Life After Death: Does it exist?

[GGG]

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-...26tucker-1.pdf

Not the children, the parents, the above linked paper describes the normal hypothesis quite well.

In the socio- psychological hypothesis (Brody, 1979), a normal hypothesis, it is pointed out that most of the children live in cultures with a belief in reincarnation. They are said to hear of deaths, and they then say that they were the deceased individu- als out of either fantasy or deception. After the two families have met, the family members remember the child’s statements and recognitions as being more impressive than they actually were since they have the wish that the de- ceased individual has reincarnated as the child. The birthmarks are said to be mere coincidences, and the behaviors indicative of the previous life are thought to be part of the self-delusion. A previous study comparing cases hav- ing written records made before the two families met with ones without records did not find support for such a theory (Stevenson and Schouten, 1998).
The paranormal hypothesis most often considered is that of reincarnation (there are others, such as possession and the “super-psi” hypothesis). Investi- gators have reported cases in which the children appeared to have knowledge about the previous personality that they could not have obtained through nor- mal means, and in some cases (as mentioned), written records were made be- fore the previous individual’s family was located (Haraldsson, 1991; Steven- son, 1974, 1975, 1977; Stevenson and Samararatne, 1988). This knowledge, considered along with the children’s identifications as the deceased individu- als, the matching birthmarks, and the unexpected behaviors, appears to sup- port the reincarnation explanation for the cases

Then this article goes onto describe why the paranormal case makes the correlations make more sense. It however really could benefit from the peer review. The most egregious example is the following

The above results can be considered in relation to the normal and paranor- mal hypotheses. In looking at the internal consistency of the scale, one area that produced surprising results was how the connection between the subject and the previous personality correlated with the remainder of the scale. A case is given points for distance between the two, be it lack of association between the families, geographical distance, or socioeconomic or caste difference. All of these correlated with the remainder of the scale, both as individual items and as a group. Thus, greater distance between the child and the previous per- sonality is associated with more evidence for a paranormal explanation. This is the exact opposite of what the socio-psychological hypothesis would predict, since it supposes that the children have acquired their knowledge about the previous personality through normal means. These results suggest that this is likely not the case.
As for the reincarnation hypothesis, it would not necessarily predict a posi- tive or negative correlation between distance and the strength of a case. What the positive correlation may suggest is that, while the long distance cases may well be reincarnation cases, some of the close proximity reincarnation cases may be diluted by others best explained through normal means.

He completely ignores why the correlation scores would be higher for someone farther away. Simply the selection bias of the candidate who is reporting the person far away. The close cases start from the kid saying my friend lives in this house, then the parents knock on the door and find a few things similar and get involved with Stevenson.

In order for the far away case to exist something needs to trigger the connection. This would be the birth marks matching or a bunch of striking similarities. This process of self selection of the far away case which would require more evidence to warrant investigation would provide a higher rate of SOCs for cases far away in the Normal hypothesis.

It does not appear that anyone read this paper with scrutiny for the alternatives that could explain what the data is showing. Like much of the paranormal papers (and non-paranormal papers) the data is interpreted to fit the bias of the author.

As an aside do you believe that reincarnation is likely as described by Stevenson/Tucker? Do you believe that the process of reincarnation causes the birth defects found or do you believe that the soul selects a body that has genetic deformities that match to its physical injuries at time of death? To me the idea that matching birth defects to physical injuries seems like a very odd thing to classify as evidence of reincarnation. This type of evidence is given the highest score without comment in this particular paper. Maybe you can shed some light on why they consider the deformity matching as evidence of reincarnation.

In your readings do they ever discuss if the North American child’s Imaginary Friend is the same mechanism and do they ever investigate if they can find matching pairs to imaginary friends in the same manner.

Essentially belief in reincarnation shouldn’t affect the rate of reincarnation so when the same psychological behaviour occurs in non believing regions you should be able to build the same SOCs data and compare the two.


One more question

Are their fields of paranormal belief that you dismiss as quackery and on what basis do you dismiss them as quackery. I’m thinking like Horoscopes, ESP, Mentalists, homeopaths and on what basis do you assess the likelihood of truth.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

What's to stop Stevenson from making a lot of this stuff up?

