Probably because it's philosophy?

Highest up, just beneath Indian:

Anthroposophy
1912 CE

I'll just leave this here for the umpteenth time: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

I trust that it will remain unread by those who ought read.

That chart is not only filled with philosophy, it's a philosophical chart. That is not saying it can't be a religious chart, my guess it is qualifying supposition of soul as religion but that's synonymous with supposition of being as philosophy. No need to argue about the same thing going by different names twice. Let it be.

Cool chart.

Here is some warming comprehension about death*: Someday you will die.

That isn't a big deal and you won't mind.** Don't waste the little time you have chasing unicorns and shadows.

Here is some warming comprehension about birth***: Don't watch. It is freaking horrifying.***** Conception, if done correctly, can be quite nice and as you (assuming you are male) are finishing your limited role in the process it is acceptable to yell "I give you life" in a booming voice in the general direction of the womb.****

*One can "comprehend" flat-earth theory and still be quite correct in determining that it is quite silly.

**you might mind the time that immediately precedes the inevitable, so avoid stepping in front of busses******* and take a multivitamin and for goodness sake get your tetanus shot every 10 years.

***Nothing comes to mind other than it is imperative that you do not watch.

****please consult your physician before attempting to yell in the general direction of the womb.******

*****there is no way a head should be popping out of there. It just isn't natural.

******do some light stretching before hand. It is embarrassing to get a charley horse.********

*******I'm not implying that you should step in front of one bus, but not two or more.

********I learned today that it is "charley" not "charlie." Make sure to stay well-hydrated and keep your electrolytes in balance to avoid it.

Scientism is the strongest religious presence ITT in the recent topic of reincarnation. It's like a small tent revival up in here.

Quite the strong claim, given that both scientific the supernatural* crowds don't agree that they are, in any way, of the same ilk.

*religious

IDK, maybe you should look at the evidence. And don't act as though 10,000 cases is negligible "anecdotal evidence"... How on earth do you get that?

We know that there is a lot more we don't know about consciousness than we do. In any case, your scientism here does NOT mean you should, by any means, reject the data. That's what everyone's doing here. We're taking one look at it, saying it's impossible, and carrying on. This is very unscientific.

Do you know what the odds of this are? The answer is infinitely higher than the likelihood of our fetal knowledge of cognitive science and consciousness being infallible.

I don't know. This is why we look at the cases and investigate the circumstances. In A LOT of the documented cases, there's no correlation between what the kids are exposed to and what they're recalling. And we're being very charitable here.

If a kid had lived in an empty box his whole life, no TV, no interaction with anyone but you, no way of knowing about WWII, would you then be curious or would you really try write it off somehow as nonsense?

Awful lot of parents seem to be doing this... And what a stupidly roundabout way to preach reincarnation. The phenomena is real. These kids DO have these apparitions in their minds - whether they're memories or something else. Remember we're arguing about nothing but visions in the minds of children - not saying anything about reincarnation - that's the next logical jump.

I don't understand. Can you rephrase?

Obviously it's never going to be "actual evidence". What do you think "actual" evidence for reincarnation would look like? Do you honestly think it could come in any other form of HUMANS REPORTING it?

Actually, it does. A 3 year old hasn't been exposed to as much **** as a 60 yr old and therefore if we have a sample of 100,000 3 year olds all saying spooky ****, there's a much better chance we should believe this than 100,000 adults because they've been exposed to religious nonsense and might therefore have other motives.

Umm no. Eye witness testimonies go something like this: "I saw an alien-spaceship-like light in the sky". People obfuscate what they actually saw which was "I saw an unidentified light in the sky" to suit their agenda. The memory, in this case, isn't wrong at all. They're just obfuscating the perfectly unadulterated memory purely because they're suspicious. Children don't have any motive to do this (not saying they can't/won't).

Why would a researcher do that lol? Obviously a high % of the population don't experience this phenomena...

Happens all over the world in myriad circumstances. Why don't you read the database instead of looking for ways to immediately debunk it.

That's the number of cases a single guy has documented in his short career. How many people actually have these memories is obviously much higher. And you seem to be missing the point entirely. The EVIDENCE is the resoundingly high number of people who report experiencing this phenomena. If 98% of the world population experienced and reported this phenomena, would you say then that it's just wives tales, has to do with who babysat them, no empirical way of proving it's true? Because, although everyone would know it, there'd be no way of believing it as true/obvious according to you.

Maybe if more people knew about and examined this phenomena, we'd quickly get to that number.

What's more laughable is that you write off the testimony of 5 million people because they're a minority.

Logically, you need to resit entry level critical thinking to have this discussion.

meale, do you think the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists are right? A lot of witnesses!

Go with crowds who aren't here to see what is here to see, or go by what is here to see?

Not to dwell too much on attitude, there is still a categorical grouping fallacy when grouping (Bigfoot, UFOs, Unicorns, Reincarnation) together and using in reference in place of each other.

How to pic the right one? When you start defending one of them it's religion. Or faith, that word may be used.

I deal with these things so, that I can temporarily go into a thinking scheme. I really felt I was the guy in here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=8823, and, also for moments, saw masque and you. But then I move on. Was it reincarnation?

Then I can keep the good things with fantasies, avoiding the longstanding bad. A longstanding fantasy could lock me up. I need freedom and realism.

It's not about you in particular here.

It's about reasoning that a supposition which postulates a "this" happens introspectively is not in a categorical group of "thats" which are supposed as externalities. This is real reasoning and a freedom from an unreasonable categorization.

I think the things that happen introspectively are categorically different from things happening in the external world. Introspectively you can make anything happen, the external world doesn't follow. It's a little of hubris imo to think that just because your own neurons are firing it would somehow change the outside reality. When starting to talk/write you can change a little, but that's just about that.

It's not hubris to state that externality is categorically distinct from introspection .

It's not hubris to state it is unreasonable to categorically treat as external something supposed and reported as introspective.

We are both subjects and objects. Think life is much about getting that balance right.

You need to explain yourself. I've got no idea what you could possibly mean.

It's fairly self-explanatory and not something to worry about if you don't get it immediately.

I got it.



There's much wisdom in the cryptic statements imo.

To put it into that term, A cypher for it maybe simply granting perspective and reasoning about perspectives.

A preference of exclusivity towards either introspectively or externally risks leaving out part of known reality, which is not wise to do while it remains wise to include all which is known about reality when being realistic.

Reality is rather cryptic and mysterious sometimes. It would be hubris to claim that exclusively for myself.

Cryptic (the word) is a bit upset with you for misunderstanding it.

Essential the discrepancy is between idiocy and weird.

Calling reincarnation idiocy misses it and is kinda weird.

Reincarnation is more weird, not idiotic.

The evidence suggest debunking it doesn't work. Yet, or is it a futile effort?

Trying to get a dialogue?

Yes, it's a weird meme.

Weird and wonderful. Just look at the range of values the subject touches upon. It's a lil awesome even.

Not really. It was a very short monologue.