How can biology and genetics explain reincarnation?

There is a natural explanation, but the philosophy of science precludes science investigating it. Let me explain with an example, which I have done on many occasions. If I had a dream, which we all have had, there is no way, using the philosophy of science, to scientifically prove I actually saw the details, I describe in my dream.

This is because we don't have the needed tools that allows others to see my dream in the second or third person. The philosophy of science requires a number of independent investigators need to see the same thing, with each able to reproduce the results in the lab, independently. Dreams do not fit in that definition since each session may be unique plus there are no tools to see directly.

As such even though billions of these dreams data point are generated by human brains each night, this subject is called soft science. There may have been more dreams generated than fossils for evolution. The latter is accepted since this can be done in the third person.

The reason for this paradox, is the philosophy of science was designed to factor out human subjectivity. If we were all looking at the forest at night and we wanted to define it objectively, but some see spirits and others see big foot, one way to approach this, would be to factor all things only seen by one person, until what is left is what we all can agree we all can see; trees and birds. This was important to science, but the subjective aspects, that were factored out also contain naturally generated data like dreams, even though dreams have billions of data points.

I agree with the scientific method when applied to the world around us, but there is also an internal world within the brain/mind that can be observed by the conscious mind, such as dreams, visions, intuitions, feelings, hunches, which do not fall under the method. Reincarnation was based on this internal data collection, which could be vast for an ancient genius devoted to a lifetime of meditation. It would still be called soft science based on the method science. But that should not be confused with poor observation, since science is not designed to deal with this data.

Part of the problem this creates is since we can all dream dreams, but since this is soft science at the best, how does science calibrate the mind to make sure they are not projecting personal soft science into science and calling it hard science? Reincarnation works this way, in the sense that real generated internal data, outside the philosophy of science, is superimposed with the reality around us. The disconnect is connected to the philosophy of science not able to comment on the internal data, since the philosophy does not allow for it.

The workings of the human mind will be the last frontier, since its exploration would require a major modification of the philosophy of science. It would need to take into account unique data by one reliable witness, with trends appearing among many witnesses. But that can only occur after all the tangible things are defined by the current philosophy, then these can be factored out to isolate the internal data. But for those of us who are curious about the inner workings of the mind, we really don't need permission to investigate, but will nevertheless have to accept the reality that the philosophy of science will make it taboo like they are a primitive religion denying data. Religions help to maintain these inner data until the day they will be investigated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no theoretical limitation to knowing what you are thinking or dreaming. It's a physical process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. However that is not in disagreement with Wellwisher, who described it as the last frontier, not as something inherently impossible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My explanation is a little different.

Biology explains the defense mechanism. It gives animals the fight-or-flight decision-making neurons to improve their odds of survival when threatened. But it also gives humans the neurons to think ahead. When humans are confronted by the death of a loved one, we think ahead to the impending doom that awaits us as well. When we think about impending doom, the defense mechanism triggers. That means each and every one of us is confronted with fight-or-flight. Some will turn to a bottle of high octane ethanol and fly away to face the problem another day. Others will stand ground and fight. They will devise elaborate and even devious ways to cheat death. They will build elaborate plans for reanimating their bodies. This many Hail Marys and that many Our Fathers. They will put on fine clothes, slick back their hair and get to church extra early so they can get a front row seat where their extra-powerful Hallelujahs will blend better with the 100 member chorus in their sparking gowns, just waiting to meet Jesus. And those Hail Marys and those Our Fathers and all that stomping up and down and hollering Hallelujah will earn them extra bonus points on their Redeemer Airlines Frequent Flyer Reward Program (RAFFRP) . . . also called getting RAFFRPtured when they cash it in . . . for that intergalactic "Final Flyaway" which is a kind of flight after all, after a lifetime of so much fight.

And all of this, thanks to the wonders of biology and genetics. Amen.

