Past Lives & Karl Popper's Empiricism

Quoting TheMadFool

I think Popper was talking about his famous falsifiability criterion for judging whether a given theory is scientific/empirical or not. If a given theory T explains everything then, nothing contradicts it and so it's unfalsifiable.

Correct.

In sociological analysis it can be a given that there are "non-logical" theories which nevertheless factor significantly in the actual operations of the human world. So relegating the theory of reincarnation to the realm of non-logical theories doesn't undermine it.

Quoting Pantagruel

So relegating the theory of reincarnation to the realm of non-logical theories doesn't undermine it.

But being unfalsifiable relegates any theory of reincarnation based solely on memories of past lives to pseudoscience. Can we do anything to repair such theories to make them scientific?

Quoting TheMadFool

But being unfalsifiable relegates any theory of reincarnation based solely on memories of past lives to pseudoscience. Can we do anything to repair such theories to make them scientific?

But as I was pointing out, not all theories in the "human" realm are - or must be - scientific. To think that all theories must be scientific in nature is what leads down the slippery slope of reductionism.

Quoting Pantagruel

But as I was pointing out, not all theories in the "human" realm are - or must be - scientific. To think that all theories must be scientific in nature is what leads down the slippery slope of reductionism.

As far as I can tell, the scientific worldview seems to dominate the intellectual landscape and the view that science is about the truth and all else is just a matter of opinion appears to have rubbed off on the general populace - it's reached a point that, unless one wants to come off as an ignoramus, people think twice before questioning science. I take this positive impression people have of science as evidence that it (science) has, more often than not, managed to come up with the goods so to speak and is rarely caught with its foot in its mouth. Science has built a very good reputation as the current best certified dealer in the truth business and this provides ample reason to be highly skeptical when people make claims that are unscientific, especially when they're impossible to disprove/are unfalsifiable. This is why I was looking for ways to fix the theory of reincarnation predicated on verifiable memories of past lives. Making such a theory scientific will push up its credibility rating to 100%, a desirable state of affairs, don't you think?

I think it will be difficult to place reincarnation as something scientific due to our understanding of memory. We know that memories are stored in the brain. We know that damage can remove these memories. We even have drugs like propranolol which we use on people with post traumatic stress disorder to erase and minimize memories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-induced_amnesia

Here's a layperson's breakdown on memory. https://lesley.edu/article/stages-of-memory
Here's a more advanced study of the history of memory from philosophy to modern day science. Cool read. https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/where-do-memories-form-and-how-do-we-know/

Since we know that memories are formed within the brain, and since we know (from the second article) how to create and identify a false memory, then we can conclude that memory is something which comes from the physical and chemical interactions of the brain.

What is reincarnation in this scenario then? Since we know a person's dead brain tissue has not been placed into a new person, we know for a fact that the memories one has cannot be the memories of the former dead brain.

I am not saying it is impossible to make reincarnation a viable option to look into. But can you define reincarnation in such a way that does not contradict the well confirmed knowledge we already have on hand?

Quoting Pantagruel

But as I was pointing out, not all theories in the "human" realm are - or must be - scientific. To think that all theories must be scientific in nature is what leads down the slippery slope of reductionism.

Yes. The typical criteria for belief, for most folks, is not objective or empirical or logical or falsifiable evidence, but whether "it works for me". :smile:

Quoting TheMadFool

Making such a theory scientific will push up its credibility rating to 100%, a desirable state of affairs, don't you think?

It would if the subject matter was within the realm of science. Or perhaps I should say "current science."

Quoting Pantagruel

"current science."

:up:

Quoting Philosophim

false memory

I made it clear: verifiable memories of past lives.

@Philosophim
Quoting TheMadFool

1. There are verifiable memories of past lives

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

1. There are verifiable memories of past lives

Ok, then we can make reincarnation falsifiable.

If it is true that memories have been found to be located within the brain, then we know that a dead person's memories resided in their brain.

In theory, if the same physical and chemical properties were repeated within a brain, then the memory of a previous brain would be identical.

Thus, "Reincarnation" would have to be defined as an instance in which a new brain has the identical physical and chemical properties of an older dead brain. Of course, there's nothing to stop this from happening between two living brains either.

Further, reincarnation implies that one can remember an event that has never happened to itself directly. So we would have to have two people recollecting the same event, even though one person was never in the location of the other. (This also does not rule out two people having the same memory of something neither have experienced, but I don't want to go there).

Since it would be more difficult to measure between a dead and a living brain, a starting point would be to see if identical memories, as specified above, could happen in two living people. The simplest place to start would likely be between identical twins.

First, you might attempt to see if it is possible for a pair of twins to have an identical memory of something they have both experienced. We will need to take and record both of their brain states over a set period of time while they are trying to remember something. A success would be if both could remember the same memory state that the other had never encountered before.

You could go on from there I think. Perhaps if you could prove that people can have the same memory of something, when one did not have the experience, then we could look at the idea of brains that aren't as similar being able to experience the same thing. Finally, if that was possible, we could probably set up records of a few generational decades in which a person recounted a memory in detail while their brain state was recorded, and someone else happened to do the same after that initial person was dead.

Does this sound like something viable?

Quoting Pantagruel

So relegating the theory of reincarnation to the realm of non-logical theories doesn't undermine it.

So your claim is that if we permit illogical theories then reincarnation is permissible?

A contradiction implies anything: p & ~p implies q.

Hence, if we permit illogical theories, we permit anything.

That's closer to Popper's meaning in "A theory that explains everything explains nothing".

Illogical theories ought not be permitted, even outside of science.

A greater problem with reincarnation is the nature of the self. That is, what is it that is being reincarnated?

Suppose, @TheMadFool, that you found yourself remembering, as if they were your own, things that did not happen to you, but happened to someone else. Suppose you remember being Chancellor of Germany in 2019.

Would you then conclude that you are Angela Merkel?

And if not, then if you had the memories of Julius Caesar, why would you conclude that you were Julius Caesar?

That is, there seems to be more to being you than just having your memories.

IF reincarnation is to make sense then one needs to be clear as to what it is that is being reincarnated.

Quoting Banno

So your claim is that if we permit illogical theories then reincarnation is permissible?

Life is not reducible to logic. Most of what transpires in the human realm fits into what Pareto call non-logical action, in case you didn't notice. All I pointed out is that failing to fit with a known scientific theory does not in itself invalidate an hypothesis. If it did, there would be no scientific breakthroughs or paradigm shifts.

Quoting Pantagruel

Pareto

:lol:

Reply to TheMadFool There was a study carried out by someone called Stevenson (if memory serves) which purported to show that there are many cases of children remembering details about deceased persons lives and deaths that they purportedly could not possibly have known from being told by anyone. Accepting for the sake of argument that these reports are true and verified, would this prove that the children in question were, in a past life, the people whose lives they can remember?

I say not, because reincarnation is just one theory to explain this phenomenon. Others are that there are "Akashic Records" or a "collective unconscious" or "universal mind" where every detail of everyone's lives are stored, and that the children were inexplicably able to "tap into" those details.

Reply to TheMadFool Discussion of reincarnation is a taboo topic [s]on this forum[/s] in Western culture.

If you really want to know what research has found, google Ian Stevenson and read some of the facts. This is as good a place to start as any.

The point to note is that in the many cases he documented, the children who recalled their last lives knew facts for which there was no external explanation - buried coin boxes, hidden doors, locations of buildings and trees no longer there, and numerous other such details. Of course, it is widely accepted now that Stevenson was a dupe and a fraud who was sucked in by wishful thinking. In this matter, people will believe what they will, I know a few western Buddhist converts who refuse to believe anything Stevenson published.

A more recent and quite scholarly study by a Buddhist monk can be found here.

Quoting Wayfarer

the children who recalled their last lives

You're simply assuming the truth of one of a number of possible explanatory theories. The theory would not be proven even if all the children's reports were true and not explainable by the children being told what they said they remembered. So with you in this matter, as with the proofs of God's existence, it is a prior faith finding confirmation wherever it can.

Quoting Janus

The theory would not be proven even if all the children's reports were true and not explainable by the children being told what they said they remembered.

Yeah, I do think Stevenson does actually consider that possibility. But in many cases, prior commitments are unlikely to be swayed by such considerations.

