3,000 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Lol.

Care to show me what where the explanations are contrary to human nature? Or are you finally conceding that you're full of shit?


P.S. Just in case my admittedly backwardly worded sentence was throwing you off, what I meant was that a) my explanations don't require any contradiction to human nature, and b ) that you didn't provide any evidence of the claim that memories are triggered in that matter. You just asserted it as fact. I accepted that fact because I believe I know what you're alluding to; however it was still stated without evidence or proof.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Which explanation have you provided again? That's right, motiveless fraud. I'll keep my 'repeating list' fairly short.

"Two of [of the three main explanations] don't necessitate a "hoax", and the fraud does not to be elaborate. I'm willing to bet my entire posting on Zoklet that I've told you this before. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative though; you need to paint my position as if I'm saying elaborate inconceivable hoaxes are going on, because you can't address my points otherwise. "

Any other bold-face lie you want to make? You're such a dishonest piece of shit, it's fucking amazing.

P.S. I'll be respectful whenever you start deserving respect. Pro-tip: being a lying piece of shit is not it.

[nshanin]

No I don't care to because I'd be doing you no favor by giving you more arguments to reject.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

No I don't care to because I'd be doing you no favor by giving you more arguments to reject.

This isn't about giving me arguments to reject ( ) this is about you being unable to answer fundamental flaws in your arguments and misrepresenting what I said. Just look at the posts above and it's quite obvious you were, once again, misrepresenting my position.

I challenge you to select one of these points, any one of them, and show where you've previously addressed it in this thread successfully (i.e. shown where the point is wrong, not just replied with an excuse that didn't hold to scrutiny). If you do, I'll stop posting in this thread forever.


1. In most if not all the cases, Stevenson only hears about these allegations years or even decades after they happened. Essentially he has to rely on hearsay to piece together what they are alleging. That in and of itself leaves ample room for fraud or the acquisition of information, or for the stories to be exaggerated or take a myth-like life of their own.

2. In many cases, the claims made by the child contradict what is known about those historical person. For instance, the kid who claimed to be a reincarnated fighter-pilot but couldn't even remember the right plane he flew.

3. The claims surrounding reincarnation are varied and contradictory. Some claim crossing gender lines is impossible, some claim it happens. Some claim that the reincarnation happens immediately, others claim that an intermediate life occurs ( Which Stevenson himself has to calls a lie... yet we're expected to believe the rest).

4. Furthermore these claims are strongly correlated with the culture surrounding the events. Cultures where one type of reincarnation is thought to be impossible rarely report such reincarnations or not at all.

5. In the vast majority of cases (90%+ ) there is clear evidence of contamination; automatically putting into question the claim that information couldn't have passed without reincarnation.

6. In the remaining cases where contamination was not immediately established, there is no proof that contamination did not happen; instead we're asked to believe Stevenson, who in turn simply believed the families.

7. The claim that birthmarks correspond to traumas in the past life are contradicted left-and-right, and vague correlations as counted as hits.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

"Two of [of the three main explanations] don't necessitate a "hoax", and the fraud does not to be elaborate. I'm willing to bet my entire posting on Zoklet that I've told you this before. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative though; you need to paint my position as if I'm saying elaborate inconceivable hoaxes are going on, because you can't address my points otherwise. "

Any other bold-face lie you want to make? You're such a dishonest piece of shit, it's fucking amazing.

P.S. I'll be respectful whenever you start deserving respect. Pro-tip: being a lying piece of shit is not it.

You couldn't follow-up on my maximum criteria for 'vague hits', as exemplified by the fact that Stevenson never found a birthmark case that he solved where he doubted that a past-life was the only explanation. I told you this was the only statistic that mattered but you had your head up your ass because what you heard did not sound like your own science. Vague hits are not explanatory in the slightest since there are many aspects to cases and contamination is in basically the same category of fraud as constructing a far-reaching story is not psychologically-plausible given what we know about humans. We should be finding many more fakes and definitive cases of contamination, but you get to rule out even possible cases of contamination (is this how you get out of explaining why we can still usually piece together a contaminated story? Of course! Denial is your habit.)

You're no longer speaking as intelligibly and it seems your ego has taken control right around where you refused to rephrase for the sake of your own understanding. You should step up the quality of your arguments because we are at a disagreement and this is not resolved by your continuing to press your questions when I feel I have answered exhaustively and you just haven't integrated it all (mostly, this is because of your lack of psychological training; to remedy this, I hope you have already began to delve into PsychoCybernetics). It also doesn't matter if I expect change or not as you are often categorized as a stubborn prick and it often doesn't seem like you're here to learn, I think this is a result of the time we've already invested and we are hesitant to invest more; perhaps Russel's method of using the unconscious to solve problems will help us here (see Maltz).