Academic integrity? Academic oversight and peer review? Maintenance of his reputation and that of the school where he led the department? If you're going to ask that, then you have to apply it everywhere and with every science. So ALL the academics who do research are making it up as they go along and telling lies? Quite the conspiracy you're spinning there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

As an aside do you believe that reincarnation is likely as described by Stevenson/Tucker?

No, I don't believe in reincarnation or anything to do with the afterlife. I think we're worm food when we die (five-nines).

One more question

Are their fields of paranormal belief that you dismiss as quackery and on what basis do you dismiss them as quackery. I’m thinking like Horoscopes, ESP, Mentalists, homeopaths and on what basis to you assess the likelihood of truth.

I think all of the paranormal is pretty much bunk. My opinion. But I do recognize that there is some pretty strange stuff out there that can't be explained and I don't have the expertise or will to fully understand. It especially can't be explained by someone who reads a single research paper from the Internet, makes an interpretation on their limited understanding of the subject and methodology, and makes an absolute determination of error in the research. I leave that to those who have dedicated years of their lives in research and effort to understand the phenomena. I leave that to the peer review process and the other experts in this field to determine how much quackery exists. The same extends to all sciences because we don't know what we don't know. The JWST is breaking so many rules we thought were certain about that it should be a moment of humility for everyone in all fields, that we aren't nearly as smart as we like to think we are. The universe is still a very mysterious place.

What do I use to assess likelihood of truth? I assume you're speaking of a universal truth. There is no such thing as truth. Truth is bull#### because everyone's truth is personal. I try and rely on empirical facts to determine the validity of arguments, but "truth" never enters into the equation. Truth is way too maleable for my liking.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Academic integrity? Academic oversight and peer review? Maintenance of his reputation and that of the school where he led the department?

So others went to that same family afterward and corroborated all of Stevenson's claims? Is that what you're saying?

If you're going to ask that, then you have to apply it everywhere and with every science. So ALL the academics who do research are making it up as they go along and telling lies? Quite the conspiracy you're spinning there.

That's an absurd comparison. Phenomena in the physical world can be directly tested and quantified through repeatable experiments and the scientific method. Cobbling together a bunch of non-corroborated anectodes is something very different.

[Reggie Dunlop]

No.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

No, I don't believe in reincarnation or anything to do with the afterlife. I think we're worm food when we die (five-nines).



I think all of the paranormal is pretty much bunk. My opinion. But I do recognize that there is some pretty strange stuff out there that can't be explained and I don't have the expertise or will to fully understand. It especially can't be explained by someone who reads a single research paper from the Internet, makes an interpretation on their limited understanding of the subject and methodology, and makes an absolute determination of error in the research. I leave that to those who have dedicated years of their lives in research and effort to understand the phenomena. I leave that to the peer review process and the other experts in this field to determine how much quackery exists. The same extends to all sciences because we don't know what we don't know. The JWST is breaking so many rules we thought were certain about that it should be a moment of humility for everyone in all fields, that we aren't nearly as smart as we like to think we are. The universe is still a very mysterious place.

What do I use to assess likelihood of truth? I assume you're speaking of a universal truth. There is no such thing as truth. Truth is bull#### because everyone's truth is personal. I try and rely on empirical facts to determine the validity of arguments, but "truth" never enters into the equation. Truth is way too maleable for my liking.

My question around truth is really you believe that alien visitation has occurred, you don’t believe in reincarnation as described by Stevenson. What is your process for believing in the evidence of one and deciding the evidence of the other is insufficient.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

So others went to that same family afterward and corroborated all of Stevenson's claims? Is that what you're saying?



That's an absurd comparison. Phenomena in the physical world can be directly tested and quantified through repeatable experiments and the scientific method. Cobbling together a bunch of non-corroborated anectodes is something very different.

It’s not an absurd comparison. The correct answer is your first statement. Repeat observations by independent groups is required to produce good results.

[icarus]

Calgarypuck.com: Come for the Flames news, stay for the eschatology!

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I think that if there is an afterlife that it will be of our own making and we choose the perceptions we have of those we interact with. We will choose whether our father is aged as we last saw him, or if he is more like the young man when we were children and we can have do the many things we never got to do. Our dogs/cats/ friends will all be as we best remember them and we will only have the positive interactions/engagements we had when they were at their peak. Again, that's what my perceptions of "heaven" would be, if it exists, which I'm five-nines sure it doesn't.