Stevenson’s magnum opus, published in 1997, was a 2,268-page, two-volume work called Reincarnation and Biology. Many of his subjects had unusual birthmarks and birth defects, such as finger deformities, underdeveloped ears, or being born without a lower leg. There were scar-like, hypopigmented birthmarks and port-wine stains, and some awfully strange-looking moles in areas where you almost never find moles, like on the soles of the feet. Reincarnation and Biology contained 225 case reports of children who remembered previous lives and who also had physical anomalies that matched those previous lives, details that could in some cases be confirmed by the dead person’s autopsy record and photos.

A Turkish boy whose face was congenitally underdeveloped on the right side said he remembered the life of a man who died from a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A Burmese girl born without her lower right leg had talked about the life of a girl run over by a train. On the back of the head of a little boy in Thailand was a small, round puckered birthmark, and at the front was a larger, irregular birthmark, resembling the entry and exit wounds of a bullet; Stevenson had already confirmed the details of the boy’s statements about the life of a man who’d been shot in the head from behind with a rifle, so that seemed to fit. And a child in India who said he remembered the life of boy who’d lost the fingers of his right hand in a fodder-chopping machine mishap was born with boneless stubs for fingers on his right hand only. This type of “unilateral brachydactyly” is so rare, Stevenson pointed out, that he couldn’t find a single medical publication of another case.

If he was talking about plain old medical epidemiology or pathology, it would be regarded as quite unexceptionable. But as I said, discussion of rebirth is a cultural taboo in the West. It often sends people right off. I really shouldn't say anything about it. :worry:

Quoting Wayfarer

But in many cases, prior commitments are unlikely to be swayed by such considerations.

That's true and as I said it amounts to confirmation bias, not free inquiry. Which is fine as long as that is admitted.

Reply to Janus Most people will say that Stevenson naturally suffered confirmation bias - damn the evidence!

Reply to Wayfarer

You're not getting what I've been saying; I'm saying even accepting that what is presented is true evidence that cannot be explained empirically, the confirmation bias consists in believing it supports reincarnation over say, collective memory, universal mind, akashic records and so on.

Reply to Janus Actually Stevenson was careful not to say that his research proved reincarnation occurs. He said it suggests it, but was willing to consider all kinds of theories about it.

But the point is that generally the bias against it is very strong in Western culture. Stevenson once remarked that in the West, people would often say 'why bother with these studies? Everyone knows that it's just folk stories.' In the East, people would say 'why bother with these stories? Everyone knows it happens all the time.'

In the Wikipedia entry (which is generally dismissive of Stevenson), there's a passage that says

The philosopher Paul Edwards, editor-in-chief of Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, became Stevenson's chief critic. From 1986 onwards, he devoted several articles to Stevenson's work, and discussed Stevenson in his Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (1996). He argued that Stevenson's views were "absurd nonsense" and that when examined in detail his case studies had "big holes" and "do not even begin to add up to a significant counterweight to the initial presumption against reincarnation." Stevenson, Edwards wrote, "evidently lives in a cloud-cuckoo-land."

which I'm sure would be the majority view.

However what is interesting is that one Robert Almeder, who was apparently a reputable philosopher of science, took issue with Edwards' criticism in this article.

I notice that Almeder's wikipedia entry says:

Almeder was strongly influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce, Ian Stevenson, and W.O. Quine, and subscribes to Cartesian dualism, broadly rejecting scientism and materialism. Stevenson's reincarnation research work on children who claimed to remember past lives convinced Almeder that minds are irreducible to brain states. He has argued in several papers and in his Beyond Death: The Evidence for Life After Death (1992) that Stevenson's critics, most notably the philosopher Paul Edwards, have misunderstood the nature of Stevenson's work.[5]

Reply to Philosophim The possibility that a person can experience a memory of another person by fluke doesn't seem to impact reincarnation theories based on memory because recall of past lives while entailed is not, by itself, sufficient to clinch the argument of reincarnation.

Quoting Janus

I say not, because reincarnation is just one theory to explain this phenomenon. Others are that there are "Akashic Records" or a "collective unconscious" or "universal mind" where every detail of everyone's lives are stored, and that the children were inexplicably able to "tap into" those details.

Interesting thought and coincidentally I happened to read about it a few days ago. :up: Quoting Wayfarer

Discussion of reincarnation is a taboo topic on this forum in Western culture.

If you really want to know what research has found, google Ian Stevenson and read some of the facts. This is as good a place to start as any.

The point to note is that in the many cases he documented, the children who recalled their last lives knew facts for which there was no external explanation - buried coin boxes, hidden doors, locations of buildings and trees no longer there, and numerous other such details. Of course, it is widely accepted now that Stevenson was a dupe and a fraud who was sucked in by wishful thinking. In this matter, people will believe what they will, I know a few western Buddhist converts who refuse to believe anything Stevenson published.

A more recent and quite scholarly study by a Buddhist monk can be found here.

Helpful as always :up:

If the ability of a person to remember another dead person's memory is not reincarnation, what is your definition of reincarnation?

Reply to Philosophim It's an interesting point in Buddhism in particular. Buddhism emphatically rejects the idea of an individual person or same consciuosness which migrates from one life to the next. This is the subject of this discourse. The gist of it is that 'consciousness arises according to conditions' but that there is not 'one who is conscious'. So long as the conditions for consciousness continue to arise, then consciousness will continue to arise because of conditions. In this discourse, this is re-told in forceful terms to the figure of S?ti, the Fisherman's Son, who holds the 'pernicious view' of 'a consciousness that migrates from life to life'.

It modern terminology, it is as if a person propogates a wave, which in turn gives rise to an instance of consciousness. Is that instance the same or different? Well, it's not really an individual thing, so it doesn't make sense to say either. Are you the same person you were when you were seven? The answer is both yes and no.

What the Buddha differentiated his teaching from, was the Hindu notion of an unchangeable ?tman or Self 'which persists unchanged while all else changes'. But he also doesn't say anywhere 'there is no self', as that is the view of nihilism. Understanding the Buddhist principle of an?tman/anatta is quite a subtle matter, and often prone to misunderstanding.

In practice there is a sense of continuity from one moment to the next, and one life to the next. This is developed in later Buddhist philosophy in terms of the 'citta-sant?na', sometimes translated as 'mind-stream'. But the point is, there is no underlying entity, self or thing, the self, such as it is, is a dynamic process which unfolds over lifetimes. It is that sense of 'this is me, this is I, this is mine' which is one of the fundamental 'roots of suffering' in Buddhist philosophy.

Some refs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html

https://tricycle.org/magazine/no-self-or-true-self/

Reply to Wayfarer
Much appreciated Wayfarer! This was very informative, thank you.

Quoting Philosophim

If the ability of a person to remember another dead person's memory is not reincarnation, what is your definition of reincarnation?

Well, I was contemplating the possibility of a person [s]recalling[/s] having memories of another person by fluke. It's not impossible, is it? For instance, a person after my death could have my memories not because s/he's me but just as a matter of chance. After all, memories are basically thoughts and two different people can have the same thoughts, no?

Quoting Banno

A greater problem with reincarnation is the nature of the self. That is, what is it that is being reincarnated?

Suppose, TheMadFool, that you found yourself remembering, as if they were your own, things that did not happen to you, but happened to someone else. Suppose you remember being Chancellor of Germany in 2019.

Would you then conclude that you are Angela Merkel?

And if not, then if you had the memories of Julius Caesar, why would you conclude that you were Julius Caesar?

That is, there seems to be more to being you than just having your memories.

IF reincarnation is to make sense then one needs to be clear as to what it is that is being reincarnated.

As I mentioned in my reply to another member, having memories, even well-verified ones, is not sufficient to establish the truth of reincarnation because of the possibility that a person could have memories of another person by fluke; after all memories are thoughts in essence and it's not impossible that two people have the same thoughts.

Quoting Banno

IF reincarnation is to make sense then one needs to be clear as to what it is that is being reincarnated.

The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation - that immaterial substance that, like a rolling drop of water gathers sawdust, collects memories of existence as a particular person/being; these memories giving it identity, defining it as to who it is.

