(2017-09-14, 06:10 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, and perhaps you can use the same argument in reverse to argue against Akashic records...
OTOH- how would you explain the fact that akashic records creates physical markings on someone's body?
Just because I can use the same argument in "reverse" doesn't make either case any stronger. I can't prove the Akashic records exist either.
They could be coincidence. Not all reincarnation cases come with physical marks.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. You can "know" in your gut that reincarnation happens. You can believe it. But it can't be proven in the same way that some few particular scientific facts can be proven.
You can make a theory and you can substantiate that theory with evidence based on narrative and physical markings. But that won't prove reincarnation.
Maybe prove means something else to you. I'm fine with that.
(2017-09-14, 05:47 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Without access to the mechanisms behind what most people consider reincarnation (the movement of a previously incarnated soul into a new physical existence) then even if we had 10,000 air tight narratives with physical marks to back them up it, the mechanism of the soul transfer could never be proven.
It could be that the child is accessing information from a kind of akashic record through channelling (with the aid of non-physical entity) or through their own psychic access.
Just because someone says I lived a past life and they know hundreds of details of another previously lived life does not prove the re-incarnation of a soul. It is suggestive of it.
We would need access to tools that could:
1. Prove the existence of a soul.
2. Show the mechanism where a soul moves from body to body.
How would we prove those things?
OK- so first of all, proof of reincarnation doesn't require proof of the mechanism of how it works.
After all- we don't know how the double slit experiment really works, but I think we can agree that it is considered "proven science" at this point. Right?
Next- there are very few things in the world that are 100% proven. Most things can be referred to as "suggestive". It's just that science likes to use this term especially often with stuff they feel is woo woo.
Here's the bottom line: even if we don't know what a soul is, and don't know the mechanism of operation of all this stuff, we can still theoretically say this much- this person, somehow, has access to the memories of a person who lived before. They are for all intents and purposes this other person in another younger body. Or something like this.
I don't see the necessity of needing to know how this happens, to make this sort of statement.
I mean maybe someday we come face to face with an alien spaceship. And we may determine to our satisfaction that it is real. We don't need to understand its form of propulsion to claim that we have found an alien spaceship do we?
(2017-09-14, 06:04 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]True true. I over simplify.
Just as Linda oversimplified when she said that non-recorded evidence is invalid.
The scientific rules of evidence that I have come across have served us well for a couple hundred years. Unfortunately they are generally suited for situations very unlike psi.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
And I have to disagree with you that the standards should be different for psi. At least, I can't think of a reason why they should be?
Quote:So to be as candid as I can be: yes of course I realize there are standard methodologies when it comes to evidence in various fields of science. I am really saying that science has tied themselves in a knot with the very rules that have gotten them this far. And they will proceed no further in understanding things like psi unless those knots are loosened a bit, or maybe completely re-defined.
Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
Quote:e.g. Evidence about a two year old boy who knows dozens of facts about a particular WW2 aircraft, and who also knows details about his sister who is now in her 80's, needs to be taken seriously. If it violates some precious 100 year old rule against valid evidence, that rule needs to be amended, or at a minimum reasonable intelligent people need to look honestly at the details of such a story and decide while pushing the "rules of evidence" aside.
Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
Science deals with this all the time. Take history, for example, which I studied in my undergrad. Historians are quite aware of the risks associated with evidence they use. They know there are high error bars associated with certain types of evidence. They don't ignore it - rather, they incorporate it into their conclusions. Readers are warned to take the findings with large grains of salt. That doesn't mean it is ignored. Rather, it is viewed in the appropriate context.
Quote:Otherwise we will continue to have what we have now, people using this as an excuse to avoid talking about some pretty amazing stuff.
People have different interests. Some of us like to talk about this stuff. Others don't. I'm sure there are all sorts of things other people find amazing that you don't have an interest in. Even among those of us who enjoy discussing these topics people tend to have subtopics they find more interesting than others. I think we have to just accept that not everyone shares the same interests.
The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened. Look up, for example, what has come to be known as the replication crisis. It has hit areas like psychology hard. I think you're running an uphill battle to suggest that loosening standards is the direction we should go. Just because it might be difficult to employ such standards doesn't mean we should stop trying. No one said it should be easy!
(2017-09-14, 06:18 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Just because I can use the same argument in "reverse" doesn't make either case any stronger. I can't prove the Akashic records exist either.