Speaking of which, I will require serious learning and teaching and a venture outside of the comfort zone within the next two posts and if it is not manifested you can 'call'; feel free to call yourself the 'winner' (I mean that you can go ahead and see how far your will gets you without mental leverage, a related example is photoreading:

"People say 20,000 to 30,000 words per minute (WPM), impossible. There is a record of 690.000 WPM being achieved, with a comprehension level of 70%, so what is 20,000?"

). I want to ask the questions too. Don't focus too much on it though, focusing too much is a distraction (James, Russel, Edison, Maltz, etc). Did you get through that highly-informative encyclopedia article that helps us to discard Scientism in favor of solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Science is far too arbitrary for excluding the mind and philosophers are starting to show that they know better. They are trying to help the scientists be less full of shit.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

You couldn't follow-up on my maximum criteria for 'vague hits', as exemplified by the fact that Stevenson never found a birthmark case that he solved where he doubted that a past-life was the only explanation.

What does that have to do with anything? How does that respond to ANYTHING I have said? Not only does it not matter whether Stevenson himself doubted a case or not (i.e. reincarnation doesn't hinge on Stevenson's personal opinion), but the fact that there are vague hits counted was already established in our discussion. I gave you an example of a vague hit in regards to birthmarks already, where Stevenson counts a "hit" when a kid has a deformities in his face/ear just because the alleged PP was shot in the skull.

I also gave examples of other vague hits being counted outside the issue of deformities (it's a problem everywhere).

Vague hits are not explanatory in the slightest since there are many aspects to cases and contamination is in basically the same category of fraud as constructing a far-reaching story is not psychologically-plausible given what we know about humans.

How does "there being many aspects to the cases" mean that vague hits aren't a component to the explanation? Your statements make absolutely no sense. The fact that there are many aspects to the cases doesn't change the fact that vague hits are counted as hits when they shouldn't be. That's a damaging fact. While it and of itself would not explain all cases (and I never said it did), it is part of the equation.

And no, contamination is not in the same category as fraud. You're making shit up. Fraud is deliberately making the story up. Contamination means, for example, a child having heard the information from a source (say having gone to a museum right before the alleged recollection). Not the same thing and not the same category.

We should be finding many more fakes and definitive cases of contamination, but you get to rule out even possible cases of contamination (is this how you get out of explaining why we can still usually piece together a contaminated story? Of course! Denial is your habit.)

We already did find many cases of contamination. You're avoiding the facts, yet again:

In the vast majority of cases (90%+ ) there is clear evidence of contamination; automatically putting into question the claim that information couldn't have passed without reincarnation. Stevenson himself concedes this. In fact, he admits that only 13 out of 210 did he believe there was no contamination.

You're no longer speaking as intelligibly and it seems your ego has taken control right around where you refused to rephrase for the sake of your own understanding. You should step up the quality of your arguments because we are at a disagreement and this is not resolved by your continuing to press your questions when I feel I have answered exhaustively and you just haven't integrated it all (mostly, this is because of your lack of psychological training; to remedy this, I hope you have already began to delve into PsychoCybernetics). It also doesn't matter if I expect change or not as you are the most stubborn prick most of us have ever known and are it doesn't seem like you're here to learn like I am.

Speaking of which, I will require serious learning within the next two posts and if it is not manifested you can call feel free to call yourself the 'winner'. Don't focus too much on it though, focusing too much is a distraction (James, Russel, Edison, Maltz, etc).

This has nothing to do with ego. This has everything to do with you not misrepresenting what happened here. The reason this thread got bumped was because you were dishonestly saying you had dealt with my points in this thread. You had not. And if you keep lying the way you have, and misrepresenting my points like you just did a couple of posts ago, then you're not going to get respect. I don't care if that causes you to leave.

So you can trot out the childish accusation that I must want to "win" just because I decide to post in this thread, if that makes you feel better. However the fact is I'm replying to your points, while you've clearly haven't been responding to mine. Others have confirmed this already.

[nshanin]

Perhaps you have been missing my edits, but I have responded. You did not satisfy my demands and I didn't satisfy yours. It matters not that you only made 'logical' demands while I asked you to empathize, there are many paths to knowledge in this world.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Perhaps you have been missing my edits, but I have responded. You did not satisfy my demands and I didn't satisfy yours. It matters not that you only made 'logical' demands while I asked you to empathize, there are many paths to knowledge in this world.