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation - that immaterial substance that, like a rolling drop of water gathers sawdust, collects memories of existence as a particular person/being; these memories giving it identity, defining it as to who it is.

At this point, you've removed yourself from science though. The only way you can get reincarnation and science to work together, is if you can define reincarnation as something science can examine.

A soul is simply an idea someone came up with. Like a unicorn. No one has ever observed a soul. People can think, "I will live forever in some way," but they never do. A soul does not exist by fact, because no one has ever observed a soul. No one has ever observed it gathering memories, or forming an identity. It is only an idea that our mind exists as something separate from the real universe.

To believe in something that cannot be tested or thought of apart from faith is religion. Philosophy can ask questions about faith, and whether it is viable and helpful in our lives. But philosophy itself is not having faith, it is seeking the truth as reality is. If faith is viable, a philosopher would know this because their logic shows that it is, not because they desire that it is.

Quoting TheMadFool

The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation

...and the soul is...?

You will need to set out what more there is to the soul than just "what is reincarnated"; else you will have a quiet tragically circular definition: the soul is what is reincarnated, and what is reincarnated is the soul.

Nothing will have been said.

Quoting TheMadFool

collects memories of existence as a particular person/being;

Then I am not reincarnated; rather, some other soul steals my memories.

Quoting Banno

..and the soul is...?

The more general a term, the more difficult of definition. A hammer is easy to define, 'consciousness' or 'soul' much less so.

But my pragmatic definition is 'the totality of the being'. Not simply 'the person', because 'the person' is, as the name implies, like the mask worn by actors in a drama. The soul implies the whole being - subconscious procliivities, talents, dispositions and attitutides. It need not be anything more than a figure of speech to be meaningful. Of course moderns will want to objectify it - 'well if it's not objectively ascertainable, then it can't be real' - but that arises from a specific disposition.

Quoting Wayfarer

'the totality of the being'

I don't see how including my armchair in the soul helps.

Reply to Banno you're the kind of soul who wouldn't :-)

Quoting Wayfarer

you're the kind of soul who wouldn't

But if soul is the totality of being, so are you.

Although I do have to say I think this is incorrect:

Quoting TheMadFool

That means a theory of reincarnation is consistent with two statements that contradict each other:

1. There are verifiable memories of past lives

and

2. There are no verifiable memories of past lives

This state of affairs reminds me of the following statement made by the philosopher of science, Karl Popper:

A theory that explains everything explains nothing
— Karl Popper

Stevenson's research includes thousands of cases of children who recall very specific details of their purported previous lives. Of course many people will insist that Stevenson or some relative coached them or confabulated these details, but Stevenson was quite a carefui researcher and he says he rejected many more cases where he suspected fraud or dishonesty.

But even then, Stevenson never claimed that his research proved the fact of reincarntion, but that it suggested it. He was open minded as to what the underlying cause might be. But there's nothing in what he did that is not consistent with empirical methodology, at least in terms of his work. The whole issue with Stevenson's work is that it suggests the possibility of reincarnation, which undermines a purely materialistic explanation for the transmission of memory. And besides, reincarnation is a cultural taboo in the West, going back to its anethematisation by the Church in the 4th century.

So, people will say that Stevenson's work must be pseudo-science, because they believe, or claim to know, that there could be no means 'known to science' by which such transmission could occur. But that does not mean that his research doesn't meet Popper's criterion. You could simply falsify all Stevenson's research by proving beyond doubt that all his cases were falsified (although I don't believe anyone has done that.)

In any case, recall that Karl Popper's two paradigmatic instances of psuedo-science were Freudianism and Marxism. And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics.

Quoting Banno

But if soul is the totality of being, so are you.

The totality of a human being, not 'being as such' (although the mythology of the world-soul is interesting in its own right.)

Quoting Wayfarer

The totality of a human being, not 'being as such' (although the mythology of the world-soul is interesting in its own right.)

So, on to "what is the totality of human being?"

My armchair might no lnger be part of the soul, but I still am. Hence, you remain the kind of soul who doesn't see how including my armchair in the soul helps.

Quoting Banno

So, on to "what is the totality of human being?"

It encompasses all of what is designated by the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious aspects of the psyche - much of which, as Freud showed, is not available to conscious perusal. Drives, proclivities, hidden memories, complexes, talents, dispositions - what is technically known as 'the whole enchilada'.

Quoting Philosophim

At this point, you've removed yourself from science though. The only way you can get reincarnation and science to work together, is if you can define reincarnation as something science can examine.

A soul is simply an idea someone came up with. Like a unicorn. No one has ever observed a soul. People can think, "I will live forever in some way," but they never do. A soul does not exist by fact, because no one has ever observed a soul. No one has ever observed it gathering memories, or forming an identity. It is only an idea that our mind exists as something separate from the real universe.

To believe in something that cannot be tested or thought of apart from faith is religion. Philosophy can ask questions about faith, and whether it is viable and helpful in our lives. But philosophy itself is not having faith, it is seeking the truth as reality is. If faith is viable, a philosopher would know this because their logic shows that it is, not because they desire that it is.

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? If there are cases where a person has verifiable memories of being someone else before s/he was born then, one explanation, among others, is that there's something that survives death and enters another person and that something is the soul.

Quoting Banno

...and the soul is...?

You will need to set out what more there is to the soul than just "what is reincarnated"; else you will have a quiet tragically circular definition: the soul is what is reincarnated, and what is reincarnated is the soul.

Nothing will have been said.

See my reply to Philosophim.

Quoting Wayfarer

But even then, Stevenson never claimed that his research proved the fact of reincarntion, but that it suggested it.

:up:

Quoting Wayfarer

And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics.

Any references? Thanks

Quoting TheMadFool

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific?

I don't. I think it incoherent.

Quoting Banno

I don't. I think it incoherent.

Why? :chin:

Reply to TheMadFool ...because I havn't seen a coherent account.

Quoting Banno

because I havn't seen a coherent account.

Why? :chin:

Reply to TheMadFool

What is a soul?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/440584

Quoting Banno

What is a soul?

A soul = something that 1)survives death and 2) transmigrates into another body


What's incoherent/wrong with the above?

Reply to TheMadFool

A leg of lamb survives death and transmigrates into another body...

So a leg of lamb is a soul?

Or have you more to add to the definition?

Quoting TheMadFool

And also that falsification as principle is now under attack by some influential figures in physics.
— Wayfarer

Any references? Thanks

https://www.philosophersmag.com/footnotes-to-plato/77-string-theory-vs-the-popperazzi

Quoting Banno

A leg of lamb survives death and transmigrates into another body...

So a leg of lamb is a soul?

Or have you more to add to the definition?

A leg of a lamb, most definitely, doesn't survive death - it decays or, if consumed, is digested, a process that destroys the leg.

Reply to Wayfarer String theory! - the unfalsifiable theory. I thought the unfalsifiability in this case is due to string theory not making any observable predictions and not because it's consistent with propositions that contradict each other.

Quoting TheMadFool

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? If there are cases where a person has verifiable memories of being someone else before s/he was born then, one explanation, among others, is that there's something that survives death and enters another person and that something is the soul.

A good question. Science is about proposing hypotheses that can be tested. So first we have to construct what a soul is. Do you have a definition of a soul that can be tested? Where did someone get the idea of a soul? Was it from an experience, or is it only an idea?

To get an idea, I'm going to revisit an old scientific theory called Phlogiston theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Essentially, the idea was that fire occurred in things because there was a substance called phlogiston that existed inside of flamable objects. If you'll check the link, a lot of effort went into building up the theory, with plenty of scientists pushing their ideas such that, "Air absorbed the released phlogiton eventually, which was then absorbed by plants. This is why air eventually stopped burning and did not continue on forever."

Theories that sound nice on first glance, but cannot or have not yet been tested, are called "plausiblities". They are the initial creative ideas of our mind that appeal to us. As Phlogisiton was tested, certain contradictions began to show up that could not be explained. For example, some metals when burned actually increase their mass, meaning they are not losing phlogiston. Eventually the oxygen theory of knowledge became the scientific standard. It wasn't because it was want people wanted. It was because the testing showed conclusions which contained repeatedly verifiable results without any competing theory.

