originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I would be interested to read some of these papers on crop circles, could you provide me with some? Thanks.
It is a journal that looks at fringe claims and phenomena that fall outside of the mainstream and are not supported well enough to get published in
real science journals.
Indeed the papers states no proof or evidence of reincarnation, it provides cases where science itself doesn't have the answers for.
Although there were indeed many cases he studied that were 'fake' and could be explained due to family problems or illness.
Many cases involve kids and you could ask, did their parents had something to do with it? Some have their suspicion others he had no
That someone (an MD) doesn't have an explanation, means no more than that though. This doesn't make reincarnation more likely, or mean that
reincarnation will necessarily be the explanation.
The question is not if there is life after death, because there definitely is, (which is imo just recycling of the body) others live because
something has died (but than you can ask what is life and the circle continuous)
The bigger question is what happens to the mind/soul/consciousness? To me it sounds rather weird that science states consciousness is just a byproduct
of brain-activity, no? Crazy coincidence.
Have you looked at the neuroscience concerning this subject? There are some good blogs and articles around. There is no reason, nor any real evidence
to suggest that consciousness is other than an emergent phenomena (of the brain). There is no "us" in the sense of something that directs mental
processes. Quite the opposite it seems, the conscious part, the part with which we self identify is an illusion created by the brain that gets a lot
of credit it doesn't deserve. It gets much worse for mind body dualists, experiments have been pointing to something for quite a while that many
neuroscientists themselves are unwilling to accept (because it seems so counter intuitive and a certain amount of fear because it is so contrary to
It has even been postulated that the effect of "consciousness" might simply be epiphenomenal and something that arises naturally out of complexity.
The only ideas supporting consciousness of religious/new age type (that seems to have at least some genuine science as a basis) appears to be the Orch
OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) model of consciousness proposed by Hameroff and Penrose, which attempts to merge biological functions and
quantum effects. Though not well accepted by science (it has been termed a "pixie dust" explanation) and Penrose himself agrees it has more than a few
holes and assumptions. It allows (as a possibility) for consciousness to exist independently.
Afaik Penrose also sees the possibility for a type of "proto consciousness" to exist in matter. Though he seems unwilling to go into it too much,
probably because he realises that it isn't based on any good science. Although neural systems are too large for quantum effects to be relevant,
Hameroff claims that these effects are relevant to the microtubules within neurons themselves (at least as a plausible possibility). It was also
claimed that nervous system conditions didn't allow for such effects (because of noise/decoherence) which need specially controlled laboratory
conditions, such as close to absolute zero temperatures, to be created/ studied. Yet it now appears that quantum effects play a part in
photosynthesis, there are also experiments indicating that the "compass" of certain migrating birds relies on quantum effects such as entangled
electron pairs and so on.
Fascinating, but the consensus is what it is, for good reason (so far at least).
That said, i apologizes saying 'science proofs reincarnation is real' which it doesn't say specific but it does not contradicts it either, so
saying it isn't real also is scientifically false i believe.
No problem at all. I only knew about the journal through looking into claims that Meldrum has published peer reviewed studies involving bigfoot in
mainstream science literature. I found 0 such studies with the papers themselves basically pseudo science.
There really is quite a bit of science that (indirectly) contradicts the claims of reincarnation.
As to the op, I would choose non existence, oblivion, rather than any type of afterlife as popularised by religious and new age claims. I have some
doubts that people who look forward to such a thing have thought about what this implies, thoroughly.
edit on 22-3-2016 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it