Apparently a large chunk of the brain is required for processing visual input.manas wrote:Yes, there is more to 'seeing' than it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233
Apparently a large chunk of the brain is required for processing visual input.manas wrote:Yes, there is more to 'seeing' than it seems.
Thanks for sharing David, it was a simple read. I wish I could find out for myself - that's the only way to cast out any doubts.David N. Snyder wrote:There was a pretty good blog post by Ven. Dhammika the other day about rebirth.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/03/t ... birth.html
I like how he presents the Buddhist concepts, issues with references to the Suttas, the Pali, and keeps it short and simple, to the point.
Thanks for that, David. I liked how he answered a "what is it that actually gets reborn?" question, from one of his readers:David N. Snyder wrote:There was a pretty good blog post by Ven. Dhammika the other day about rebirth.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/03/t ... birth.html
I like how he presents the Buddhist concepts, issues with references to the Suttas, the Pali, and keeps it short and simple, to the point.
A good analogy to give, and one that many folks out there might be able to relate with!Dear Ryan, I and other Buddhists have answered this question many, many times before, but I’m happy to do so again. However, I do find it curious that people think that identity is incompatible with change. Surely it is correct to say that Rome is 2500 years old despite the fact that the city changes every day. We have no problem at looking at a photo of ourselves taken in childhood and saying “That’s me” despite the fact that our size, shape, muscle tone, ideas, opinions, etc have completely changed since the photo was taken. The individual is like a football team founded 75 years ago. During that time hundreds of players have joined the team, played with it for five or ten years, left and been replaced by other players. Even though not one of the original players is still in the team or even alive, it is still valid to say that ‘the team’ exists. Its identity is recognizable despite the continual change. The players are hard, solid entities but what is the team’s identity made up of? Its name, memories of its past achievements, the feelings that the players and the supporters have towards it, its esprit de corps, etc. Individuals are the same. Despite the fact that both body and mind are continually changing, it is still valid to say that the person who is reborn is a continuation of the person who died - not because any unchanging self has passed from one to another but because identity persists in memories, dispositions, traits, mental habits and psychological tendencies.
I can say with some confidence that if I have not embraced a belief in rebirth, it is because I have yet to see a compelling reason put forward for believing in it. Not because of "skeptical doubt".mogg wrote:if people disbelieve, its only due to skeptical doubt which is one of the samyojanas.
Hi Lazy,Lazy_eye wrote:I agree partially with your opinion. But I don't think you're quite right about this point:
I can say with some confidence that if I have not embraced a belief in rebirth, it is because I have yet to see a compelling reason put forward for believing in it. Not because of "skeptical doubt".mogg wrote:if people disbelieve, its only due to skeptical doubt which is one of the samyojanas.
Suppose I were to say to you, "Friend Mogg, there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri which is inhabited by Greek and Roman gods, who teleported there during the reign of Constantine the Great. They also brought along all the centaurs and dryads."
Would you believe it? Not unless I offered you a convincing reason. And if I didn't, would your non-belief be due to "skeptical doubt"?
I agree with you, though, that rebirth is an essential Buddhist teaching (regardless of my own relationship to it).
There is also no compelling reason to believe humans have free will (there are scientific hypotheses that porpose that we do not have free will) or that we are all essentially equal or that democracy is a good political system.Lazy_eye wrote:I can say with some confidence that if I have not embraced a belief in rebirth, it is because I have yet to see a compelling reason put forward for believing in it. Not because of "skeptical doubt".
Suppose I were to say to you, "Friend Mogg, there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri which is inhabited by Greek and Roman gods, who teleported there during the reign of Constantine the Great. They also brought along all the centaurs and dryads."
Would you believe it? Not unless I offered you a convincing reason. And if I didn't, would your non-belief be due to "skeptical doubt"?
I agree with you, though, that rebirth is an essential Buddhist teaching (regardless of my own relationship to it).
Please post it or PM to me. So far I have seen zero evidence.mogg wrote:There is plenty of evidence for rebirth (unlike the example you likened it with) and it is a very logical proposition. IMO it is illogical to disbelieve rebirth based on the data we have available.
Reincarnation all over again
Last Thursday, ABC repeated its Primetime Thursday Special on Reincarnation, entitled “Back From the Dead”. This told the story of a little boy who appeared to be the reincarnation of an American World War II pilot shot down and killed by the Japanese. It seemed a pretty compelling story. From the ABC Primetime site:
From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.
"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told "Primetime Live" co-anchor Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."
Reality Check (sic)
Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.