 

With practice, one can become conscious in dreams. We all do this to some extent with certain dreams. The reason this is possible is the conscious mind is separate from another part of the mind that generates dreams. We are conditioned to see one center, instead of two. Consciousness in dreams allows one to see one is an observer and is not controlling the process, yet it appears to be giving information that os appropriate to the occasion.

The psychopath may not be able to see these two centers in action, but will use the bias of traditions to merge these causing mayhem. His paranoia may be due to an internal subroutine, but he will assume this is real due to the one center assumption and therefore it comes from the environment. Therapy will help to separate the two centers.

In dreams, if one is conscious, they will become aware that a secondary center active, and it has it own laws. Carl Jung analyzed thousands of dreams by different people and found common patterns among them, which were also consistent with ancient symbolism none of the patients knew about.

This connection resulted in his theory of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, or personality firmware common to all humans which define human nature, which is not under the control of consciousness. My research was an attempt to put this theory to a field test. Religious symbols reach so many people because they can trigger the inner center. Religions keep this secondary center conscious, since it is repressed by the philosophy of science, which walls off the validity of internal data. If you ignore that data, it appears there is one center, since the secondary has no proof according to science philosophy, except as a soft science that one can brush away to perpetuate the bias of one.

If you consider the genius of Rome, in terms of art and tech, so long ago, this was due to more use of the unconscious center, which is connected to the main frame parts of the brain, that also keeps track of trillions of cells. They made plumbing that lasted 2000 years so far. But along with the beauty, the ugly also got extreme within Rome, since this is also part of the unconscious center of human nature.

Reincarnation, in this sense, is when the ego become one with the secondary so the internal opposition is removed. The conscious mind is programed with the collective of culture, which can be in opposition to the natural of the inner center. We can sense past lives because the unconscious center is collective and does not change much with time. If you read the song of Solomon from 2000 plus years ago in the bible, his pining and infatuation for his lover, the Queen of Sheba, sounds similar to infatuation of today, since this aspect of human nature is generated by the conservation inner center. This transcends time.

 

I think he's saying it's impossible, and an example of an inherent limitation of the scientific method.

 

What I was saying is the existing version of the scientific method, was designed to factor out internal data that is unique to individuals, so what remains is common to all. From this we learn the laws of science. Things of the mind is often unique data, even if objective to the observer. The method will defined this data as subjective in terms of the collective. The existing method cannot be used since it factors out the very unique data we are looking for. One would need to modify the scientific method, for this frontier, so even unique data, can be used.

When i was dong unconscious mind research, I developed a tool that allowed me to plot what I saw. This allowed to me not only know which personality firmware was active, but how it would impact my conscious mind, where the data was easier to collect. This tools plots information using a common scale, which goes beyond computer information, into the consciousness based information which can reach 4-D, spatial data with a time element.

For example, personality firmware, like that behind falling in love, has a time element (does not last forever) and attempts to integrate two people. We may not be conscious of the 4-D aspect (goddess Aphrodite is a symbol of this firmware). Rather consciousness collect memories of events and mood swings. Projection is also in effect, with the lovers not seeing what their friends and family see from the outside, due to idealized projections from the firmware. But this would be useful data if one was objective.

 

It can only explain it in the vague and wholly material sense that the components of our bodies return to the universe and get recycled. There apparently, and really quite certainly, is no spiritual realm to account for reincarnation. If there happens to be something like that which the laws of nature allow for after all, there isn't believable evidence for it now.

 

SpiderGoat: From your Post #20

Statistics can be misleading in the absence of some cogent reason to apply such analysis.

Many decades ago, I had a friend who was a statistics expert. As a hobby, He collected all sorts of data & fed it into correlation software looking for ridiculous correlations. One of his favorites was Macy monthly brassiere sales versus Thuggee killings in India, which happened to be very highly correlated over a period of a year or so.

He mentioned that you would be likely to find at least one correlated pair of variables if you merely chose 100 sets of data & ran correlation analysis.

