OUR only understanding. What WE think is the case. — Wayfarer

I am not aware of alternative well-formulated understandings. If you know of any, please give account of them.

Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences — surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority; to one person's (fallible and unelaborated) opinion. What do you think is the actual reasoning implicit her statement if there is any?

Here's a brief recap of some of the points concerning 'past-life memories' and karma:

The problem with Karma seems to that there is no ordering infinite intentionality posited so no explanation as to how it could obtain. — John

Their [Buddhists] idea of the operation of karma is most certainly a superstitious one. — John

If we have no scientific, logical or experiential reason to believe it, then it is, for us at least, superstition. — John

That was when I introduced the quotation from Stevenson's research, which I concluded with this remark:

Of course, his research is mostly just dismissed because such things 'can't happen' (which I predict will be the case here also). — Wayfarer

What more needs to be said? Time to move on.

Of course, his research is mostly just dismissed because such things 'can't happen' (which I predict will be the case here also). — Wayfarer

Yeah but it wasn't dismissed because "such things can't happen"; that is a distortion. Rather it was questioned/critiqued because, even it were accepted as veridical reportage, it doesn't unequivocally seem to support the conclusions you want to draw from it, or even support those conclusions more convincingly than alternative ones.

It seems to me that you are simply unable to discuss this rationally. You interpret any disagreement with your beliefs to be "dogmatism". You often disparage science, and I agree that science has its limitations; but the one thing about it I do admire is the scientific spirit, which consists in actively trying to disprove one's own pet theories, rather than indulging in confirmation bias.

Rather it was questioned/critiqued because, even it were accepted as veridical reportage, it doesn't unequivocally seem to support the conclusions you want to draw from it, or even support those conclusions more convincingly than alternative ones. — John

Alternative ones being what? 'Some kind of clairvoyance' is the only one suggested. Oh yes, and 'chance'. Look, Stevenson's books are evidence, they include enormous amounts of documentation and witness testimony, all of which attest to the veracity of children with past-life memories. How much of that ought I to reproduce? 100 pages? 200 pages?

As for Buddhist doctrines of re-birth - how much of that do you think I can explain, here on a philosopy forum? The 'basic volumes' of Abhidharma are five several-hundred page volumes. And there's an enormous amount about that that I don't even claim to have read, or to understand.

If you're curious about such matters, I would be happy to discuss them, although maybe another forum might be a more suitable format, but I simply made the point in response to what seemed to me a categorical and automatic dismissal of 'karma' as superstition. If you want to continue to believe that, fine.

Look, Stevenson's books are evidence, they include enormous amounts of documentation and witness testimony, all of which attest to the veracity of children with past-life memories. How much of that ought I to reproduce? 100 pages? 200 pages? — Wayfarer

This is the confirmation bias John is talking about. You aren't critically checking your own hypothesis. When the evidence also its perfectly well with another account (clairvoyance), rather than accept it and further refine your method to specifically check for reincarnation (and find the evidence which demonstrates it), you just proclaim how your claim must be true because of the evidence.

A thousand billion pages of these accounts wouldn't be enough to show you claim because the problem is with your evidence. It doesn't show reincarnation to be the only theory consistent with the evidence.

When the evidence also its perfectly well with another account (clairvoyance), rather than accept it and further refine your method to specifically check for reincarnation (and find the evidence which demonstrates it) — TheWillowOfDarkness

You might provide me with a dissertation on the distinction between clairvoyance and past-life memories, then.

That's your job. Your claim is attempting to use evidence to show what has happened in the world is more consistent with reincarnation than clairvoyance. Otherwise, you claim is confirmation bias-- you're assuming the evidence shows what you prefer, rather than respecting what it does show.

I will say though, I don't think there is an effective distinction. A person is a living being in time, a body and experiences present at one point and not another. Both are define by a new body and the presnece of particular experiences. In these terms, the clairvoyant who believes themselves to be a new iteration of a former life is indistinguishable from someone reincarnated. Each is, in the present, a body and particular experiences (memories of an earlier life, a belief it was them, etc., etc.). There is no criteria which can specify how these states are "really a past life" or not.

We might say that, in this sense, reincarnation is only a sort of illusion. For any new life, past life cannot make any sort of difference. I, in the present, cannot control what I did in a past life (and how it impacted me in the present).

Let's say karma and "reincarnation" are true. To my past life, this is relevant. How I act then will determine whether my future life is pleasant or not, so if I want to have a great future life, I ought to behave back then.

For my present though, it doesn't make a difference. I'm stuck with results of whatever folly or wisdom my past self had. To my new life, it doesn't actually matter whether I'm someone else reborn or an entirely new person. Either way, I'm stuck with what previous lives caused for me, whether they were myself or someone else, be it through karma, bombs or poor nutrition, etc. Reincarnation is really just a particular way of understanding the identity of new life, nothing more than a personal experience that one's identity is the same as a life which went before.

I will say though, I don't think there is an effective distinction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

My thoughts also - I think if clairvoyance occurs - if - then it's also possible that there are past-life memories. But according to physicalism, neither ought to be possible.

I'm stuck with results of whatever folly or wisdom my past self had. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not so. It's what you do now that counts. Otherwise, that's fatalism.

Not true. Physicalism has no problem with "past life" memories. Under it, they are particular emergent experiences. Entirely possible.

The real issue physicalism would have is the misuse of evidence and the confirmation basis. More or less the sorts of arguments you have made in the thread, where you treat past life memories as if they are more than that, as if they cross time, space, logic and identity to literally be a person who lived in the past.

Again, the issue is not that there can't be evidence (people may have memories or experiences of what happened to people in the past), but it is people like yourself misunderstand and misuse it, to make these supposedly significant claims, when it's really just awe at your own thoughts or feelings.

