Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[pavilion103]

Thks Pav
I dont think anyone is flipping a coin are they?
I just want to encourage precision of language.
If you choose to look at aspects of scientific findings and then decide that it fits with your preferred world view( ie God is creator, chistian docrtine is therefore true and so on)..then that sounds like a confirmation bias, not anything that was suggested by the scientific process. Science only says anything about the hypothesis that is being tested, nothing more.
As pure and correct science cannot, and does not attempt to, posit the existence of a creator then clearly that is a step(leap) that is taken by some for purely non scientific reasons ( ie philosphical/doctrinal)
To not take this leap is not an act of faith as you suggest, it is simply a stance of allowing the unknown to be just that until it may become known through further scientific enquiry...or not.

L

It's not not taking a leap. It is still taking a leap.
There are two options
1) creator
2) self existing (no creator).

Rejecting evidence for a creator doesn't mean you are not taking a leap of faith.
The atheist is in fact taking a leap of faith in believing that it is self existing.
The atheist is saying there is more evidence for a self-existing universe than a creator and thus choosing option 2.


Maybe the NOT taking a leap of faith you are referring to is being an agnostic? Where they can happily sit on the fence undecided and believe that we can't decide either way?
It's probably a popular opinion.

 

[pavilion103]

First you have assumed that the universe is not eternal. Humans have an extremely limited view point. It may well be that the universe we know is only one small part of something eternal.

You have also defined something eternal as needing to be supernatural and have linked supernatural with God. As above, there is nothing to say something natural can't be eternal. But that depends on your definition of supernatural. It might be clearer to say that the origin of the universe could be supernatural without having anything to do with God.

With your other post, I didn't respond respectfully because I think we've both had our say and it will only go around in circles. We have probably reached a crossroad with some of those points. I have things I would like to post but I think we are just seeing some of those points quite differently. e.g. A supernatural God creating matter etc.

With the above post that I've quoted is I'd say - show me the evidence.
You can say the same to me and I've explained my reasoning although you don't agree. And that's fine.

Leaving my views aside for a second and referring back to the above post I'd ask:
1) Does current scientific evidence point to an eternal or non-eternal universe?
2) If you say eternal is this based on anything more than speculation e.g. we are too small to know for sure
3) Does current scientific evidence point to something natural being eternal? If so what exactly? Give me an example.

I believe that scientific evidence does point to a non-eternal universe.
I believe that science doesn't provide any evidence for something natural being eternal.
Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Chris45]

These are some definitions from my online dictionary that I think we would all agree on.
Reincarnation: The rebirth of a soul in another body.
Consciousness: The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.
Soul: The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal

The definition I have for soul is: The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

Tucker provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness.

A better analogy could be a computer and its operating system. The brain is the computer hardware and the soul is the software operating system. Programs (or "aps") could be akin to knowledge we acquire throughout life.

I don't think it matters whether you use "soul" or "consciousness" since neither have been clearly identified and delineated. I think they're both rather vague terms and I'm not aware of anyone having being able to define the precise section of the brain responsible for consciousness. You can refer to consciousness if you like, I prefer soul. I think of it as our operating system.

Religion is concerned with souls and I think this reincarnation research plus M-Theory could lead to a scientific understanding of religion.

Since there is no proof that there is such a thing as a soul, then there can be no evidence of reincarnation as defined above or in the sense alluded to by you at the beginning of your post: the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls.

I disagree with you and I see it differently. There is clear evidence of something currently inexplicable happening, (ie supernatural), and reincarnation of souls/consciousness/whatever is the best guess IMO. There are enormous difficulties with doing this research not the least being the fact that it involves the temporary memories and nightmares of young children that most parents would not regard as significant. If awareness and interest can be spread, we might see more progress.

Have you bothered to read Ian Stevenson's paper "Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons"? http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm

About 35% of children who claim to remember previous lives have birthmarks and/or birth defects that they (or adult informants) attribute to wounds on a person whose life the child remembers. The cases of 210 such children have been investigated.