Soul theory is the same as phlogiston theory. It sounds nice. We can make all of these nice explanations and reasonings, but they are only explanations and reasonings of creative concepts in our head, not things we apply and test in reality.

Soul theory is simply a story. Its a nice comforting story. Who wouldn't want to live forever or assume they have a greater power then simply being another animal with intelligence? Who doesn't want to think we are special over all of the other living creatures on the planet? But at the end of the day, its just a story. There's no definition of a soul to test. We can't even agree what mind is, you think we can agree on what a soul is?

And to your point that "isn't a soul an explanation about verifiable past memories?" No, it is not. Just like me saying, "Perhaps the person has psychic powers" is not. Or "God gave the man the memories of a famous person" is not. All of those are fun stories that we WANT, but cannot be verified through experimentation. So understand that I do not come at this with derision, or as insulting to your beliefs. Neither do I think believing such things is an insult to anyone's intelligence. We all start off thinking these things sound amazing, and wouldn't it be cool if they were real?

We've found out our intelligence can make us very susceptible to creating stories that we believe might be real. This is incredibly important to our creativity, growth, and discovery. But, like anything about us, we have to learn the right way to use these gifts so they do not get out of hand. You might think exercising 7 days a week with the heaviest weights will get you stronger, but it turns out science (by using the found methodologies that consistently have been shown to have the best chance of matching reality) show you will get stronger if you actually put a few rest days in between. You might think the Sun revolves around the Earth watching the Sun rise in the East, and set in the West. It turns out science found we actually revolve around the Sun.

So before you even address reincarnation, which assumes the soul is something real, you must show how a soul is something which can be scientific. I could try to come up with something for reincarnation, but I am honestly at a loss as to how to make a soul scientific, because I don't even know what one is. Can you try? I'm willing to give it a shot.

Quoting Philosophim

So first we have to construct what a soul is.

I don't wish to go that far. All I'm interested in is showing that a theory of "something" that retains memories of its past existence and gets transferred from one life to another is one possible explanation for "past life" memories.

Soul,personality or identity,whatever you want to call it.
Do we really have to debate whether your Identity is a real or measurable thing?
And this personality is a causal agent.
Or what the hell is writing these individual posts?

Quoting TheMadFool

I don't wish to go that far. All I'm interested in is showing that a theory of "something" that retains memories of its past existence and gets transferred from one life to another is one possible explanation for "past life" memories.

If you want to keep it scientific, then you have to demonstrate how we can test that something. So first, you have to identify what a memory is, because we will need to identify a memory from one person, and from another.

Here's a layman's terms breakdown of memory and the brain. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/human-memory/
A few points.
1. We know where certain memories reside in the brain.
2. People can forget memories through brain damage.

These are testable, and found as repeatable.

Now refer back to my post where I break down possibilities to prove that a person can have an identical memory of another human being, when when human being had not been there to form that memory. Recall that you must first show that someone can actually recalled the memories of another person. That has not been shown as of now. The tests from Stephenson are not enough to show this. Science must be testable, and repeatable. Meaning you would need to show multiple tests from different scientists confirming that when all other phlogiston possibilities are shown to be wrong, the only remaining conclusion is that these children have actually recalled the memories of dead people.

So again, even prior to reincarnation, you must show it is scientifically possible that people can recall the memories of dead people. Only then can reincarnation even be a considered explanation of why this is. Can you do so?

Quoting Philosophim

If you want to keep it scientific, then you have to demonstrate how we can test that something.

Well, that's the point. It can't be tested.

Quoting TheMadFool

Well, that's the point. It can't be tested.

Then you have your answer. It cannot be scientific.

Quoting Philosophim

Then you have your answer. It cannot be scientific.

Yes but that's what I've been saying all along :chin:

Quoting TheMadFool

But being unfalsifiable relegates any theory of reincarnation based solely on memories of past lives to pseudoscience. Can we do anything to repair such theories to make them scientific?

I was answering this point from your second post. Quoting TheMadFool

This is why I was looking for ways to fix the theory of reincarnation predicated on verifiable memories of past lives. Making such a theory scientific will push up its credibility rating to 100%, a desirable state of affairs, don't you think?

I was answering these points.

Reply to Philosophim Sorry. Lost track of what I was saying. Thanks. :up:

Reply to Philosophim Ok.

If reincarnation is true then we expect people to have verifiable memories of past lives.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. If we can't find out whether or not we're wrong then it becomes possible that we could be believing a theory that's actually wrong/incorrect. That's not good from any angle.

The only way a theory of reincarnation based on memories can be proven wrong is if the absence of past life memories is inconsistent with reincarnation but that isn't the case. Ergo, reincarnation theories predicated on memories of past lives are unfalsifiable and so, aren't scientific theories.

How do you want to tackle this serious flaw in reincarnation theories?

Note that using memories of any kind is out of the question for the following reasons:

1. False but true memories. False in the sense that a person who [s]recalls[/s] has "memories" (of past lives) does so by chance and true in the sense that these "memories" match actual experiences of a dead person

2. The absence of memories don't necessarily imply the falsity of reincarnation because memory is imperfect - basically, we forget.

Quoting TheMadFool

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong.

Just a quick clarification. If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory. Confirmation of something means that it has not been proven to be false. If you invent an idea in your head that cannot be falsified, it means you have never attempted to confirm it against reality, or you cannot confirm it against reality. Falsification means it must be falsifiable when applied against reality. In other words, there are clear properties that match, and cannot match with reality. A dog is falsifiable for example, because it has clear properties that are not a cat. So If I believe something to be a dog, when I apply it I must have clear distinctions that must be matched. If I try to match the identity of a dog to a cat, I will be proven false, because the real properties of a cat falsify my attempt to label it as a dog.

If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. Reincarnation must match certain specific rules and limits. We would then use those as markers against reality to see if our claim that what is happening in reality, is true or false in regards to reincarnation.

As such, your point here:
Quoting TheMadFool

The only way a theory of reincarnation based on memories can be proven wrong is if the absence of past life memories is inconsistent with reincarnation but that isn't the case.

I don't feel is quite correct. First, it must be shown that between two people, A, and B, both must share the memory of A, even though B was never in the situation in which A formed that memory.

Think back to Phlogistim. There was the theory of Phlogistim and oxygen. But one thing which was confirmed for sure, was that certain things caught on fire.

So let us pretend that science does eventually two people, A and B, share a memory A had, that B was not there for. This is so we can clarify the what falsification for reincarnation would mean. If this were the case, several different theories would form. One might be brain wave resonance that extends through space and time like quantum mechanics. One might be that its rare, and might just be random chance. These are all theories that at least base themselves on testable things. They have clear definitions of what they are. They may be wrong, but they are identifiable.

Where does this leave reincarnation as a theory in all of this? If we know that memories are formed in the brain, how do you say that a person today is the same person of yesterday when their brains are different? I suppose one way to do this is to keep brain scans of famous people and see how similar they are to another. So over decades, you could have a pool of brains of famous people. When someone has a memory of a famous dead person's experience (because lets face it, no one has past memories of non-famous people), we could examine their brain and see how similar it was to the dead celebrity. This allows something we can falsify. If the brains match, then maybe we can say nearly identical matching brains have a chance of triggering similar memories. We could call this, "Reincarnation" if we wanted to.

This is a falsifiable theory of reincarnation based on memories, if it is actually true that one can have the memories of a dead person. If however you include a soul into this mix, you cannot create a falsifiable theory. That is because you cannot define a soul in a way that can be applied to reality with clear properties. I can say, "Memories belong to the mind," and that is falsifiable, because we might be able to show that memories do not belong to the mind. However, we have never been able to do that. You can say, "Memories belong to the soul," but since you cannot clearly define a soul, we have no way to apply this claim to reality.

Science deals in what can be applied to reality. If you cannot find a way to apply it to reality, it has no chance of being an identifiable thing in reality with clear rules and definitions of what it is. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Quoting Philosophim

If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory.

Please read up on the scientific method.

Quoting TheMadFool

Ergo, reincarnation theories predicated on memories of past lives are unfalsifiable

Stevenson interviewed children who claimed to recall previous lives. He documented many such cases over a period of 30 years - something in the vicinity of 2,800 cases. In each of them he recorded interviews with the subject and then tried to validate specific claims that the child made about their purported previous life, including, where they lived, what their occupation was, how they died, things that they owned, and innummerable other facts about the cases. He employed researchers to do this, and got documentation including birth and death notices and newspaper accounts, and then attempted to match the documentation against the story. Like a cold-case detective, if you like.

