Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Reincarnation. Message-ID: <676@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 13:27:26 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.676 Posted: Thu Oct 3 13:27:26 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 06:49:50 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 48 Actually, to complicate the issue somewhat, there IS objective evidence (I said evidence, NOT proof) for reincarnation. The most complete body of such evidence that I know of can be found in the following books. All are by Dr. Ian Stevenson, all are published by the University Press of Virginia. _Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation_, 1980 _Cases of the Reincarnation Type_ ... _Vol. 1: Ten Cases in India_, 1975 _Vol. 2: Ten Cases in Sri Lanka_, 1978 _Vol. 3: Twelve Cases in Lebanon & Turkey_, 1980 _Vol. 4: Twelve Cases in Thailand & Burma_, 1983 I must admit that I have only skimmed these books, and read papers which discussed them. What they deal with are cases where a small child appears to have memories which "belong" to some deceased person. Such stories are, of course, common and are very poor evidence. These cases have, however, been carefully investigated: extensive interviews with everyone involved, claims checked and compared, possible ways the child could have learned the relevant facts investigated. The result is a body of case reports, the "simplest", most straight-forward explanation for which is reincarnation. The problem is, of course, that there are other, more complex explanations. If reincarnation is considered a priori "not unlikely", then this would probably be good enough evidence to establish it as "scientific fact." This is relevant to the discussion of Occam's razor: which is multiplying the number of entities more; reincarnation, which seems to contradict a number of successful metaphysical world-views (Materialism and variants); or the materialist alternate theories which involve assuming, without independent evidence, such entities as widespread, complex conspiracies, created for no noticeable gain? My own belief? Thank you for asking. I am a materialist who believes that there are certain as yet unexplained, but ultimately physically explainable, phenomena which are referred to as psi. I think that these cases illustrate an aspect of psi (specifically ESP), which is, that under completely unknown conditions, it manifests at a level much higher than has ever been demonstrated in the laboratory. This is known in parapsychology as the "super-psi" hypothesis. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com