The paper includes some photographs:

* Hypopigmented macule on chest of an Indian youth who, as a child, said he remembered the life of a man, Maha Ram, who was killed with a shotgun fired at close range.
* Large verrucous epidermal nevus on head of a Thai man who as a child said he remembered the life of his paternal uncle, who was killed with a blow on the head from a heavy knife.
* Small, round puckered birthmark on a Thai boy that corresponded to the bullet wound of entry in a man whose life he said he remembered and who had been shot with a rifle from behind.
* Severely malformed ear (microtia) in a Turkish boy who said that he remembered the life of a man who was fatally wounded on the right side of the head by a shotgun discharged at close range.
* Almost absent fingers (brachydactyly) on one hand in a boy of India who said he remembered the life of a boy of another village who had put his hand into the blades of a fodderchopping machine and had its fingers amputated.
* Congenital absence of lower leg (unilateral hemimelia) in a girl of Burma who said she remembered the life of a young woman who was accidentally run over by a train, with her right leg being severed first.​

His "Discussion" makes interesting reading.

If a soul/consciousness/whatever can transfer from one brain to another, what form does it take? I suppose that's like asking what form does an operating system take, which varies of course depending on the media upon which it is stored. I don't know but I imagine a soul could be a discrete package of energy of some form, maybe like a giant photon. Stevenson and Tucker believe that souls don't always transfer instantly between brains and there seems to be a delay of 15-20 years. Where do the souls reside during this delay period?

Your "two scientists" example is flawed because no two scientists, unless perhaps they are identical twins who have had identical upbringings and educations, would have "identical toolkits", but anyway I think I understand the point you're trying to make.

Supernatural means "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material". A phenomenon that is currently classified as supernatural, eg reincarnation, which cannot be explained by our current set of natural laws, will probably eventually be explained as our knowledge increases and new laws are discovered. The explanation probably lies in a region we don't yet understand, like a universe in higher dimensions. I think the explanation of who is God might also be revealed if/when we learn how to explore this region.

If this research proves problematic for some religions, that's too bad, and they will have to evolve, like everything else. Cardinal Pell seems to be making progress!

 

[Chris45]

If God created the universe then it still had to come from somewhere, so even in your view something came from nothing. All we're debating here is the mechanism that allows that to happen. If God can be eternal and create something from nothing, then why can't there be something natural that is eternal that led to our creation?

Are you familiar with "conservation of energy": a principle stating that the total energy of a closed system remains constant over time, regardless of other possible changes within the system.

String Theory proposes that matter is made up of strings of energy, so everything is energy in one form or another.

If you can think of our universe(s) as a closed system then the total energy of the universe(s) remains constant over time.

Energy has always been here, it always will, it has no beginning and no ending, it's infinite, it's forever and ever amen.

Matter pops in and out of existence as the energy strings transform themselves.

Not all religious people believe in a soul. Seventh Day Adventists discard the idea entirely.

They might be wrong. Do they have an alternative explanation of our consciousness? I wonder what they think of Stevenson's and Tucker's research?

 

[bellenuit]

Supernatural means "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material". A phenomenon that is currently classified as supernatural, eg reincarnation, which cannot be explained by our current set of natural laws, will probably eventually be explained as our knowledge increases and new laws are discovered. The explanation probably lies in a region we don't yet understand, like a universe in higher dimensions.

I think that is the point I was trying to make all along. It is the scientist who persists with looking for a solution that will likely discover these new laws. The scientist who on seeing no (current) natural explanation and puts it down to the supernatural is less likely to continue the pursuit.

In the case of Tucker's work, I have come across many sceptical of his work (and Stephenson's), but rather than just rehash what they say, let's say the examples he has provided have no other acceptable explanation.

I obviously only have had a limited time to research his works, but the commonality of the examples he studied seemed to be:

- Unexplained memory transference from one person to another. The receiver is usually 2 or 3 years old at the time. (I didn't see it mentioned but I presume the transference could be earlier, at least for memories, but the child would unlikely be able to express those memories intelligibly at a younger age). These memories usually start to fade around 6 years of age.

- Some cases have also involved the transmission of some physical characteristics from the source person.

Memories are not a soul and neither are physical blemishes, so it is a long bow to draw that even if this evidence is true, we are witnessing reincarnation of the soul or consciousness. It doesn't rule it out, but it in itself is not proof. And I don't think Tucker claims that it is proof of reincarnation.

Tucker then goes on to postulate how these two transferences might happen and suggests that the answer might lie in the realm of quantum mechanics. However, he uses the word consciousness in regards to what is transferred, which, as you rightly pointed out, is a vague term, but would likely encompass more than just memory. The evidence does not support that and any evidence to support the transfer of consciousness would obviously require some precision as to what it means.

