Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

It's interesting that no one has pointed out an apparent flaw in my argument from the scientifically investigated and confirmed major degree of dependence of personality characteristics on the intricate details of the genetics of the child, (and from inevitable unpredictable or hard to predict environmental influences during childhood), that the likely makeup of the personality of the developing human being from child to adult will be in major degree be formed from these genetical and childhood environmental influences, rather than a previously living human personality self. And that therefore, whatever it really is that persists from life to life (perhaps a minimally individuated core "self" or sense of subjectivity), the "reincarnation" process really constitutes a snuffing out of most of the previous human complex individuated being. Except of course for its incorporation into being a small part of what has been called the "oversoul".

The apparent flaw in this deduction appears in the observations from the investigations of Stevenson and colleagues in which past life learned enculturated personality skills and predilections and aptitudes and likings and distastes, etc. (that were built in to and integrated into the previous personality) appear to be seamlessly transferred from the immediately previous life into the current one. This transfer appears to be of the past personality now taking root in the new body.

It occurs to me that this conundrum appears to be solved if an additional hypothesis is entertained, that what is transferred from the previous to the current life is, rather than a complete and complex personality self, instead consists of a sort of extensive "memory fragment" detached from the previous physically deceased personality, a fragment that is constituted in such a way that it is readily absorbed into the new personality self complex of the child. Along this line of reasoning, such fragmentary remnants of previous personalities would be drifting around in the "ethers" waiting to latch onto vulnerable young children.

Such a possibility seems bizarre and perhaps nightmarish, but would explain a lot. It would not affect the validity of many other paranormal phenomena including NDEs and other strong evidences of an afterlife, for which there is a large body of veridical empirical evidence. It would merely indicate that the real nature of the reincarnation phenomenon may be nowhere like the popular conceptions of it, and constitute a (hopefully) deliberate decision by the soul only taken occasionally, not in all cases. Just a suggestion taken in order to try to make sense of an array of different observational facts.

[*](1997). Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Volume 1: Birthmarks. Volume 2: Birth Defects and Other Anomalies. Praeger Publishers.
[*](1997). Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Praeger Publishers (a short, non-technical version of Reincarnation and Biology).

[*]
These are my favorites, and for me one of the most important aspects of this research.

I want to see this continued, and studied, with trials that would actually carry forward markings made by scientists in dying volunteers. 
Reward if found or some means of making sure we know if any intentional markings make it from point A = living volunteer dying and being marked for identification, to point B, a new birth / child.

It occurs to me that this conundrum appears to be solved if an additional hypothesis is entertained, that what is transferred from the previous to the current life is, rather than a complete and complex personality self, instead consists of a sort of extensive "memory fragment" detached from the previous physically deceased personality, a fragment that is constituted in such a way that it is readily absorbed into the new personality self complex of the child. Along this line of reasoning, such fragmentary remnants of previous personalities would be drifting around in the "ethers" waiting to latch onto vulnerable young children.

Love it, and yes it is "creepy" like possession. 
The Tulpa is a great example of partial survival of a fragment of intent. 
The Toys-R-Us ghost is a great example of infatuation / love surviving death and hovering around as only a portion of the original being. 
Most information psychics provide to the law enforcement is also bits and pieces, flashes of things, feelings, sensations. All being interpreted by a living person that filters and uses existing visuals, memory, and the known to try and make sense of the data. 
Ghosts recorded in buildings are like a video on replay and mainly don't have much actual interaction or communication with people.
So, plenty of things that can support the drifting ether or partial energy ideas.
And, why can't different possible types and versions exist in parallel, or to various degrees? 
An ether portion can certainly combine with the genetic, environment portion, creating a similar but new combination.
Anyone who speaks with a dementia patient sees the same bits and pieces of surviving memories, circling around like a merry-go-round.
Stevenson also addresses some psychometric ideas, where bits and pieces of memory might be stored in objects or locations.
If I'm not mistaken, Stevenson did entertain the possessive ghost version and attempted to discuss this with varying degrees of assumptions. 
He uses the idea that his impressions in each case were the deciding factor. He was impressed that these personalities were complex and complete in and of themselves and matched the past life personality seamlessly, while a fragment is more of some disturbing intrusion and different than the existing personality, thus being disturbing and disruptive.
He attempted to include and exclude various possible ESP versions.
So he selects and picks, depending on how convinced he is of the personality and evidence, how indepth and detailed the recall is, recognition of people, places, etc.
When he wasn't convinced of a case, or had too many other strange unexplained phenomena, he admits that he often just didn't include this subject or those results in his study. Holding back and cherry picking. So we don't have all the information. Just what he picks out for presentation.

I presume the main scientific result everyone likely has to acknowledge is that memory is not just in the brain cells or encased / trapped within the mind.
It can be shared, transferred, survive and be correctly and accurately repeated by any number of means, after death of the brain and many years later.
They now see genetic memory as well, although different from the personal memories discussed.
I suppose what we need now are the means to store and retrieve this on demand, so that we might be able to decipher how this functions and perhaps store what we need for the next life, and retrieve it to improve skills and aptitude next time. Evolution would then be more of a snowball of accumulated knowledge and skill.
The other part I wish were clearer, is why this information is blocked?
If it were important for evolution or survival, you would think it would have developed more naturally.
In that arena, I see a number of other blocks or locks in place, preventing much of the psi phenomena, and when phenomena is initiated, it appears to "notice" and step in to block further use. It makes me wonder if these are related, or the same process?

