Reincarnation

[Guest guest]

Re: Reincarnation --Dialogue between Ron and jay.

 

Other list members may wish to contribute and take this dialogue further:-

 

>>jay's first response to questions about reincarnation from Ron>>

 

>> (1) Even if one case is found (we have to make sure there is no fraud)

>>where one individual is able to recount his/her past life in vivid detail

>> (including some information that absolutely no one would have known) --

>>then Science has to take on the challenge and try and answer, " How did

>>this information travel? " There may be no genetic relationship between the

two

>> personalities.

>> Earlier you had objected to this and suggested that some kind of 'atomic

>> blueprint' was somehow left behind by the first personality and then it

>>got transferred to the other personality through the food chain......

>> Well we then have to find an incident with two personalities where no

>>food chain link could be possible due to geographic/physical restraints.

>>(I am pretty sure you will find such incidents). Then what other physical

>> phenomenon would science use? Science has to tackle this question -- How

>>did the information travel???

 

 

Ron's response>

>Since you do know your physics, I am sure you are aware of Bell's theorem.

>I'm sure you are also aware of the fact that Einstein postulated that if

>you created two particles with opposite spin, send them in opposite

directions

>at the speed of light, and then change the spin of one particle, the spin

of the

>other will automatically change. How? Bell suggested superluminals.

 

>Well, the experiments have been done now, and even though there is still

>controversy over superluminals, there is no doubt that the phenomenon

>Einstein predicted exists. We have seen it over a ten mile experiment so

>far. Plans are being made to try it over larger distances.

 

>Bell said that if this was proven, then it meant that we are intimately

>connected to every part of the universe at the same time.

>

>You said yourself that: " The mind and soul (consciousness)

>cannot be defined as being here or there in space or time and ideas of it

>moving from here to there are meaningless. Ideas of here and there -

>entering here - leaving there are concepts of the mind - hence to say the

>mind/consciousness was here and then moved there in space/time is

>meaningless. (Space/time are concepts of the mind so how can something

>which is a by-product of the mind dictate these qualities to the mind and

>consciousness?). "

>

>Now we know that even a particle of matter already has that connection to

>all. Space/time seems like a meaningless question to it. So even without

> " mind " as a separate thing (Unless you are saying that all matter is mind

as well

>automatically) it seems that matter/energy is intelligible on it's own.

>That mind (awareness) is an inherent part of energy.matter. And that

>consciousness is a by product of a certain configuration of energy/matter.

 

 

Further reply from jay:-

Ron if I understand you correctly you are saying " Bell's experiment

demonstrates that every particle is intrinsically interconnected and hence

the information about reincarnation may have travelled in that fashion and

perhaps not in a normal physical sense " .

 

Firstly Bell's experiment has not been able to override law of causality.

Anything travelling faster than the speed of light would do that. No

information can be passed on that can act to violate the law of cause and

effect. After lot of work at the Santa Fe institute they are unable to

devise any experiment which would violate cause and effect. Bells experiment

at best demonstrates that 'uncertainty' can be thought to travel faster than

light but this cannot transfer 'ordered' information which would violate

cause and effect. This is no way demonstrates that 'ordered' information

about one's life has been transferred to another person in this fashion.

To me a person recalling his past life is still be better explained by

reincarnation than by such random interconnectedness.

 

Earlier jay had said

>> (2) Ideas of why identical twins both brought up in the same environment

>> will exhibit different characters -- better explained.

 

Response from Ron:

>No two people can occupy the same space at the same time. Hence we will

>always have differences in experience. Twins are genetically very similar

>but not usually absolutely identical.

 

jay's response

I thought identical twins are genetically same (not similar).

 

Also the fact that the twins sit six inches apart in the womb, or maybe a

few feet apart after birth --would account for sometimes very dramatic

difference in personalities does not seem right.

 

Earlier jay had said:

>> (3) Child prodigies -- better explained.

 

Ron's response

>How does this apply? Genetics can easily account for this.

 

further response from jay:-

May be it is true - just accidental genetic ordering may account for child

prodigies.

In my opinion this seems more far fetched than to think of a person who had

disciplined himself in one life and mastered say music then is reborn and

shows his talents at very early age. But I agree the debate can go both ways

on this.

 

Earlier jay said:

>> (4) Phobias -- say fire, heights, water - may be better explained by

>>saying perhaps the person died through the above in the past life hence

>>the severe fear of heights, fire or water etc.

 

Ron's response:-

>Or it may be trauma or perceived trauma in childhood. I remember an

>incident where I was confronted by a snake. It scared me because it stood

>up and hissed at me, menacingly. I was very small but remember it clearly.

That

>was the first time I was afraid of snakes. It left an impression on in my

brain and

>since then I have been wary of snakes and slightly afraid of them.

>

>All kids are afraid of falling. That is just a natural survival instinct.

>Some develop more fear over the years, some grow less afraid. Some of these

>things are imprinted from mom or dad, both genetically and by example. So

>there are plenty of places we can see answers to these questions without

seeing

>any proof of reincarnation.

 

jay's further reply:-

The trauma that goes with this phobias is severe and to me cannot be

explained by say falling off a stool in childhood and being frightened of

heights for the rest of one's life. I understand the word trauma to mean

'irrational fear arising from the subconscious'. Death through such causes

may be called the most traumatic experience and hence 'could' give rise to

such severe traumas arising out of the subconscious.

 

Again this cannot be considered proof enough for reincarnation. It is an

interesting idea which challenges Psychologists to probe not only into the

childhood experiences of their patients but perhaps into their past lives!