That sounds interestingly like a simulation…we all have a different, customized experience.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

My question around truth is really you believe that alien visitation has occurred, you don’t believe in reincarnation as described by Stevenson. What is your process for believing in the evidence of one and deciding the evidence of the other is insufficient.

What I have said is I am not ruling out visitation and it remains in the realm of possibilities to explain the phenomena. I base that on the sheer amount of evidence that we cannot explain and the inability of our engineers or scientists to develop technology that can replicate what has been seen and recorded. If it is not something that is created here on this planet then it must be extraterrestrial. Unless there is a massive conspiracy taking place by ALL governments, then we must consider the probability of it coming from elsewhere. I don't see a terrestrial explanation for some of the data and it appears the United States government is in agreement with that position.

Whatever, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is about the afterlife and while Stevenson's, Tucker's, et al's work is intriguing and leaves me scratching my head at times, it is still something that clashes with something inside of me. That's probably the religiosity of my upbringing and the conflict I continually face on certain issues. It is hard to explain which is exactly why I started this thread. I was looking for others' perspective on this topic to help me square some things I struggle to accept/understand.

[GGG]

Call me a cynic but From a cursory look at Stevensons work the data acquisition and what they consider as prior knowledge is suspect for the strength of conclusion they draw so you can call me a cynic but I would argue it’s more of an extraordinary claims require much higher quality of evidence.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Call me a cynic but From a cursory look at Stevensons work the data acquisition and what they consider as prior knowledge is suspect for the strength of conclusion they draw so you can call me a cynic but I would argue it’s more of an extraordinary claims require much higher quality of evidence.

I think it’s entirely fair to be cynical for that exact reason. The more extraordinary the conclusion is, the more concrete the evidence required.

I understand that it’s fun to think of these things (I think it’s fun at least) and play pretend professor, but I’m always kind of shocked in these conversations when the most engaged and most reliant on appeals to authority (whether fictionalizing their own or dismissing anyone else’s ability to understand what they understand) are almost always the same ones who are also over-reliant on debunked phenomena and outdated, disproven or unreviewed academic studies.

At the end of the day, it’s just not something supported by good science. And it doesn’t take much to understand that. I don’t see any value in holding up a weak study and calling everyone who questions it inadequately educated or conspiracy theorists.

This is the false memory conversation all over again, and while it’s fine for someone with embellished credentials to say “no no, here’s a study, and you’re not qualified to question it,”

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think it’s entirely fair to be cynical for that exact reason. The more extraordinary the conclusion is, the more concrete the evidence required.

I understand that it’s fun to think of these things (I think it’s fun at least) and play pretend professor, but I’m always kind of shocked in these conversations when the most engaged and most reliant on appeals to authority (whether fictionalizing their own or dismissing anyone else’s ability to understand what they understand) are almost always the same ones who are also over-reliant on debunked phenomena and outdated, disproven or unreviewed academic studies.

At the end of the day, it’s just not something supported by good science. And it doesn’t take much to understand that. I don’t see any value in holding up a weak study and calling everyone who questions it inadequately educated or conspiracy theorists.

This is the false memory conversation all over again, and while it’s fine for someone with embellished credentials to say “no no, here’s a study, and you’re not qualified to question it,”

To expand, it's just another type of fairy tale passed down from the days before real science.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Thing with science is even theories aren't considered stone cold facts. Everything theorized is continually tested for holes or weaknesses. And time has yielded further insights, debates and controversies about many of them. So it's a fluid thing. Our theories are tentative, educated assumptions, but only on the basis of what we can see and measure within controlled environments here on earth. And we take them to be representative of everything else that exists in the known universe, 99.999...% of which we can't physically explore to validate firsthand.

We don't know what we don't know until we know it

To say we've scoured the universe and determined what's there already, in our tiny little window in which we've vigorously studied this reality with the scientific method, is being frankly obnoxiously bullish on our species actually having it all figured out with an infinitesimal sample size.