Although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another. He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, consciousness may not be merely a by-product of the physical brain but rather a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical. Tucker argues that viewing consciousness as a fundamental, non-physical, part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the physical brain.[26] He provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness.

I do not have any problem with his explanation, but it is just a postulation at this stage, perhaps on a par with abiogenesis. It is currently not testable or provable and doesn't have the strength of a scientific theory. However, science has to start somewhere and he is at least looking at the issue.

He does have his detractors: On the other hand Susan Huelga, a lecturer in quantum mechanics at the University of Hertfordshire, notes that brain dynamics are highly complex, and she finds that there is no more evidence that quantum mechanics is relevant in this field than that it is relevant regarding whether or not God exists.

If there is one thing that makes me question Tucker, it would be this endorsement on his website: “an important milestone of an emerging scientific paradigm” —Deepak Chopra - Co-Author of Super Brain". Since this is not just a comment put on the website by Chopra, but prominently placed on Tuckers home page, then Tucker obviously sees Chopra as a worthy endorser.

Chopra uses quantum mechanics to describe a sort of New Age spirituality mingled with eastern philosophy. I have seen him interviewed many times, but when there are Q & As and some in the audience are quantum physicists he is usually exposed as a quack. He uses quantum mechanic terms to bamboozle lay audiences (he gets a lot of money for his books and appearances), but when confronted by experts he is shown to be completely misusing the words or to simply have no understanding of what they mean.

Chopra is using a common trick of the pseudoscientist – exploit cutting edge science, which the public is not likely to understand, and pretend as if there is proof where there is uncertainty. Take some interesting experiments, then leap way ahead to conclusions that serve their metaphysical purposes, but which are not settled science.

That and many examples here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/chopra-mangles-quantum-mechanics-again/

 

[Lone Wolf]

With your other post, I didn't respond respectfully because I think we've both had our say and it will only go around in circles.

I noted that I had been ignored and I should have taken the hint. But you seem like a rational person and I was interested to know how you justify the leap from "science can't explain" to "the supernatural is the only possible answer".

But we have said all we can say now and I agree that further discussion won't add value.

But I won't run off without answering your questions first.

Leaving my views aside for a second and referring back to the above post I'd ask:
1) Does current scientific evidence point to an eternal or non-eternal universe?
2) If you say eternal is this based on anything more than speculation e.g. we are too small to know for sure
3) Does current scientific evidence point to something natural being eternal? If so what exactly? Give me an example.

There are scientific theories that point to an eternal existence, see Chris's post on string theory. But since science lacks the capacity to test these theories they remain just that, theories. Scientists are limited in the evidence they can gather since they can only observe what humans can observe. I'll play nice and use the theory I know you want me to use.

The commonly accepted theory - the big bang. There is only one universe and this universe, including time itself began at the big bang. There is no such thing as "prior to the big bang".

So with that theory in mind:
1) The universe is not eternal.
2) I didn't say eternal, but I think it's pretty obvious that humans currently lack the capacity to fully explain the nature of the universe.
3) Science, using the standard big bang theory has no evidence of something eternal.

I believe that scientific evidence does point to a non-eternal universe.
I believe that science doesn't provide any evidence for something natural being eternal.
Would you agree or disagree?

If something can't come from nothing, and we exist, then something must be eternal. So I could argue that science does point to something eternal. But I'm willing to play nice and agree. Observable evidence led to the theory that there is a single universe that is not eternal. This leads to science having to form other theories to explain origins.

Where we disagree is what that means. I believe it simply means that science lacks the capacity to fully explain (and verify) the nature of the universe.

You believe this can be extended to mean God must exist. An extra step that I don't agree with taking.

But then again, if you're wrong in taking the leap - nothing happens. If I'm wrong about not taking the leap - Then according to a certain book I'll burn for all eternity in a pit of fire. Seems a little harsh, but I don't make the rules.

 

[pavilion103]

That last paragraph is something that gets throne around a lot. And I admit that on face value and to someone who doesn't have the full depth of the understanding of Christianity it is utterly outrageous and even cruel.

I could go down another path here that would open up a huge discussion but I'm not sure I have the energy right now!