At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.
But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.
Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."
(Snip)
Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair…
Looks pretty conclusive from the way it was presented on ABC, yes? Actually no. The TV company, looking for ratings rather than the truth, didn’t tell the full story. In particular, they missed this rather important piece of the timeline, as reported by the Pittsburgh Daily Courier:
At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft.
A few months later, the nightmares began.
(My bold. Note: this information came from the child’s mother.)
According to the ABC special, the child “was only watching kids' shows… and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history”. Really? Yet somehow they forgot to mention the WORLD WAR II AIR MUSEUM he had visited. Sheesh! Don’t you think that revealing this information might have made a slight difference to the story?
It gets worse:
Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.
With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started to become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.
(My bold.)
I’d like to suggest a slightly different version of this story that is entirely consistent with the facts, but doesn’t require us to believe the extraordinary claim of reincarnation.
Corsair1 It starts when this child’s parents take him to a WWII air museum. Now, the article says this was the “Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas”, but I presume it meant to say the Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas. And at this place they have on display a WWII Corsair (the plane James will later say he flew). According to the museum’s Corsair web page:
The famous gull-wing design of the F4U Corsair makes the plane one of the most distinctive fighters of World War II
This young boy, not unusually, is excited by the planes, and remembers the name of the distinctive Corsair he saw with the unusual gull-wing, plus many other details, including things his mother didn’t remember, such as these drop fuel tanks that are also displayed at the museum.
Naturally, this small boy was fascinated by warplanes and he remembered obscure details about them that his mother didn’t. Of course, he enjoyed showing off this knowledge to her, later.
However, although he was excited by the planes, the images of WWII battles also frightened him, and they soon began to give him nightmares about being trapped in a plane on fire.
This is when the real problem starts. The child’s grandmother, for no obvious rational reason I can think of, suggests he is remembering a past life. She brings in Carol Bowman (an author of several books on reincarnation), to “affirm” James' nightmares. (Bowman is said to have been influenced by Ian Stevenson – another reincarnation proponent who is known to ask leading questions of young children.) Bowman “encourages” James in his fantasies, also with leading questions. Unsurprisingly, the child cooperates in this fantasy building. After all, they’re telling him he was a real pilot.
The father then starts to research the story, obtaining and reading books on WWII fighter planes. While reading one of these books with his father, the child points to a picture of the distinctive Corsair he remembers from the museum and says, "that was my plane." At some point the child starts drawing pictures of planes, signing them "James 3" (his name is James).
During this time the parents buy him plane toys and read him plane books. From the TV program we know they bought him a toy plane big enough for him to sit in, and every shot showed him in pilot’s goggles or by a plane. Carol Bowman asked him leading questions and encouraged his fantasy at every turn. Being a young child, he loved making up fantasies of being a pilot, to go with the toys he had been given. But they were just stories.
Admittedly there appear to be a couple of inexplicable hits. First, the child said he flew off a boat. When asked the name of the boat he says "Natoma", and when asked the name of someone on the boat, he says "Jack Larson". While flipping through another book on WWII, James points at Iwo Jima and says that's where he got shot down. The father discovers there was a boat called the Natoma Bay, and finds there was only one Corsair pilot from this ship who was shot down at Iwo Jima, and his name was James M. Huston Jr. (So now they have an explanation of the "James 3" he keeps writing on his pictures, since "3rd" would come after "Jr.".) Also, John Larson turns out to be a real person who knew James M. Huston Jr.
But do these few apparent hits really need explaining? First, James is not an unusual name. Little James wrote his name on his pictures as most children would, but the “3” could mean anything (and we have no way of knowing if it was written before or after his father found out about James M. Huston Jr.).
Edited to add:
As pointed out by Tim in the comments below, James had just had his third birthday, so it is hardly surprising that he started to sign his pictures “James 3”; at least, we now have a prosaic explanation for “James 3”. And as another person commented, James the third should be written “James III” not “James 3”. In summary: "James 3" means nothing.
“Natoma” is the name of a ship he could no doubt have seen in one of his father’s books. But “Natoma” is not quite “Natoma Bay” - and did he say “Natoma” or just something similar? We’ll never know. Only “John Larson” can’t be explained easily. But even with this we really don’t know:
If James really said these words
If he was prompted
If he said it after his father had read the name to him, and the father’s timeline is confused
If he said something close that the father mis-remembered later when he read the name John Larson
How many other things the kid said over the course of four plus years that did not match up but that the parents have forgotten
Considering how his mother has apparently “forgotten” about the museum visit that started the whole thing off, I am disinclined to take either of James’ parents’ word for it that the child “remembered” these items exactly as claimed. This is hardly extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.