He rejected any cases he thought were susceptible to cheating or manipulation (and there were many). But still, many remained that appeared genuine. Now a lot of people, including a lot of scientists, insist that he wasn't thorough, or that he was guilty of confirmation bias, or that his methods were faulty. Maybe that's true! But really that doesn't have any bearing on your argument. Whether he was a fraud or a charlatan or not, it remains the case that the body of research he produced is quite possible to falsify in principle: if you could show that the claims were false, or that the child was coached, or that the evidence was planted, then you falsify the claims. If you can't come up with a better explanation than that the child actually did remember these specific facts, then you have failed to falsify the case. But either way, it's not true to claim that it's something that 'can't be falsified', as it can be. Belief in 'going to heaven' can't be falsified, obviously. But in this case, you have empirical claims to deal with. So it's the one kind of 'after-death theory' which can be falsified.

Quoting Philosophim

Science deals in what can be applied to reality. If you cannot find a way to apply it to reality, it has no chance of being an identifiable thing in reality with clear rules and definitions of what it is. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Regardless, if one of these subjects makes a claim 'if you go to that house, and look under the floorboards near the fireplace, you will find there's a green metal box in there which has a watch and some spectacles in it' (to make up an example of the kinds of cases Stevenson often found) without ever having been into the house, then whatever science you have, has to deal with the fact that the subject knows something. Whether you have a theory about how that is possible is a different matter, but if it happened, it's a fact that science has to deal with. (Which is why, in my opinion, many scientists are very adamant that what Stevenson's subjects claimed could not have happened.)

//ps// I guess what I’m saying is that people don’t think Stevenson’s work is pseudoscience because of his method, but because of the content. That’s what’s interesting about it.//

Quoting TheMadFool

A leg of a lamb, most definitely, doesn't survive death - it decays or, if consumed, is digested, a process that destroys the leg.

The leg is a leg before the lamb dies; and it remains a leg after the lamb dies. Ergo, it survives death.

SO it seems you have more in mind when you talk about surviving death. So what is it? There's more to the definition of soul; there's something about essence, or spirit, or life, that differentiates it form a leg of lamb.

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

Please read up on the scientific method.

If you wish to end this discussion, that's fine, I don't mind. But we're here to discuss and show each other what we think of the issue. I did not simply dismiss your argument and tell you, "Please read up on neuroscience." I gave you some links, and explained some points.

If I am wrong in my claim in my post, point out where my flaw is, show me why, and we can continue to discuss. I can be wrong, its happened before! If not, I've stated my points, and we can be done.

Quoting Banno

The leg is a leg before the lamb dies; and it remains a leg after the lamb dies. Ergo, it survives death.

SO it seems you have more in mind when you talk about surviving death. So what is it? There's more to the definition of soul; there's something about essence, or spirit, or life, that differentiates it form a leg of lamb.

Putrefecation

Digestion

Quoting Wayfarer

if you could show that the claims were false, or that the child was coached, or that the evidence was planted, then you falsify the claims

I don't think showing Stevenson faked his data serves to falsify the theory of reincarnation; all that we can do with it is show his study is unreliable.

Quoting Philosophim

If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory.

What I know about the scientific method is that a hypothesis is formulated and based on it certain predictions are made. If and when these predictions are observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. In case the predictions are not observed, the hypothesis is refuted.

Quoting TheMadFool

Putrefecation

Digestion

Putrefaction is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos.

Digestion - I suppose no one reads Stranger in a Strange Land anymore, but ritual cnibalism s not uncommon, even amongst Christians.

SO, where are we in regard to finding a coherent notion of Soul?

Quoting Banno

Purification is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos.

Digestion - I suppose no one reads Stranger in a Strange Land anymore, but ritual cnibalism s not uncommon, even amongst Christians.

SO, where are we in regard to finding a coherent notion of Soul?

So, you concede that the leg of a lamb and a soul are not the same - the former decays beginning at death while the latter doesn't.

I gave you the generally accepted meaning of "soul" as 1. that which survives death and 2. transmigrates into another body.

We can begin now to ask how we might know that something, the soul, survives death? The consensus seems to be the existence of memories from past lives. However, this memory method is flawed because memory is imperfect - we forget, we misremember.

Any ideas?

Quoting TheMadFool

I don't think showing Stevenson faked his data serves to falsify the theory of reincarnation; all that we can do with it is show his study is unreliable

He didn't present a theory of reincarnation; he investigated children who claimed to remember previous lives.

Quoting Banno

Putrefaction is occasionally seen as the natural process of the body returning to the Earth, and henc eof the soul returning to the cosmos.

you concede that the leg of a lamb and a soul are not the same - the former decays beginning at death while the latter doesn't.[/quote]

Quoting TheMadFool

...[quote="TheMadFool;441921"]I gave you the generally accepted meaning of "soul" ....

No, you didn't.

That would be more like "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."

You entirely left out the "spiritual or immaterial" part.

Honestly, I don't know why I bother sometimes.

Quoting Banno

You entirely left out the "spiritual or immaterial" part.

The spiritual comes much later but do go on... :chin:

Quoting Wayfarer

He didn't present a theory of reincarnation; he investigated children who claimed to remember previous lives.

If he concluded from these investigations that past lives are something real, then he's working under the rubric of the theory of reincarnation.

I said "If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory."
— Philosophim

You replied

Quoting TheMadFool

What I know about the scientific method is that a hypothesis is formulated and based on it certain predictions are made. If and when these predictions are observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. In case the predictions are not observed, the hypothesis is refuted.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Hypotheses.html

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability"."

Look, I've made the same mistake of critisizing someone's points without anything to back it in the past. I get how it feels, and I'm not going to rag you for it. Just please do a little research on a claim before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about next time.

So back to your point
Quoting TheMadFool

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong.

You now know that you cannot have confirmation of a hypothesis if the hypothesis is not falsifiable. If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. If you would like to chat about a few ways I've tried to bring reincarnation into a scientific method, we can continue. If you are not interested in discussing how we can make a reincarnation theory that is falsifiable, then you have your answer.

Reply to Philosophim The scientific method works like this:

1. Formulate Hypothesis H

2. If H (is true) then predictions X, Y, Z

3. If predictions X, Y, Z are observed then H is confirmed

Falsifiability of H is possible only if the failure to observe predictions X, Y, Z implies that H is false. In the case of reincarnation the failure to observe instances of past life memories doesn't entail that reincarnation is false but finding cases of people who remember past lives confirm reincarnation. This is a case of a non-scientific hypothesis - reincarnation can be confirmed but not falsified.

Ignoring the math bit... (I hope you'll forgive me I was never any good at that),

Strictly from the I'm going to assume typical method of assessing past memories (you question a healthy, mentally sound adult or adolescent or even pre-teen).... the things we've seen/read/otherwise been informed about in life, especially today with movies and TV vividly reside in our brain. It wouldn't be atypical to "recall" or otherwise see something presented to one in a dramatic fashion at an early age ie. a riveting novel or dramatic TV or movie especially when under an altered state of mind say hypnotism.

From the philosophical angle, in regards to empiricism (I had to look that up), the previous paragraph kind of seems to be supported by that.

As far as empiricism in general it simply seems to be a description of what is mandated by the human experience. If you can't hear or see let alone being deprived of all five senses from birth... obviously your mind would not be able to grow and develop. Not quite sure what the antithesis of empiricism is but am curious.

Edit: Also the theory(?) of genetic memory may have some relevance here. From what I remember supposedly if say you were from a mountainous region and lived there for thousands of years, you may find mountains oddly familiar or even non-mountainous regions "odd" or something. Though from a religious/metaphysical perspective, which is completely different, it's a common concept. Afterlife, "life after death", "shall not die", etc.

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

1. Formulate Hypothesis H

2. If H (is true) then predictions X, Y, Z

3. If predictions X, Y, Z are observed then H is confirmed

That's not how a hypothesis works. Here is the definition of falsifiability.

"Criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false."

Here are some examples and explanation. https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html
---
1. An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
2. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
3. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.
---
Quoting TheMadFool

Falsifiability of H is possible only if the failure to observe predictions X, Y, Z implies that H is false

Your above statement matches to what a non-falsifiable statement is. It is not about a failure to observe what we want that makes it falsifiable. It is if we have a clear statement of what would make it false, and cannot meet that standard in our observation.

In your case of reincarnation, you are saying its wrong because of an absence of evidence, which indeed does not make it falsifiable. You are claiming that someone has actually had a past life experience. In your declaring this is confirmed, you need to have a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Is it possibly false that they did not have past life experiences? What hypothesis could prove it wrong that they had past life experiences?

I can introduce one. "If we have an accurate first hand account of a previous dead person's experience, and another person accurately matches that first hand record of the dead person's experience, without knowing anything about the dead person, or their experiences, then we can claim the dead person was reincarnated."

There are several falsifiables here.

1. We must have an accurate first hand account of the dead person's experience. After all, if they are reincarnated, they will only have this memory as a first hand experience.
2. The person in question must know nothing about the previous person, or about their recorded first hand experience.

So when you mean there is a claim to reincarnation, as in a hypothesis, what were the falsifiables of that claim? If there are falsifiables, then we can actually say the exploration of reincarnation actually started with a scientific hypothesis. But if there are no falsifiables to this claim, then that is not a hypothesis, and is not scientific. In other words, there is no non-scientific hypothesis. Its either a scientific hypthesis, or it is not a hypothesis.

Quoting Philosophim

So when you mean there is a claim to reincarnation, as in a hypothesis, what were the falsifiables of that claim?

As a matter of interest, have you read any of the research, i.e. interviews with children who claimed to recall earlier lives and whose claims were investigated? for example:

In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground.

Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground.

The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way.

I discussed this once, with a prominent figure in Western Buddhist circles, who dismissed the entire story. He declared that this case, and all cases like it, were coincidences, that the child’s apparent memories were simply things she made up that just happened to resemble the scenario she described.

In fact I know several Western Buddhists who are likewise dismissive of Stevenson’s entire oeuvre. (Belief in rebirth is the major divide between secular and traditional Buddhists, in some accounts.)

In any case, Stevenson went doggedly on with his research, ultimately assembling quite a few thousand such cases. But in this matter, no matter what evidence, a lot of people will simply refuse to accept that such a thing as past life memories could occur, and that there must be another explanation - something I do understand as it's a cultural taboo in the West.

Reply to Wayfarer
Hi Wayfarer,
Quoting Wayfarer

In any case, Stevenson went doggedly on with his research, ultimately assembling quite a few thousand such cases. But in this matter, no matter what evidence, a lot of people will simply refuse to accept that such a thing as past life memories could occur, and that there must be another explanation

Honestly, I do not know Stephenson's research, nor am I qualified to judge it. Were there falsifiables in his research? That is truly all that matters if we are going to claim he had hypothesis.

Science is not about confirming your biases. It is finding that even after you try to disprove your bases by coming up with alternative explanations and tests, that only one thing remains "true". I think that is what some people misunderstand about science. You are trying to disprove your hypothesis to get to a conclusion, not prove your hypothesis.

If Stephenson tried to disprove that reincarnation was the possible explanation using sound hypotheses, and was unable to, then we can say his work was scientific. I do not know his methods, or his hypotheses unfortunately.

If you've noticed, I've tried to come up with a few ways to make reincarnation scientific. But lets follow Stephen's work. I did read a little, and he stated that reincarnation apparently only happened in nearby areas, and that only kids between the ages of 3-5 had any former memories.

We could take his work, and try to repeat it in another area of the world, like Africa, or India. Science is also not an opinion. It doesn't matter if people think, or don't think what you are doing is science. If you meet the definitions of science, you are doing science.

My problem with the OP is they are not interested in proposing a proper hypotheses for reincarnation. They are trying to claim that, "Look, I have a belief that has some evidence, but its not scientific." Exactly. Evidence for your belief is not science. When your belief has survived all attempts to disprove it, then you have science.

Quoting Philosophim

Were there falsifiables in his research? That is truly all that matters if we are going to claim he had hypothesis.

Sure. If you could show his results were bogus, then you would falsify the children's claims. That's what I kept saying to MF. His cases comprise thousands of alleged memories that have been checked against documentary and witness accounts. Prove they're fallacious, and you've falsified his research.

Quoting Philosophim

Science is not about confirming your biases. It is finding that even after you try to disprove your bases by coming up with alternative explanations and tests, that only one thing remains "true". I think that is what some people misunderstand about science. You are trying to disprove your hypothesis to get to a conclusion, not prove your hypothesis.

Again - sure! The backstory to Stevenson's research is that Chester Carson, who invented xerography, privately endowed a Chair at the University of Virginia to engage in this research program. This was partially because Carson's wife was a theosophist, and they had interests in suchsubjects.

But Stevenson himself had previously been a professor of psychology, and as far has he was concerned, he was simply following an empirical research program. Which is that, there are children - from many regions, not just the East, although it is reported more frequently in Eastern cultures - who would say, as soon as they could speak, things like 'you are not my parents! This is not my family! My name is so-and-so from I'm from such and such a place'. He would record the interviews, then try and validate what the children said by investigating their stories. How is that not 'empirical'?

Quoting Philosophim

If you meet the definitions of science, you are doing science.

As I've said, I think Stevenson's research meets all the criteria, except for one: the subject matter! That's the point! If you read the Wikipedia entry you will come away convinced that he was fraudulent - and that's because the predominant belief in the culture in which Wikipedia is edited, is that reincarnation is a fringe belief and that such research must be pseudo-science because of its subject matter.

Quoting Wayfarer

He would record the interviews, then try and validate what the children said by investigating their stories. How is that not 'empirical'?

Such duplicity! Not less than a few days ago, in a post to me, you were discarding the whole of neuroscience because it's results could not be exactly replicated under precise laboratory conditions with control groups and proper statistical analysis. Now you're trying to claim 'having a chat' counts as the sort of evidence we should be taking seriously?

Quoting Isaac

Such duplicity! Not less than a few days ago, in a post to me, you were discarding the whole of neuroscience because it's results could not be exactly replicated under precise laboratory conditions with control groups and proper statistical analysis.

Such misunderstanding! The whole point of the other conversation was entirely different. What I was arguing about then was that you couldn't understand the faculty of reason by analysing neurological data. This is a completely different situation and argument. (By the way, do you have any knowledge of or views on Hacker and Bennett's book, Philosophical Foundation of Neuroscience? It seems to me that it suggests the kinds of criticisms that I was making in that other, entirely unrelated thread.)

Quoting Wayfarer

What I was arguing about then was that you couldn't understand the faculty of reason by analysing neurological data.

The idea you were attempting to refute is irrelevant. The point is simply that the level of replicability you were criticising neuroscience for lacking was already way above the level of replicability you're here saying is unjustified as a reason for rejecting ideas about past lives. If neuroscience can say little about reason because it's results are difficult to replicate, then the same must be true of Stevenson. I'm aware of the fact that you presented other reasons why you think neuroscience cannot speak about the faculty of reason (which I also disagreed with), but that doesn't detract from the fact that you tried to discredit their results using the replication crisis. That, in itself, is duplicitous if you then ask people to take conclusions seriously from an even less rigorous source.

Quoting Wayfarer

By the way, do you have any knowledge of or views on Hacker and Bennett's book, Philosophical Foundation of Neuroscience? It seems to me that it suggests the kinds of criticisms that I was making in that other, entirely unrelated thread.

I have read excerpts from it. It think a lot of it is actually quite good, but that's definitely off topic here. Here we're talking about the extent to which the scientific method can be applied to past lives. I think we need to be careful about having a double standard for our acceptance of experimental evidence.

Quoting Isaac

I'm aware of the fact that you presented other reasons why you think neuroscience cannot speak about the faculty of reason (which I also disagreed with), but that doesn't detract from the fact that you tried to discredit their results using the replication crisis. That, in itself, is duplicitous if you then ask people to take conclusions seriously from an even less rigorous source.