This isn't to say Jesus performed a bunch of miraculous acts and then rose from the dead. It's not to say the prophet Muhammad was actually approached by an angelic being. It's not to say Moses was actually spoken to by/through a burning bush

It means it is quite likely that there are forces and levels of existence at work in this universe (or beyond it) that we are entirely unaware of as of yet

To dismiss that distinct possibility is simply foolish, but that's my POV and I respect that others will approach the issue differently

I just contemplate a lot of things that many people find uncomfortable

[Snuffleupagus]

I wish for the day that common sense becomes the norm, the human race might just survive with this

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Call me a cynic but From a cursory look at Stevensons work the data acquisition and what they consider as prior knowledge is suspect for the strength of conclusion they draw so you can call me a cynic but I would argue it’s more of an extraordinary claims require much higher quality of evidence.

I agree, which is why that field of study is where it is. It's also why I question the validity of its outcomes. But I'm not going to read a single study out of context and then proclaim that 50 years of research is invalid. If we took things out of context the foundation for many sciences would be questioned and have to be changed.

But that is what separates a skeptic from a cynic. A skeptic will immerse themselves in the subject matter to gain understanding of the topic, research, methods, and outcomes. They develop an expertise in the field to have the understanding to properly challenge the work. The cynic instead works on their preconceptions and dismissed that which they do not know nor have the enthusiasm and energy to engage and develop a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It's the problem with the Internet age. The short attention span and access to limited amounts of data from any one field gives people the false sense of security they have the information to challenge an entire body of work with a cursory review of an article or two. It is sad and it does damage to the underpinnings of science and research. Expertise has given way to Dunning Kruger.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I agree, which is why that field of study is where it is. It's also why I question the validity of its outcomes. But I'm not going to read a single study out of context and then proclaim that 50 years of research is invalid. If we took things out of context the foundation for many sciences would be questioned and have to be changed.

But that is what separates a skeptic from a cynic. A skeptic will immerse themselves in the subject matter to gain understanding of the topic, research, methods, and outcomes. They develop an expertise in the field to have the understanding to properly challenge the work. The cynic instead works on their preconceptions and dismissed that which they do not know nor have the enthusiasm and energy to engage and develop a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It's the problem with the Internet age. The short attention span and access to limited amounts of data from any one field gives people the false sense of security they have the information to challenge an entire body of work with a cursory review of an article or two. It is sad and it does damage to the underpinnings of science and research. Expertise has given way to Dunning Kruger.

What you describe is why society is failing to deal with misinformation. The incentives to create poor research are greater than the incentives to debunk poor research. Becoming an expert in order to dismiss something is a rather unrewarding use of people with intellect. It also doesn’t pay as well as the creation of said content. If you look at how Stevenson got funded a wife of one of the guys who inveneted Xerox introduced them and he wrote a check which appears to have been done to make his wife happy. (I’m ascribing motivation). How does the person trying to debunk something compete with that?

Secondly the amount of information generated in this world prevents what you ascribe as skepticism from ever being applied because it requires individual expertise at everything. By your definition everyone is a cynic about 99% of things they discuss. That is the reasonable position based on your definitions of cynicism and skepticism.

Even if you read the majority of his works you still aren’t the same level of expertise so why do you accept thorough literary review as the standard as opposed to you doing actual research and experimentation. You have selected an arbitrary point to separate cynicism and skepticism to use to win arguments on the internet.

I prefer my methods. Ask people for information sources around things. Read papers looking for common biases and problems that often exist. Ask questions of those with more expertise, listen to those peoples answers and ignore any snide dismissive judgements and arrive at a conclusion on whether it’s worth spending more time pursuing.

So I will will happily label us both cynics in most areas of our lives.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

What you describe is why society is failing to deal with misinformation.

I think it's more disinformation. There is intent with the information being pumped out there by certain communities and it is indeed having an affect.

The incentives to create poor research are greater than the incentives to debunk poor research. Becoming an expert in order to dismiss something is a rather unrewarding use of people with intellect. It also doesn’t pay as well as the creation of said content. If you look at how Stevenson got funded a wife of one of the guys who inveneted Xerox introduced them and he wrote a check which appears to have been done to make his wife happy. (I’m ascribing motivation). How does the person trying to debunk something compete with that?

No, you're making #### up as a means to try and discredit the work of an academic and a field you don't know much about and cast aspersions to make your position on the subject more palatable. You started with quackery and have now manufactured a narrative about a donation that you have zero proof of. The fact that this researcher headed a department at a major university is irrelevant, as is his long body of work on this and other areas of study in the field of psychology. It is part and parcel of the cynicsim that comes with today's disinformation age.