I think the truth is that people would rather take Christianity on face value and believe in a tyrant god and multiple contradictions and the evil acts of people who call themselves Christians etc.
Most really don't care to see behind the societal stereotypes and misconceptions. They feel no need to. To those people I don't really have anything to say on the topic.

 

[bellenuit]

Some new and interesting articles I came across today:

‘So tangible’: 800,000-year-old footprints found in England oldest proof of human life in northern Europe

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ldest-proof-of-human-life-in-northern-europe/

The Universe May be Different on Scales Larger than Those We Can Directly Observe

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-can-directly-observe-planck-satellite-t.html

An image from this article relevant to the Big Bang



Confirmed! Newfound Particle Is a Higgs Boson

http://m.livescience.com/27888-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html

A New Step In Evolution

I didn't realise until now that this is from 2008, but good stuff none-the-less

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/

Simulating the Universe from the Beginning of Time

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/02/hacking-the-universe-from-the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[burglar]

... Confirmed! Newfound Particle Is a Higgs Boson

I would be so happy if this particle has the right flavour, colour and spin to explain origin. :

 

[Julia]

The definition I have for soul is: The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

The actuating cause of an individual life?? This seems to ignore basic biology.

I don't think it matters whether you use "soul" or "consciousness" since neither have been clearly identified and delineated. I think they're both rather vague terms and I'm not aware of anyone having being able to define the precise section of the brain responsible for consciousness. You can refer to consciousness if you like, I prefer soul. I think of it as our operating system.

This seems to suggest you regard "soul" and "consciousness" as interchangeable terms.
Even Wiki has a pretty sensible definition of "consciousness:, viz

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

That's pretty different from any definition you might find of "soul" which, incidentally I did look for and could find nothing.

I don't think you'd find too many neurophysiologists or neurosurgeons, or psychologists for that matter, who would think of talking about "soul" when they are discussing "consciousness".

I disagree with you and I see it differently. There is clear evidence of something currently inexplicable happening, (ie supernatural), and reincarnation of souls/consciousness/whatever is the best guess IMO. There are enormous difficulties with doing this research not the least being the fact that it involves the temporary memories and nightmares of young children that most parents would not regard as significant. If awareness and interest can be spread, we might see more progress.

Consider that even just memory is ill understood in many respects. We're all familiar with deja vu, that seemingly inexplicable sense of something occurring in the present moment which we are utterly convinced we have previously experienced. A relatively recent explanation of this is that it's a temporary 'glitch' in the memory system which mistakenly lodges the experience/comment/vision as something already having happened.
In almost every instance of this phenomenon, we objectively know that what has just occurred has absolutely not happened before due to the simple facts involved, but the sense in our minds that it has is extremely strong.

To attribute birthmarks etc to some event in someone else's previous life is, imho, pretty fanciful.

 

[Lone Wolf]

That last paragraph is something that gets throne around a lot. And I admit that on face value and to someone who doesn't have the full depth of the understanding of Christianity it is utterly outrageous and even cruel.

I could go down another path here that would open up a huge discussion but I'm not sure I have the energy right now!

I think the truth is that people would rather take Christianity on face value and believe in a tyrant god and multiple contradictions and the evil acts of people who call themselves Christians etc.
Most really don't care to see behind the societal stereotypes and misconceptions. They feel no need to. To those people I don't really have anything to say on the topic.

Just for clarity, my last paragraph wasn't meant as a swipe at Christianity. It was saying that if you believe in Christianity, then the consequences of agreeing with the atheist view are severe. So seeing as there is no hard evidence either way it's understandable that people would default to God.

You seem to be suggesting that what I said about non believers receiving eternal damnation is a misconception and that it shows my lack of understanding. My only excuse is that every religion teacher, Christian and door knocker I've ever spoken to has told me that failure to believe will result in an eternity spent in a pit of fire. So you'll have to excuse my misinformed view. I admit that I only have a basic level of understanding on Christianity. I meant no disrespect.

Time for me to go back to reading the trading section of the forum.