They could be coincidence. Not all reincarnation cases come with physical marks.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. You can "know" in your gut that reincarnation happens. You can believe it. But it can't be proven in the same way that some few particular scientific facts can be proven.
You can make a theory and you can substantiate that theory with evidence based on narrative and physical markings. But that won't prove reincarnation.
Maybe prove means something else to you. I'm fine with that.
Ahhh the old coincidence argument. We just have dozens of coincidences, COMBINED with complete knowledge of the person's past life. Hm. OK,. If you say so.
And you are going to use something that you don't believe in or can't prove, to disprove something else? How does that work for you?
Here's the thing for me personally-
In the end, I don't give a fat hoot about proving whether reincarnation or akashic records are behind this phenomenon. I am trying to say that there is a non-physical aspect to this world. For me? I think I know a lot about how it works from channeling and mediumship, but since those things are hard to prove to some people, I'm happy at least to just come to some consensus that the non-physical is real and is somehow behind all this stuff. This is easier to prove.
(2017-09-14, 06:31 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
And I have to disagree with you that the standards should be different for psi. At least, I can't think of a reason why they should be?
Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
Science deals with this all the time. Take history, for example, which I studied in my undergrad. Historians are quite aware of the risks associated with evidence they use. They know there are high error bars associated with certain types of evidence. They don't ignore it - rather, they incorporate it into their conclusions. Readers are warned to take the findings with large grains of salt. That doesn't mean it is ignored. Rather, it is viewed in the appropriate context.
People have different interests. Some of us like to talk about this stuff. Others don't. I'm sure there are all sorts of things other people find amazing that you don't have an interest in. Even among those of us who enjoy discussing these topics people tend to have subtopics they find more interesting than others. I think we have to just accept that not everyone shares the same interests.
The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened. Look up, for example, what has come to be known as the replication crisis. It has hit areas like psychology hard. I think you're running an uphill battle to suggest that loosening standards is the direction we should go. Just because it might be difficult to employ such standards doesn't mean we should stop trying. No one said it should be easy!
Sorry, I'm going to just say "uncle".
I really, really don't want to spend the next 5 hours doing what I've been doping for the last five.
No hard feelings....
(2017-09-14, 06:38 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Ahhh the old coincidence argument. We just have dozens of coincidences, COMBINED with complete knowledge of the person's past life. Hm. OK,. If you say so.
And you are going to use something that you don't believe in or can't prove, to disprove something else? How does that work for you?
Here's the thing for me personally-
In the end, I don't give a fat hoot about proving whether reincarnation or akashic records are behind this phenomenon. I am trying to say that there is a non-physical aspect to this world. For me? I think I know a lot about how it works from channeling and mediumship, but since those things are hard to prove to some people, I'm happy at least to just come to some consensus that the non-physical is real and is somehow behind all this stuff. This is easier to prove.
Well there are likely billions of people with birthmarks. I don't feel too far out on a limb going with coincidence as one possible explanation.
(2017-09-14, 05:27 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I can imagine gathering empirical scientific evidence for a chemical reaction. I can't imagine how one would gather that for reincarnation. Or for the existence of the ego.
I don't think the evidence for
anything is 'scientific'. It is simply data. An input to a process. The process itself
may be scientific.
(2017-09-14, 06:41 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I'm going to just say "uncle".
I really, really don't want to spend the next 5 hours doing what I've been doping for the last five.
No hard feelings....
There's no hurry. Feel free to respond when you have time. I think its an important conversation to have. Others should feel free to comment as well.
(2017-09-14, 06:46 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the evidence for anything is 'scientific'. It is simply data. An input to a process. The process itself may be scientific.
Topic for another thread really. But in reality the only thing I can actually know with any certainty is that I seem to exist. That's the bedrock. Anything else radiates out from that center with varying degrees of solidity. I mean I accept the idea of matter because it appears to be so present and real. But in reality no one knows the true nature of matter. Physics is all models. Models don't address the true nature of reality. It's turtles all the way down, right?
But that said, the nature of our reality is such that science at this point can manipulate and take apart certain building blocks of the reality. They can split water and make hydrogen and oxygen. At this point in time our "science" doesn't allow us to isolate a soul. It just doesn't. Proof for me is for science. Doesn't mean I don't dig all suggested possibilities of all the cool stuff we talk about here. But we can't split the soul like we can split water.
It's apples and oranges. Why does knowing have to be less than proof? I don't say it is. But I don't call knowing proof.