Paul Kurtz chairman of the Center for Inquiry and CSICOP, was briefly featured on the program saying he thinks the parents are self-deceived: “They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale". Yes, that sounds quite possible. Following this, a TV company interested more in ratings than the truth makes a sensationalist program about it, conveniently forgetting to mention the museum trip that actually started the whole thing off. And so another legend is born, to be added to the literature that supposedly shows reincarnation really happens, to be repeated ad nauseam by believers. Yawn.
Edited to add:
According to this source, James Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat, not a Corsair as little James “remembers”:
From July to September of 2000, James began to tell his parents that the plane in his nightmares was shot down by the Japanese after it had taken off from a ship on the water. When James was asked if he knew who the pilot was, he simply replied “James.”
Andrea asked James what type of plane he was flying in his dreams, and he said it was a “Corsair.”
(Snip)
After vigorously checking into the squadron’s aircraft action records, [James’ father] found out that Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat fighter plane – not a Corsair.
(My emphasis.)
Which is the more prosaic explanation:
James Huston was shot down in a Wildcat, and would only have had traumatic memories of being shot down / unable to get out of his Wildcat, yet inexplicably his reincarnated soul remembers being shot down in the Corsair, or
Little James only remembered the distinctive Corsair from the museum, and so only made up stories about the Corsair?
I suggest that people insisting in option 1 above are unnecessarily choosing the less parsimonious explanation.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... ion_a.html
Alex you are confusing the mind with the brain. They are two separate phenomena.Alex123 wrote:Please post it or PM to me. So far I have seen zero evidence.mogg wrote:There is plenty of evidence for rebirth (unlike the example you likened it with) and it is a very logical proposition. IMO it is illogical to disbelieve rebirth based on the data we have available.
To me, belief in rebirth is as justifiable as Christian belief in resurrection... I do try my best to believe in rebirth. But I fail...
It is strange how an adult person has difficulty remembering one's own childhood (one's own brain was not fully developed then so it was not as good at storing memories) , and yet we find the idea about memories of past lives (before this brain even existed) to be credible... Yeh, right.
Even if mind is caused by brain, when brain is gone, so is the mind.mogg wrote:Alex you are confusing the mind with the brain.
Then how do they interact? This is extremely tough question. I can expand on this.mogg wrote: They are two separate phenomena.
Hi Alex, your assumptions are incorrect. I recommend reading Dr Pim Van Lommel's Lancet paper on NDE.Alex123 wrote:Even if mind is caused by brain, when brain is gone, so is the mind.mogg wrote:Alex you are confusing the mind with the brain.
Then how do they interact? This is extremely tough question. I can expand on this.mogg wrote: They are two separate phenomena.
Regarding NDE: The problem is that NONE of those subjects actually died and were buried in cemetery. The modern medicine kept them from permanently dying.
Their brain was NOT destroyed, buried in the cemetery, etc. They recollected their visions when the brain resumed working.
I'll believe NDE-cases when a person is buried in the cemetery and comes to the people saying "I am alright!".
Then how come that when person takes enough alcohol, drugs, or brain is damaged due to disease - the mind ALWAYS changes?mogg wrote:Mind is NOT caused by the brain. The mind exists independent of the body.
Was the brain put back in? Again, the problem with NDE's is that person has not irreversibly died, the body was not cremated or decayed to dust in the grave.mogg wrote:There have been NDE cases where the patient's brain was removed from the body.
Alex, yet again you equate brain and mind, they are two separate things. A radio and radio signal are two separate things, yet if I smash the radio, the signal cannot be clearly processed. Its the same as your drug and alcohol example.Alex123 wrote:Then how come that when person takes enough alcohol, drugs, or brain is damaged due to disease - the mind ALWAYS changes?mogg wrote:Mind is NOT caused by the brain. The mind exists independent of the body.
Was the brain put back in? Again, the problem with NDE's is that person has not irreversibly died, the body was not cremated or decayed to dust in the grave.mogg wrote:There have been NDE cases where the patient's brain was removed from the body.
I would reject "brain -> mind" observation if a person could be fully conscious, be able to think, and fMRI (and similar machines) would show ZERO activity in the brain. Better yet, zero amount of brain tissue.
As for Ian Stevenson research: It is far from a proof, even as he himself admitted. Some cases could be like "James 3", and as most mystical explanation: those kids remembered someone ELSE'S life.