 

[pavilion103]

Just for clarity, my last paragraph wasn't meant as a swipe at Christianity. It was saying that if you believe in Christianity, then the consequences of agreeing with the atheist view are severe. So seeing as there is no hard evidence either way it's understandable that people would default to God. You seem to be suggesting that what I said about non believers receiving eternal damnation is a misconception and that it shows my lack of understanding. My only excuse is that every religion teacher, Christian and door knocker I've ever spoken to has told me that failure to believe will result in an eternity spent in a pit of fire. So you'll have to excuse my misinformed view. I admit that I only have a basic level of understanding on Christianity. I meant no disrespect. Time for me to go back to reading the trading section of the forum.

It's hard to communicate across a forum!

I didn't think that your comments were a deliberate swipe but rather that a majority of people would take a swipe based on those points, despite not taking the time to understand the entire picture of what Christianity is.

I think you've been completely pleasant to talk to and I've enjoyed it.

These types of discussions are difficult online. Much easier in person.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's hard to communicate across a forum!

I didn't think that your comments were a deliberate swipe but rather that a majority of people would take a swipe based on those points, despite not taking the time to understand the entire picture of what Christianity is.

I think you've been completely pleasant to talk to and I've enjoyed it.

These types of discussions are difficult online. Much easier in person.

Thanks Pav, for participating in the conversation despite there not being much in it for you.

For me it was an opportunity to learn more about how people with another view reach that view. But I'm sure you've been through this countless times before.

Time for me to move on now though, if I have time to spare I should focus more on trading.

 

[pavilion103]

Thanks Pav, for participating in the conversation despite there not being much in it for you. For me it was an opportunity to learn more about how people with another view reach that view. But I'm sure you've been through this countless times before. Time for me to move on now though, if I have time to spare I should focus more on trading.

Amen lol!

Same for me mate. A nice little detour but this is a trading forum and I'll put most of my efforts into that too!
Hopefully catch you on those.

 

[burglar]

... But I'm willing to play nice and agree ...

Hi Lone Wolf,

On behalf of all who read and agree, but don't post:
Thank you for being a moderate voice in a sea of ... errr ... *angst*

 

[Chris45]

The actuating cause of an individual life?? This seems to ignore basic biology.

What basic biology are you referring to?

This seems to suggest you regard "soul" and "consciousness" as interchangeable terms.

I'm not convinced "consciousness" is the appropriate term and I think of it along the lines of the definition you quoted. I'm guessing that Tucker might have used "consciousness" to avoid being associated with religion.

Stevenson and Tucker have discovered evidence of phenomena for which there are no adequate current explanations.

As I stated, I prefer "soul" and think of it as our "Operating System" (like "Windows", etc.) but I didn't want to get bogged down with definitions of terms since we're talking about something no one really understands.

Can you offer a better explanation?

That's pretty different from any definition you might find of "soul" which, incidentally I did look for and could find nothing.

I googled "definition of soul" and came up with dozens of definitions including an extensive Wikipedia entry.

To attribute birthmarks etc to some event in someone else's previous life is, imho, pretty fanciful.

How would you explain Stevenson's discoveries?

 

[Julia]

What basic biology are you referring to?

Chris, you said:

The definition I have for soul is: The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

I'd define 'actuate' as to make or maybe to motivate.
I was simply thinking of the making of an individual human life being the act which causes conception.
We don't know anything about 'soul'. But we do know what causes the creation of a life.

I'm not convinced "consciousness" is the appropriate term and I think of it along the lines of the definition you quoted.

OK, then I just don't understand why you'd want to confuse or align it with something that many people don't believe exists, viz a soul.

As I stated, I prefer "soul" and think of it as our "Operating System" (like "Windows", etc.) but I didn't want to get bogged down with definitions of terms since we're talking about something no one really understands.

Agree. However, we do have a reasonable understanding of consciousness. No such similar agreement about what 'soul' constitutes afaik.

Can you offer a better explanation?

About what? I have no reason so far to believe any such phenomenon as a soul exists, so have no interest in seeking explanations for a negative.

I just wanted to raise a gentle protest about 'consciousness' and 'soul' being conflated.
Sorry if I'm sounding dismissive. You're obviously really interested in all this and I don't mean to be disrespectful of that interest with my boringly prosaic approach to life.

 

[Chris45]

I think that is the point I was trying to make all along. It is the scientist who persists with looking for a solution that will likely discover these new laws.

I am cautiously optimistic that we might be approaching limited agreement.