It's a completely different issue. 'The nature of reason' is a philosophical question par excellence. I dispute that it will ever be subject to empirical analysis, for the Kantian reason that without reason there can be no empirical method. The faculty of reason is not something you're ever going to see in data, because it is of its nature abstract, and because you can only ever find it by using it. 'What is reason?' might constitute an entire semester in philosophy, without ever coming to a conclusive answer.

Whether a child 'remembers' that was in a red sports car that came off the road and killed him in a 'previous life', is a simple empirical claim. You go back and find records that correspond with the alleged memory. You either find them, or you don't.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's a completely different issue. 'The nature of reason' is a philosophical question par excellence. I dispute that it will ever be subject to empirical analysis, for the Kantian reason that without reason there can be no empirical method. The faculty of reason is not something you're ever going to see in data, because it is of its nature abstract, and because you can only ever find it by using it.

I understand these reasons, they're beside the point. The replication crisis was not raised in support of the above argument (it would be irrelevant to it). It was raised as a completely separate issue attempting to cast doubt on the results of neuroscience in general. It is in this context I'm raising the issue.

If you truly believe that such simple, uncontrolled, un-analysed, unreplicated experiments tell us something about the nature of reality beyond death, then it is duplicitous to raise the replication crisis at all, in any context. It's simply not a crisis as far as you're concerned.

Reply to Wayfarer

To be clear, you said...

Quoting Wayfarer

We associate certain areas of the brain with certain types of mental activity because they consistently correlate - the subject reports some type of activity, or is placed in some recognised situation and the same area consistently registers. — Isaac


The drawing of such implications from fMRI studies, especially psychological or ethical implications, is precisely where many major issues of replicability have been found in the ‘replication crisis’.

And also

Quoting Wayfarer

The review I linked to draws on a large study of fmri data and raises fundamental questions about its accuracy and replicability in many respects.

You're clearly here implying that lack of strict rigourously controlled replicability casts doubt on the findings arising from any such experiments. A level of rigour you are now abandoning when the results point toward something you favour.

Reply to Isaac The underlying issue in the 'nature of ethics' and 'nature of reason' argument is that of neurological reductionism: the contention that by understanding the brain or brain-states, you thereby have an insight into the nature of such higher-order functions as reasoning and ethical judgement. I'm arguing against that on the basis that the nature of reason and ethical judgement is not, in principle, a matter for the sciences generally or for neuroscience in particular.

The relevance of the replicability issue in that context, is simply that it's possible to read all kinds of conclusions into these kinds of studies, because the questions that are being seen through them are themselves so broad or general. I'm not questioning brain science because it's not scientifically sound, but because it's not intended to deal with issues such as 'the nature of judgement'. I really hope you can see that distinction.(The article I linked to makes a similar point.)

I mean, your approach is naturally to look to science, as that's where your training and inclinations lead you. Well and good. I have near and dear relatives who've benefitted greatly from neuroscience, and on the level at which it is useful, it is verging on miraculous. (Hey, it IS brain science). I'm NOT casting doubt on neuroscience qua neuroscience, but on neuroscience qua neural reductionism. Do you get the distinction?

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I understand that 'belief in reincarnation' is a cultural taboo in the modern West. I'm not arguing that anyone here should believe it. Stevenson is thought to have been a well-meaning dupe by many people, and maybe they're right. But what is philosphically interesting, is that this is because of what he was researching, not the way he went about it. The subject matter itself is controversial, because it goes against many deeply-held beliefs.

Quoting Philosophim

That's not how a hypothesis works. Here is the definition of falsifiability.

Quoting Philosophim

1. An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
2. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
3. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

Quoting Philosophim

It is not about a failure to observe what we want that makes it falsifiable. It is if we have a clear statement of what would make it false, and cannot meet that standard in our observation.

Well, are you saying the natural deduction rules contraposition and modus tollens are wrong? :chin:

Contraposition
1. P -> Q
2. ~Q -> ~P....1 Contraposition

Modus Tollens
1. P -> Q
2. ~Q
3. ~P......1, 2 Modus Tollens

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

Well, are you saying the natural deduction rules contraposition and modus tollens are wrong? :chin:

An honest question. No, science does not, because each of those statements are hyptheses which have falsification, and have not been proven false.

Lets go with Modus Tollens because its easy.

Lets put a falsification statement to Modus Tollens. My hypothesis will be, "if P -> Q, then It can never be P, when its ~Q". Clearly it can be false if I observe that it is ~Q and also P.

So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed.

Now of course we can make more hypotheses, and in fact, science encourages it. I might introduce, "We can say, if P-> Q then P can't ever lead to ~Q"

Turns out after applying that we get P -> (Q v ~Q), and we discover something new while trying to disproving our hypothesis.

To have a viable scientific hypotheses about reincarnation, you need a hypothesis which is falsifiable, and then you must demonstrate that it is not proven false in application.

By all means, feel free to try to prove Contraposition as false. It also has clear circumstances we can think on to show that it is false. If you can't prove it is false, while thinking of situations that would show it to be false, you are doing science, and confirming your hypothesis.

Quoting Wayfarer

Sure. If you could show his results were bogus, then you would falsify the children's claims. That's what I kept saying to MF. His cases comprise thousands of alleged memories that have been checked against documentary and witness accounts. Prove they're fallacious, and you've falsified his research.

I think you do not have a clear grasp of what falsifiable means. Falsifiable does not mean you prove something false. Falsifiable is when we can invent a scenario in which it would be false. We then experiment, trying to show that it is false. If we CANNOT show it is false, then we have confirmed our hypothesis.

Check the conversations between TheMadFool and myself on defining what a hypothesis and falsification are about. Quoting Wayfarer

As I've said, I think Stevenson's research meets all the criteria, except for one: the subject matter!

If you think his research meets the criterion, you must show it to be falsifiable. There is a mental trap we can fall into where we blame people who don't believe what we believe, as somehow being unreasonable. It is likely true that there are scientists who scoff at his research while not looking at it. But, if he submitted his research findings to peer review, then a journal would seriously analyze his methods to see if they were scientific. You don't think reincarnation as a viable field wouldn't be cool or profitable to many scientists out there looking for grants and jobs?

If you want to prove the scientists wrong, its very simple. Look at his research and think on falsifiables. Here's one for example, "If a child or the parent is not aware that the study is about reincarnation, and we ask uncoached questions about having a previous life, 1 out of 500 children between the ages of 3-5 will report having a previous life that we can find a 70% match to."

I read a little bit about his stuff, and his 1 out of 500 cases was about the frequency he was able to get of reincarnation.

We can then refine his hypotheses, "If the above criteria are met, and we are to be certain that the 1 500 chance is not random chance, we do not expect more than 1 in (some statistical max) to report on a previous life that does not meet a 70% match".

And so on. They physics we use to type on the internet hasn't been proven true. No one has ever been able to prove it false. THAT is what falsifiable means. That is what science does.

Quoting Philosophim

An honest question. No, science does not, because each of those statements are hyptheses which have falsification, and have not been proven false.

Lets go with Modus Tollens because its easy.

Lets put a falsification statement to Modus Tollens. My hypothesis will be, "if P -> Q, then It can never be P, when its ~Q". Clearly it can be false if I observe that it is ~Q and also P.

So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed.

Now of course we can make more hypotheses, and in fact, science encourages it. I might introduce, "We can say, if P-> Q then P can't ever lead to ~Q"

Turns out after applying that we get P -> (Q v ~Q), and we discover something new while trying to disproving our hypothesis.

To have a viable scientific hypotheses about reincarnation, you need a hypothesis which is falsifiable, and then you must demonstrate that it is not proven false in application.

By all means, feel free to try to prove Contraposition as false. It also has clear circumstances we can think on to show that it is false. If you can't prove it is false, while thinking of situations that would show it to be false, you are doing science, and confirming your hypothesis.

:lol:

Thanks

Quoting TheMadFool

It seems that a theory of reincarnation that's based on the existence of verifiable memories of past lives is unfalsifiable, ergo isn't a scientific theory.

Even unscientific theories can be true. Also, if a person remembers a past life how can we be sure it is their past life? It may be someone else's life they are remembering.