[Ninshub]

It's interesting that no one has pointed out an apparent flaw in my argument from the scientifically investigated and confirmed major degree of dependence of personality characteristics on the intricate details of the genetics of the child, (and from inevitable unpredictable or hard to predict environmental influences during childhood), that the likely makeup of the personality of the developing human being from child to adult will be in major degree be formed from these genetical and childhood environmental influences, rather than a previously living human personality self.

Just a quick reaction. This is such a complex issue, and I'm wondering if it's almost absurd to attempt to look into this topic unless we define what more precisely what we mean by "personality", what it includes and what it excludes. Certain traits, aspects of temperament, foundational beliefs, behavioral dispositions, sense of humour, likes and dislikes, tastes in what is beautiful or repellent, unconscious beliefs and emotional convictions, trauma, memories, skills, knowledge, cognitive abilities, IQ, emotional intelligence, values, moral sense, basic attitudes, tendencies towards moodiness or anxiety, risk aversion, extroversion or introversion, impulsivity, we could go on and on it seems to me. Some of these might be more influenceable by environment and-or genetic factors. The same sort of question poses itself to me when have metaphysical speculative discussions (based on data or not) about ascertaining if there is a difference (or not) between the personality and the soul. What do we mean by personality?

I get the same reaction when we use the word "ego" - it starts seeming like a lost cause to talk about these terms in relation to specific question unless we go through the exercise of precisely defining what they are.

[Laird]

Hey, @"Durward"#545, thanks muchly for taking up my challenge. Unfortunately, I've gotta put on my big, bad moderator cap for a moment, because it's really hard at times to distinguish your quotes of Ian Stevenson from your own comments. It'd be really great if you could go back and edit your posts to distinguish them somehow. One possibility is to simply enclose your quotes of Ian in "quote" tags:

Code:

[quote]Like this[/quote]

There are some other possibilities you can consider in point #3 of our Guidelines for reproducing external content.

[Laird]

To keep the thoughts going...

https://philpapers.org/rec/AUGTMO

Abstract
This abbreviated critique notes several weaknesses in Ian Stevenson’s reincarnation research based on an examination of the cases at the University of Virginia’s then Division of Parapsychology. The analysis raises issues about the use of leading questions, the inadequate depth of the investigations, the substantial allowance left for memory distortions and embellishment in the case reports, and the likelihood of contamination by normal sources in the vast majority of cases due to communication between the families of the deceased and the families of the “reborn” long before any investigation ensued. In addition, the weaknesses of the cases are somewhat obscured by Stevenson discussing them in a general way in a separate part of the report or book rather than in the actual presentation of the case itself. The critique concludes that both the behavioral and informational features of the “rebirth data” are weak. 1. Weaknesses in the Case Investigations and Reports -- 2. Subsequent Rebirth Research

Hmm. The abstract at the link which you supplied doesn't contain that text. Are you sure you've supplied the correct link?

Hmm. The abstract at the link which you supplied doesn't contain that text. Are you sure you've supplied the correct link?

Just for information:

The correct link appears to be https://philpapers.org/rec/RANACO-4. It is a very praising partial review of infamous pseudo-skeptic and afterlife and paranormal debunker Keith Augustine's 2015 book, Keith Augustine & Michael Martin (eds.), The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life After Death). Rowman & Littlefield.

Augustine is hardly an objective and unbiased investigator. Definition of pseudo-skepticism: "A philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality is a form of dogmatism."

Augustine is Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief for Internet Infidels, whose mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism on the Internet through the Secular Web (infidels.org). 

The original link furnished for this thread is a review of a different section of the same book.

Hey, @"Durward"#545, thanks muchly for taking up my challenge. Unfortunately, I've gotta put on my big, bad moderator cap for a moment, because it's really hard at times to distinguish your quotes of Ian Stevenson from your own comments. It'd be really great if you could go back and edit your posts to distinguish them somehow. One possibility is to simply enclose your quotes of Ian in "quote" tags:

I suppose not distinguishing my comments from his is a compliment.

I think the final conclusions are clear. No matter what I say, or what my opinion is, it will never have any influence or traction.

It won't matter how many other sources show his mistakes or make the same comments, people are allowed select to believe or not, trust the assumptions or not, mainly because the whole process and purpose in not clear.

The evidence is what it is, the interpretation of how that happens, why that happens, is still subject to beliefs, religions, interpretations.

The truth is, we have correct information about past lives with enough evidence. Most of that evidence is not questioned. How the children got that information and that whole process is still so wide open to speculation. This causes discussion and allows injection of whatever people wish for it to be.

Being a practicing critical thinker, I'm not going to settle on one source, one idea, or reincarnation as the only method for retrieving this information, or someone else's religion.

My efforts to point out that there are multiple ways of getting this information, and multiple explanations, appears to fall on deaf ears or already opinionated minds, and it appears there will never be any change to that.

So I will just slowly back up and leave this conversation, realizing that debate and discussion in not possible if there is nothing to debate.

[Laird]

I think the final conclusions are clear. No matter what I say, or what my opinion is, it will never have any influence or traction.

My efforts to point out that there are multiple ways of getting this information, and multiple explanations, appears to fall on deaf ears or already opinionated minds, and it appears there will never be any change to that.

So I will just slowly back up and leave this conversation, realizing that debate and discussion in not possible if there is nothing to debate.

Hey, hey, hold up there! I planned to reread your posts and give them due consideration after we worked out the whole how-to-readily-distinguish-quotes-from-original-content problem. It's just too messy at the moment for me to make sense of. [Edit: another problem is that you don't distinguish your quotes of me from your own content, which isn't a problem for me 'cos I remember what I wrote, but might be for others.]