To ridicule and dismiss a body of research as fanciful nonsense because no (current) natural explanation exists, as some "skeptics" do, is one thing; to be skeptical and seek flaws in the data and methodology and offer intelligent alternative explanations is another. Peer review is based on the latter and is essential to science and it's important to keep an open mind when confronted with new research.

I feel sure Quantum Mechanics is not the last word in Physics, just as Newtonian Mechanics wasn't. The M-Theory guys have postulated some very radical new ideas, including numerous higher dimensions that we can't even begin to comprehend, but the "cold spots" in the Planck satellite data have been proposed as evidence that they're on the right track. I don't know if Quantum Mechanics covers that but, like you, my understanding of Quantum Mechanics is limited. Higgs Bosons, tachyons, etc ... we are FAR from having all of the answers. What do we know about antimatter? We know it exists but we know zilch about it because it's currently impossible to study. There is so much we don't know.

I feel that what is currently regarded as "supernatural", ie God and his angels, and Satan and his demons could be explained in due course as our understanding of the mutiverse and higher dimensions develops. I have used my imagination to come up with a possible explanation which fits with my (limited) understanding of both the Bible and the latest scientific thinking and it satisfies many questions I had about the meaning of life, but it's still a work in progress. I can imagine a universe, in dimensions we are currently unaware of, inhabited by non-material spiritual beings who are able to interact with us in our material universe. There is no proof of any of this but Stevenson's and Tucker's research could be the evidence, and M-Theory could provide the explanation.

Memories are not a soul and neither are physical blemishes, so it is a long bow to draw that even if this evidence is true, we are witnessing reincarnation of the soul or consciousness. It doesn't rule it out, but it in itself is not proof. And I don't think Tucker claims that it is proof of reincarnation.

Nobody knows precisely what a soul is and what it includes, so we can't say what is ruled in or out. Silicon based computers are currently our closest parallel to our carbon based brains, and understanding how computers work helps in understanding how our brains work. (Last Monday's SBS documentary about IBM's Watson computer that beat the "Jeopardy!" champions was quite revealing!) Neither Stevenson nor Tucker are claiming "proof" of anything, just evidence of something currently regarded as supernatural.

If there is one thing that makes me question Tucker, it would be this endorsement on his website: “an important milestone of an emerging scientific paradigm” ””Deepak Chopra - Co-Author of Super Brain".

I agree it's unfortunate that Deepak Chopra is mentioned on the home page. Both Tucker and Chopra are MDs not physicists and like the rest of us, probably neither has a deep understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps it's his views on spirituality that Tucker found appealing. I wouldn't dismiss Tucker just because of that minor misjudgment.

 

[Chris45]

I just wanted to raise a gentle protest about 'consciousness' and 'soul' being conflated.

Point taken. I can't speak for others but I have a concept of what a "soul" might be so I'll stick to that.

Using computers as a guide, I think a life is created at conception and then the soul is progressively downloaded somehow onto the developing foetal brain as the infant grows.

Consciousness is acquired as the soul settles into its new habitat and loads drivers for the various senses, organs etc. and takes control. [/GEEK SPEAK]

 

[bellenuit]

To ridicule and dismiss a body of research as fanciful nonsense because no (current) natural explanation exists, as some "skeptics" do, is one thing;

The sceptic sites I quoted didn't dismiss James' (I might have the wrong name) reincarnation story (of the pilot) because no natural explanation existed, they dismissed some of the aspects of it because there were natural explanations. I don't want to go through it again, but the source YouTube program you gave didn't mention that the boy had been taken to an old war plane museum when he was young, so much of what he said could have come from that source. I think there were factual errors too, such as the type of plane flown by the dead pilot. Tucker went further in his research, but the sceptics I referenced were reacting to the YouTube video as it had been shown in the US. Like other tabloid TV programs, they often are trying to get high ratings, not to the truth, so they tend to emphasise the extraordinary and ignore details that might not be supportive.

Sceptics view all the information with an open mind and look for the most obvious explanations (which usually turn out the be correct) instead of jumping to extraordinary conclusions. If they find no explanation, then they say they have no explanation. Saying the explanation is supernatural is neither here nor there. The sources I used were just guys on blogs like you and me, so don't dismiss scepticism just because some people made comments based on a subset of facts (the TV program).

(Last Monday's SBS documentary about IBM's Watson computer that beat the "Jeopardy!" champions was quite revealing!)

Yes, I saw that one. Very enjoyable.