Secondly the amount of information generated in this world prevents what you ascribe as skepticism from ever being applied because it requires individual expertise at everything. By your definition everyone is a cynic about 99% of things they discuss. That is the reasonable position based on your definitions of cynicism and skepticism.

That's because 99% of people are poorly educated. When reading and comprehension scores are down to 8th grade levels, that tells you how bad things have become. People are graduating from high school and can't read. If they can't read then they very likely going to be short on critical thinking skills and the ability to take in vast amounts of knowledge and distill facts,

Even if you read the majority of his works you still aren’t the same level of expertise so why do you accept thorough literary review as the standard as opposed to you doing actual research and experimentation. You have selected an arbitrary point to separate cynicism and skepticism to use to win arguments on the internet.

Except it's not arbitrary. You ever try to explain algebra to a 1st grader? It's impossible because they don't have the foundational understanding of the math that goes into the equation. That's the point here. I never thought of this until I had opportunity to chat with a friend (an infamous physicist and cosmologist) and a friend of his (another famous physicist and cosmologist) for a few hours about their field of study. Even with them dumbing things down I struggled to keep up with some of the discussion. The reason was I didn't have the knowledge or underpinnings of their work and research, even when I would reference an article they wrote and thought I had understanding It was no fault of mine because I was that 1st grader to them. They were very cool and patient in explaining things, but at one point my friend's guest explained why I wasn't understanding something they were discussing - they had completed eight or more years in specific study on the subject matter and had gone on to do more research and learning as professionals, and much of what they were talking about referenced this foundations of this body of work without thought. They were speaking the same language as I but in a very different tongue. Least to say that moment really registered with me and made me understand how hard it is to "understand" the field of experts and the depth of their knowledge and work.

I prefer my methods. Ask people for information sources around things. Read papers looking for common biases and problems that often exist. Ask questions of those with more expertise, listen to those peoples answers and ignore any snide dismissive judgements and arrive at a conclusion on whether it’s worth spending more time pursuing.

Prefer your methods all you like but acknowledge they don't give you the knowledge required to dismiss the work of experts. You can comment about them all you want but recognize you're the 1st grader approaching calculus. You can let disinformation and your own preconceptions frame the subject matter for you all you want, but it doesn't mean you are right and another person is years of research and expertise is wrong. You're locking in your bias and refusing to listen to anything that does not comply with your worldview, which is counter to what science is all about. I prefer to question and then drill down into the field and try to learn, filling in the gaps so maybe I can understand the things I don't know or struggle to understand. I try to make the effort rather than rely on my uninformed frame to dismiss and cast aspersions on the works of experts, like what is happening in climate science for another example.

So I will will happily label us both cynics in most areas of our lives.

And I will happily accept the title of cynic because it is mostly accurate. I am very cynical. Even in my own field I am very much a cynic of certain things and areas of research, but I continue to try and become a skeptic rather than allowing my cynicism to surface and discount the work of others. Trust me, positive psychology drives me insane and I think it's total horse#### and anyone associated with it is a fraud, but I continue to try and learn more about it and fill the gaps and blind spots I may have so I can speak to the topic as a skeptic rather than the cynic I would be perceived as. Even as a cynic I can still respect the research of others and not dismiss the body work because of my current frame.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Now, about the afterlife...

Thoughts on quantum consciousness?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...really-be-you/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I never thought of this until I had opportunity to chat with a friend (an infamous physicist and cosmologist) and a friend of his (another famous physicist and cosmologist) for a few hours about their field of study. Even with them dumbing things down I struggled to keep up with some of the discussion.

There’s that unnamed famous friend again, always showing up whenever someone dares to question the validity of a weak study Lanny likes to explain that we’re all just incapable of knowing.

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I know plenty of scientists, including a couple of very famous (one now infamous) physicists/cosmologists who are very open to the possibility of us being wrong, and acknowledge their approach is on what we "currently" know, but that can quickly change.

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I've had similar discussions with a compatriot of mine, a famous theoretical physicist (who I won't name drop), who is in the same camp as NdGT. He holds firm on the limitations of what we understand about physics preventing visitation, but he does not discount life itself.