Not so. It's what you do now that counts. Otherwise, that's fatalism. — Wayfarer

You're missing the point. I am not my past self, so the consequences relevant to it don't have impact on me. Thinking of myself as a past life reincarnated doesn't have can't alter anything that's been caused to my present through karma. The moment where it might have mattered (i.e. my past life chooses to do something to avoid horrible consequences for my future life) has gone.

Physicalism has no problem with "past life" memories. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It must be so convenient to be able to define any term in any way to suit any argument. Of course, it often requires sacrificing meaning.

I want to clarify, that in this thread I have not been trying to evangalize or persuade others of the truth or falsehood of re-incarnation. I myself don't know if it's true, although I have an inclination to believe that it is.

But the reason I brought it up, was to rebut what I saw as the fallacious idea that belief in karma, as such, is superstitious. I suppose it can be, but to the extent that it is, then I don't accept it. What I do believe is that 'all intentional actions have consequences'.

Where I suppose it becomes difficult is, do these consequences play out after death. The 'physicalist' attitude is of course they cannot, as humans are purely physical. Dead is dead. However, if one is not committed to that physicalist view - and I'm not - then it's not so clear-cut. But when you start to try and think through what it might mean, then obviously there are very many imponderables and difficult questions. I don't have answers to those, nor much desire to find out. The upshot is, right intention brings right results, and this is something that may well extend beyond this present life.

The problem isn't applicable just to physicalism. Dead is dead. It's true of minds, of identity, of logic.

The identity of life isn't just a "physical" question. To consider literal reincarnation, as in someone actually being someone of past life, one has to violate identity and logic, to claim the mind of another time and place is the same one as now. It's not just bodies and atoms which generate the issue. The mind itself is of a particular moment and identity.

These questions are not hard or difficult, at least in the sense of knowledge or reasoning. Indeed, they are perhaps some of the easiest question. It doesn't take much study to know you are a different person to others. Even the reincarnation narrative itself-- past life vs new life- has this embedded, such that a present life is understood not to be the life which went before it.

No doubt you aren't interested in answering these questions, but that's why your discussion of such issues is terrible. You simply aren't interested in the topic itself. You don't want that knowledge. You'd rather just have an understanding that whatever awe-inspiring belief or idea you are talking about affecting relevance.

It sort of runs back to the question of meaning. Mysticism and confirmation bias pivot around a need for meaning, a sort of expectation that one's own life or world (be it mental or physical) needs to be filled with meaning from the outside. It's not enough to be oneself, so there must be forces from the "beyond" which deliver sense or meaning. One picks an idea or something (God, First Cause, Karma, past lives, etc.) to act as a "meaning maker," to turn the meaningless itself into something worthwhile. In the approach, there is not a critical bone. It's only interested in the affirmation of the given idea that makes meaning.

A critical look at these sort of claims and they collapse. Take karma or the account of consequences intentional action. Is it true? Well, by what happens in the world, clearly not. Good people have terrible things happen to them. Bad people have great things happen to them. No doubt, in many cases even, people reap what they sow, but the world clearly doesn't work in the exclusive way karma or the account of consequences intentional action would have as believe.

Karma or the account of consequences intentional action function as heuristics, accounts linked to practices, where the goal isn't knowledge or understanding of the world as it is, but rather to learn specific ideas and practices. In this case, what's important is to learn to act kindly towards others, to help and assist people, rather than the opposite-- the fact they are telling falsehoods, that there is no necessary relationship between how you behave towards others and how you are treated, simply doesn't matter. It's about learning the ideas and practices of being kind and helpful towards others.

The "meaning maker" always works like this, an affirmation of an idea, belief or practice, such that no-one is left in the dark of their inadequacy, meaninglessness or immorality of self. In terms of logic and understanding though, it quickly becomes a problem. Since these the "meaning maker" is developed and defined as the only way out of inadequacy, it cannot be subject to any sort of rejection or dismissal, to do so would be leave only a world of nihilism. When the time comes to pick out the mistakes or shortcomings of the heuristic, it point blank rejects it, for it would mean the collapse of the belief and it function and saviour.

Consider the account that intentional actions always have specific consequences. In terms of knowledge about how actions play out in the world, what does this give you? What more does it say than, for example, the truthful description that much of the time people reap what they sow, but on some occasions people get away with being horrible or that good people end up failing? It does nothing more than generate the awe-inspiring illusion that the world is always just or benefits people who are good. The image of being saved which doesn't allow any sort of correction, for it would mean losing it's role as saviour. If people can behave badly and benefit from it, there is no longer inspiration to the account that intentional actions always have specific consequences. My life and world will no longer necessarily be just by engaging in the belief or practice. Meaning is no longer made.

A lot of your issues with "eliminative materialism" aren't really about it's claims about the meaninglessness of experience. They actually have a wider scope, to the rejection of "meaning maker" heuristics and the problem of meaning. You are really concerned about The Death of God, not merely materialists who deny consciousness or nihilists who reject meaning. As such, you are actually turned against a wider range of metaphysics and description of the world than you think you are. Any time there is a critical description that challenges the affirmation of a "meaning maker" heuristic, you will reject the criticism, continuing to assert was identified as mistaken. Knowledge would destroy the "meaning maker."

A lot of your issues with "eliminative materialism" aren't really about it's claims about the meaninglessness of experience. They actually have a wider scope, to the rejection of "meaning maker" heuristics and the problem of meaning. You are really concerned about The Death of God, not merely materialists who deny consciousness or nihilists who reject meaning. As such, you are actually turned against a wider range of metaphysics and description of the world than you think you are. Any time there is a critical description that challenges the affirmation of a "meaning maker" heuristic, you will reject the criticism, continuing to assert was identified as mistaken. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Fair comment.