Yeah, that's a nice excuse that doesn't change the facts. This isn't about satisfying demands or not convincing each other (of which I knew there would be no hope given the lengths you'd go to lie). This is about you demonstrably failing to address fundamental points I made. I highlighted seven of them which you hadn't address before, and still haven't addressed now.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, that's a nice excuse that doesn't change the facts. This isn't about satisfying demands or not convincing each other (of which I knew there would be no hope given the lengths you'd go to lie). This is about you demonstrably failing to address fundamental points I made. I highlighted seven of them which you hadn't address before, and still haven't addressed now.

You are lying and have persisted and created an idol of your lie. When I quoted you partially, I repsonded in full by resummarizing things I've stated. I could do that with the others, but why? You were right, this was hopeless but at least it was pretty readable. It was a nice excuse that doesn't change the facts you have yet to respond to.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

You are lying and have persisted and created an idol of your lie. When I quoted you partially, I repsonded in full by resummarizing things I've stated. I could do that with the others, but why? You were right, this was hopeless but at least it was pretty readable.

Where did you quote me partially and responded in full? You've quoted me partially all through out this thread. You've glossed over my points and responded to some out of context part, all the time. Just recently you avoided a huge post of mine by responding with "Lol" to brief segment.

Here are the points again. Show me which one you responded to in full, successfully:

1. In most if not all the cases, Stevenson only hears about these allegations years or even decades after they happened. Essentially he has to rely on hearsay to piece together what they are alleging. That in and of itself leaves ample room for fraud or the acquisition of information, or for the stories to be exaggerated or take a myth-like life of their own.

2. In many cases, the claims made by the child contradict what is known about those historical person. For instance, the kid who claimed to be a reincarnated fighter-pilot but couldn't even remember the right plane he flew.

3. The claims surrounding reincarnation are varied and contradictory. Some claim crossing gender lines is impossible, some claim it happens. Some claim that the reincarnation happens immediately, others claim that an intermediate life occurs ( Which Stevenson himself has to calls a lie... yet we're expected to believe the rest).

4. Furthermore these claims are strongly correlated with the culture surrounding the events. Cultures where one type of reincarnation is thought to be impossible rarely report such reincarnations or not at all.

5. In the vast majority of cases (90%+ ) there is clear evidence of contamination; automatically putting into question the claim that information couldn't have passed without reincarnation.

6. In the remaining cases where contamination was not immediately established, there is no proof that contamination did not happen; instead we're asked to believe Stevenson, who in turn simply believed the families.

7. The claim that birthmarks correspond to traumas in the past life are contradicted left-and-right, and vague correlations as counted as hits.

[nshanin]

In most if not all the cases, Stevenson only hears about these allegations years or even decades after they happened. Essentially he has to rely on hearsay to piece together what they are alleging. That in and of itself leaves ample room for fraud or the acquisition of information, or for the stories to be exaggerated or take a myth-like life of their own.

Well I suppose I can begin...
Obviously this doesn't explain all of the correlations between what is said and what is known and is precisely the explanation I use to explain elements of the pilot's story many of which (other verified elements, early detection and persistence before fading at a discrete time) still point to past lives because child psychology is coherent and somewhat explanatory and has been admittedly mystified by this 'out-there' phenomena.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Well I suppose I can begin...
Obviously this doesn't explain all of the correlations between what is said and what is known and is precisely the explanation I use to explain elements of the pilot's story many of which (other verified elements and persistence before fading at a discrete time) still point to past lives because child psychology is coherent and somewhat explanatory and has been admittedly mystified by this 'out-there' phenomena.

You're making a strawman. That fact is not intended to explain all the aspects of a story. The list shows fundamental problems in the evidence provided for reincarnation. That fact is one of them. The fact that Stevenson gets to these places years after the fact is a very important and worrying fact about the investigation. Going to canvas a scene and interview people years after a phenomena is a problem. It's not Stevensons fault of course, but it's still a problem. No part of that paragraph (the coherent part at least) dealt with this problem.

The last part of that huge run-on sentence made absolutely no sense. Either clarify it or don't talk nonsense if you expect a response from me.

[nshanin]

It's not a major problem as we still verify information. Some cases are recorded and I find it unlikely that a child would significantly change his/her story in his/her mind once they are older, it may be that the most fanciful parts get filtered out. It is a problem, but some cases are found in the period of recall so that we don't always have to rely on collecting as much testimony (as would otherwise be necessary) and integrating multiple testimonies.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

It's not a major problem as we still verify information. Some cases are recorded and I find it unlikely that a child would significantly change his/her story in his/her mind once they are older, it may be that the most fanciful parts get filtered out. It is a problem, but some cases are found in the period of recall so that we don't always have to rely on collecting as much testimony (as would otherwise be necessary) and integrating multiple testimonies.

