mary Roach's book Spook goes into the subject (and she's funny as hell to read, so, recommended).

A hearty second on this- anything by Roach is worth reading, but this one was stellar. Stiff (a history of corpses and their role in science, medicine, and weirdness) was also a favorite of mine.

I fail to see anything in this story that would pass muster to show up in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[freedomfromforum]

NO IT IS NOT

Organisms decay, the atoms that make up those organisms once broken up will not function AT ALL in the same manor as the organism it once was.

Reincarnation is bullshit, period.

I don't think we know enough about consciousness to be able to say exactly what it is and how it's formed at this point. Anything you do want to say is a belief without evidence. Though something like this video a possible bit of evidence, something that was tested and to a good extent verified. He did get the car accident wrong but the house on an island in the Outer Hebrides he got right. This isn't a "Just believe it and it could be true" kind of thing if there's evidence.

There's some other interesting subjects of note that are worth a look. Telekinesis for instance, seen here operating under a glass bowl. This could be some kind of evidence of consciousness operating beyond the body to some tiny extent. This doesn't have to be anything supernatural at all just something we haven't covered yet.

I've seen this trick before. Look at
the giant air gap betweeen the bowl
and the flat surface. I'd like to see
this trick performed with a light dust
of flour surrounding the bowl. Air
current is involved in this trick.