Reply to TheMadFool
Well if a crying smiley face is the best you can reply with, then you're letting us all know you're not interested in a civil and intelligent discussion. That's a shame, you struck me as someone who would better than that.

Quoting Philosophim

Well if a crying smiley face is the best you can reply with, then you're letting us all know you're not interested in a civil and intelligent discussion. That's a shame, you struck me as someone who would better than that.

Sincerest apologies but there really isn't anything you can say against contraposition or modus tollens in re its application in the scientific method.

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

Sincerest apologies but there really isn't anything you can say against contraposition or modus tollens in re its application in the scientific method.

Do not post false apologies; actually address the point. I never said anything against these logic proofs in the application of science.

We're on the philosophy forums, a place where we expect a little higher quality of communication and behavior. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of science. If you believe this to be in error, then address this accusation seriously. Whether right or wrong, you will have respect for showing intellectual honesty and a respectful debate. If not, you will come across to people not as TheMadFool, but simply TheFool.

Quoting Philosophim

Falsifiable does not mean you prove something false. Falsifiable is when we can invent a scenario in which it would be false.

That is an artificial distinction. You're making it more complicated than it is. His hypothesis was: there are children who remember previous lives. Falsification of that hypothesis would be to show they did not remember previous lives.

Quoting Philosophim

You don't think reincarnation as a viable field wouldn't be cool or profitable to many scientists out there looking for grants and jobs?

No, it would definitely not be 'cool'. It would be regarded as pseudo-science.

[quote=Wikipedia ] Despite...early interest, most scientists ignored Stevenson's work. According to his New York Times obituary, his detractors saw him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition."[/quote]

Reply to Wayfarer Quoting Wayfarer

That is an artificial distinction. You're making it more complicated than it is. His hypothesis was: there are children who remember previous lives. Falsification of that hypothesis would be to show they did not remember previous lives.

That is a basic hypotheses that does not cover the reality of reincarnation. That is like saying, "There are children that are happy. It is false if I can never find a child that is happy." Congrats, we know that children are happy.

That does not lead to the conclusion that "Children are happy because God made them so."

Same with reincarnation to your hypotheses. Yes, kids can claim they lived other lives. Now you need to refine your hypotheses. If you claim, "They remember other lives because they are reincarnated," you need to think of ways that you could potentially prove this to be false.

And that's not difficulty. "Can we repeat the findings world wide? Can we rule out that its not a story or coincidence? (Statistics helps with this one). Your problem is you think science is about affirming truths. It has never been about affirming truths. It is about tearing down everything you can until something stands which cannot be torn down. It is about trying to disprove your belief, not confirming your belief.

Quoting Wayfarer

No, it would definitely not be 'cool'. It would be regarded as pseudo-science

Of course it would be cool. Do you realize the potential of it? The truths it could open up to the mind? Perhaps there would be a linked human consciousness or a world soul, or even a God. There are PLENTY of interested parties who would be greatly interested in VIABLE scientific theories. You are making an assumption that people didn't bother to check his work. The more likely, and realistic explanation that fits within the way of the world, is that his work did not pass the high bar of science.

Again, I am very willing to accept a viable scientific test that would show that reincarnation could not be shown to be false, and is the only reasonable alternative to certain phenomenon. I would read up on it. Find the core hypotheses that he developed, and examine his testing methods, not just his results. See if out of all the possibilities that could be, you feel that there is no other alternative to reincarnation.

Then come tell me! If you did, I would think it very cool. Until then though, I see no evidence of hard science being done here, only psychology and some wish projection.

Quoting Philosophim

Do not post false apologies; actually address the point. I never said anything against these logic proofs in the application of science.

We're on the philosophy forums, a place where we expect a little higher quality of communication and behavior. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of science. If you believe this to be in error, then address this accusation seriously. Whether right or wrong, you will have respect for showing intellectual honesty and a respectful debate. If not, you will come across to people not as TheMadFool, but simply TheFool.

Please understand the following

1. Given a scientific theory T, a prediction is made, say P. In other words : If T then P = T -> P

2. Observing P is confirmation of theory T

3. If P is not observed i.e. if ~P then by modus tollens ~T.

(1) T -> P
(2) ~P
(3) ~T.....1, 2 Modus Tollens

Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T.

If this isn't clear, I suggest a book on logic.

Just because something can't be disproven, that doesn't mean it can't be proven

I just grammar edited my last post. We might not be able to disprove that there is a supernatural order, but that doesn't mean we might not find a proof for it someday

Reply to TheMadFool To reach a theory, what is considered a theory, there needs to be a lot of evidence and no better explanation. If we reached a place where the scientific community considered there to be sufficient evidence this would mean we has specific details that are considered evidence. Your op does not deal with specifics. Once you get into specifics, yes, it can be falsified.

For example, one of the ways people have gathered some evidence is by interviewing children who know specific details of what the children themselves think of as past lives - who they lived as before. The researchers then investigate the details. Did someone live there with that name, that life, that family - sometimes they can even interview the family. Then they look for alternate explanations - if the child'd knowledge seems way beyond chance, for how that child might know this. They do this with many cases, and try to rule out other ways the child could have what is considered too much correct information about something they couldn't know about.

So you end up with a theory, should it be accepted as one, based on ruling out other explanations.

So individual cases AND the theory in general could be falsified by demonstrating other or better explanations for the knowledge the children have or are supposed to have.

In some ways this would parallel research on what someone might be able to remember from the age of two, only more so. Perhaps the child did not remember what happened when they were two, perhaps they were told by a family member and so on.

Perhaps the statistics supporting the theory are incorrect. This could also falsify the theory.

case by case dismantle, refute the statistics, refute any assumptions or arguments that rule out other ways the children could have 'so much' or so much correct information.

AS researched so far, any theory of reincarnation could be falsified. It can also be judged insufficient which is also the case for many.

Reply to TheMadFool Quoting TheMadFool

Please understand the following

1. Given a scientific theory T, a prediction is made, say P. In other words : If T then P = T -> P

2. Observing P is confirmation of theory T

3. If P is not observed i.e. if ~P then by modus tollens ~T.

(1) T -> P
(2) ~P
(3) ~T.....1, 2 Modus Tollens

Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T.

If this isn't clear, I suggest a book on logic.

First, how about reading and addressing my explanation first? You are talking about things that I am not posting.

I never said those rules were wrong. I stated they can also be scientific, because we can make a hypothesis about them that is falsifiable.

(From my post)

"So, I try.

~Q
~Q -> P
P -> Q
But this is a contradiction

We have a clearly falsifiable statement, but we are not able to show it to be false. Therefore this hypothesis is both sound, and confirmed."
(Post finished)

And you agree right here: "Put differently, not observing the prediction P amounts to a falsification of T."

So why are you being this way? I'm coming to you as a person who believes in science, and I'm not laughing at your attempts to make reincarnation scientific. I come into your thread, treat you with respect, and you don't bother to return it.

I get it. I made a point that struck a nerve because you realized you might be wrong on what falsification entails. I've been around long enough to know that. But I also invited you to "not be bothered by it, and that I will respect you in your engagement, no matter the end result". I gave you the chance to let go of the immaturity and reengage seriously, but you haven't.

Perhaps you'll be open to mature and serious engagement in other threads, but I'm done in this one. I will be replying to others in this thread, but I think it would be best for both of us if we ignored each others from now on.

Quoting Coben

Your op does not deal with specifics. Once you get into specifics, yes, it can be falsified

I'll give you a simple scenario to think about. I'm over at your place for the night. We go to sleep and are woken up by loud noises coming from the bathroom. I say it's a raccoon - this is my hypothesis. How would we falsify it? By entering the bathroom, turning on the lights, and looking for a raccoon, right? No raccoon, my hypothesis is wrong.

In the case of memory-based proofs of reincarnation, the theory is metempsychosis and if that's true, there should be people with memories of past lives. How do we falsify such a theory of reincarnation? By checking for people who remember past lives and if we find none, just like we didn't see a raccoon, the theory should be falsified. Unfortunately, unlike the raccoon scenario, not finding people with memories of past lives does not falsify reincarnation because people could've forgotten, memory being imperfect as it is. In other words, reincarnation theories based on memories is consistent with both people remembering and people not remembering past lifes and so are unfalsifiable.

Reply to Philosophim Sorry.