How does "Still verifying information" mean it's not a major problem? Police still verify information in cold-cases for murders that took place 20+ years ago, that doesn't mean that the fact that they get to the crime-scene and to these witnesses 20 years later isn't a major problem. It is.

If you concede it's a problem, then you've essentially made my point for me. Thank you. That's the first point of the list confirmed as a problem for reincarnation.

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Rust

If you concede it's a problem, then you've essentially made my point for me.

Hardly. It was more like me 'defusing' your point. Your problem wasn't significant enough that results started to uniformly break down years afterward, and you didn't point to a study that showed the correlation between the time it takes for a case to be solved and the likelihood of that case being a miss. The passage of time by itself just leaves more room for the motiveless fraud you assert must be widely-responsible for the confirmed allegations of young children.

A child who makes statements to a researcher years after the fact is most likely lying? You cannot have it both ways with cases that are detected within the period of recall, this problem does not always exist and you've not shown it to be significant; all you have is speculation. Don't even get me started on recorded cases. You will confine your motive to whatever 'problem' suits your evaluation but this is not how social/mind science is done.

You leave me without hard evidence that this effects the validity of data specifically in past life cases where there is said to be a powerful emotional memory, often with multiple witnesses and occasionally recordings (prior to discovery), as opposed to just pointing to memory degradation over time. All stories take on an element of myth; you are asserting that they quickly become fables as time passes and that is an unacceptable view of history.

[reject]

Keyword: "suggestive".

[Rust]

Originally Posted by nshanin

Hardly. It was more like me 'defusing' your point. Your problem wasn't significant enough that results started to uniformly break down years afterward, and you didn't point to a study that showed the correlation between the time it takes for a case to be solved and the likelihood of that case being a miss. The passage of time by itself just leaves more room for the motiveless fraud you assert must be widely-responsible for the confirmed allegations of young children.

No, not hardly. You concede that it's a problem. That's not "defusing anything" that's admitting my point. You've resorted to making it a matter of degrees because you cannot defend against the fact that it's a problem.

And no the passage of time doesn't just leave more room for fraud (the fact that you keep tacking out "motiveless" even though it isn't and doesn't have to be goes to show your dishonesty), it also leaves room for further contamination and exaggeration of hits. By your own admission, all stories take on an element of myth over time. That's a problem. Specially when you get to these cases years if not a decade or more after the fact, where the potential for the myth to be exaggerated is even greater than normal.

A child who makes statements to a researcher years after the fact is most likely lying? You cannot have it both ways with cases that are detected within the period of recall, this problem does not always exist and you've not shown it to be significant; all you have is speculation. Don't even get me started on recorded cases. You will confine your motive to whatever 'problem' suits your evaluation but this is not how social/mind science is done.

1. I didn't say he's most likely lying. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said it's a problem, and you obviously cannot refute that.

2. I'm not trying to have it both ways in any case, stop making shit up. The cases where they are detected within the period of recall (a period reincarnation proponents made up) doesn't change the fact that it still takes a long time for Stevenson to get to the case. That the time is less, may mean the problem is less, sure, but it's still a problem, and pointing it out is in no way "having it both ways"?

You leave me without hard evidence that this effects the validity of data specifically in past life cases where there is said to be a powerful emotional memory, often with multiple witnesses and occasionally recordings (prior to discovery), as opposed to just pointing to memory degradation over time. All stories take on an element of myth; you are asserting that they quickly become fables as time passes and that is an unacceptable view of history.

Yeah, again, you're making a strawman. At no point do I claim that any single one of the points in the list of 7 facts you've repeatedly failed to refute, would refute everything about reincarnation. I said they are problems for reincarnation, and that's a fact. You already conceded as much for this point.

[Figure-8]

Undeniable EXPERIENCE!

[Nachismo]

Here's another case to consider:

Pat Flanagan.If you have followed his work, then it probably comes as no surprise, but it surprised me.Recently it came out that he may have been a famous inventor in his previous life, Nikola Tesla.I've known about Pat Flanagan for years, after reading Pyramid Power way back.His ideas and the way he thinks are quite novel, but his possible connection to Tesla only came out lately.

http://pesn.com/2012/07/10/9602131_D...rick_Flanagan/

[LSDaamn]

Goddamn Rust you write a lot. But I approve of the broad in your avatar.

[Fox Paws]

This thread

Originally Posted by LSDaamn

Goddamn Rust you write a lot. But I approve of the broad in your avatar.

I saw the full pic on motherless once. I wonder if that's where Rust got it from