 

For those who believe in reincarnations, out of body experiences, life after death: I would like an answer to the following question.

I believe that mine resides in a few pounds of matter inside my skull.

My POV makes reincarnation, OBE, et cetera seem like belief in the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

BTW: I enjoyed most of a movie about an individual whose soul was taken prematurely. The plot involved finding a body to be used to allow the protagonist to live out the rest of his life.

At the end of the movie, a suitable body is found. The protagonist’s soul is put into that body. So far, an interesting fantasy.

The concept fell apart when it was explained that the protagonist would have the lifetime memories of the original owner of the body.

At that point in the plot, I asked:

It seems to me that the original owner of the body gets the extra decades & the protagonist gets zilch.

 

From Post #20 (SpiderGoat)

The above is nonsense. Statisticians use correlation analysis as support for conjectures based on some reasonable speculation.

Circa 40 years ago, I had a colleague who had serious credentials relating to statistics. He amused himself by collecting data & doing correlation analysis, searching for silly correlations. One of his favorite finds was a very high correlation between Macy monthly brassiere sales & Thuggee murders in India over a period of circa 2 years.

He claimed (& I agree with the notion) that running correlation analysis of 100 sets of data would almost always find at least one pair that was highly correlated.

 

If you think about reincarnation, this theory presuppose life beyond death. Conceptually, this POV, exceeds the biological needs of the body, since there is no need for the body to instinctively plan for survival beyond the physical limits of the body.

Natural selection can change with each generation due to competition and birth. What is the biological need for animals to plan beyond the life of their body, if most animals will not even be selected? Selection is about the here and now of youth and vigor. Therefore, the concept of reincarnation represents something beyond the needs of section and evolution, not connected to the DNA.

This is connected to willpower and free choice and requires the imagination to help break the cause and effects of the DNA. The advantage of planning beyond death and the practical limits of the DNA, is the brain becomes the top dog in the hierarchy; rebel. In modern times, we can't even define natural human instinct even if conserved within the DNA. We project outside into animals but don't do it right by looking inside at the firmware directly.

 

This probably has nothing to do with biology and genetics but I just needed to say that I believe in science but there is still so much that science can't explain.

For example, science cannot completely explain the nature of extreme pain and extreme suffering (the nature of agony and why it's so subjective).

We also don't completely understand what 'consciousness' is too or what really causes consciousness and subjective experience. This is called the hard problem of consciousness.

Science also cannot explain the nature of life after death or life beyond death.

 

There is no evidence for life beyond death. Another way to take this is: it doesn't exist. You're taking your assumptions ("the nature of life beyond death") and demanding science support them.

This thread does NOT belong in B&G.

 

Yes, of course there is plenty that science cannot explain. If it could explain everything, nobody would still be doing science! And what is even more significant in my view, nobody would be studying the humanities.

 

Will androids who have synthetic neurons that operate like human neurons but made from engineered components that a external computer can diagnostically prove gives them awareness or consciousness like a human disprove reincarnation?will once their brain mind be diagnostically analyzed prove many psychological and psychological philosophical questions that have been debated for thousands of years like consciousness,memory,mental illness,sapience,if free will is an illusion,emotion etc?I surly hope so,all those voxels and noise being no longer a noise issue would model better cybernetic limbs and whole bodies to..

id laugh if a android woke up with memories of a human past life though claiming it has a human soul and is forced to visit a android psychologist or even worse is lobotomized which wouldnt be funny

 

how would you prove such a thing ?

there's a such existence of non physical states.

what about inter-dimensional planes of such.,
multi universes where it takes non physical jumping into such and then re-stabilizing into a physical form.
but i'm sure this all sound like delusional nonsense.
but this is higher levels of sciences, that mainstream doesn't touch or is not talked about publicly.

this is what is being addressed on serious levels .

in a sense,high energy physics is becoming elementary.