Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:There has been many reports of children with intimite knowledge from other people who have died 100 miles away, how can such knowlege pass to small children? Either fraud or is it real?

I would like you to debunk that.

Do you have links to any of these reports, or are they the reports of a friends 2nd cousin twice removed?

It is certainly difficult to debunk something if you don't know what it is that you are debunking.

thedoc wrote:

HexHammer wrote:There has been many reports of children with intimite knowledge from other people who have died 100 miles away, how can such knowlege pass to small children? Either fraud or is it real?

I would like you to debunk that.

Do you have links to any of these reports, or are they the reports of a friends 2nd cousin twice removed?

It is certainly difficult to debunk something if you don't know what it is that you are debunking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S_Tg4-_WVk
You must really have had your head far far up ur ass to avoid any such stories, not that I find them highly credible, but still the thought linger.

HexHammer wrote: You must really have had your head far far up ur ass to avoid any such stories,

Excellent, Vulgar abuse, certainly encourages others to respond, or not.

I must remember to log on when I come here, it engages the ignore feature.

BTW, there are several possibilities to explain the child's knowledge, other than reincarnation.

thedoc wrote:BTW, there are several possibilities to explain the child's knowledge, other than reincarnation.

Then please englighten me oh wise one!

I see.

So another promising topic dies on the horns of puerile speculations and scurrilous personal abuse. How encouraging.

My thanks to the participants in the last three pages of posts. You have conducted a discussion with intellectual integrity and interpersonal civility. You've remained kind and focused on what matters, whether you agreed or not. You're what philosophy is all about. I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes.

Immanuel Can wrote:I see.

So another promising topic dies on the horns of puerile speculations and scurrilous personal abuse. How encouraging.

My thanks to the participants in the last three pages of posts. You have conducted a discussion with intellectual integrity and interpersonal civility. You've remained kind and focused on what matters, whether you agreed or not. You're what philosophy is all about. I tip my hat to you.

What wisdom have they actually provided to this thread?

Immanuel Can wrote:I see.

So another promising topic dies on the horns of puerile speculations and scurrilous personal abuse. How encouraging.

My thanks to the participants in the last three pages of posts. You have conducted a discussion with intellectual integrity and interpersonal civility. You've remained kind and focused on what matters, whether you agreed or not. You're what philosophy is all about. I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes.

You're welcome, glad to be of service.

"I would like you to debunk that."

When you offer up 'credible' evidence, I'll give it a shot.

henry quirk wrote:"I would like you to debunk that."

When you offer up 'credible' evidence, I'll give it a shot.

What do you really consider "credible" evidence?

Well, as I say up-thread: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not sure what any one could pony up as credible evidence of reincarnation or reincarnated information.

I am sure a little movie offa YouTube doesn't cut it.

henry quirk wrote:Well, as I say up-thread: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not sure what any one could pony up as credible evidence of reincarnation or reincarnated information.

I am sure a little movie offa YouTube doesn't cut it.

Out in the real world, cops goes by "gut feel" and a "hunch".

Scientists goes by theories and thesis.

Baby huggers (politicians) goes by popular opinion no matter how absurd and stupid it is.

Mr quirk goes ONLY by solid evidence, yet I see each week science articles being rewritten due to new findings that contradicts the former, so that is hardly a relevant factor.

Cops may start with a hunch (based on the information available to them at the time) but they'll never make an arrest stick without evidence in keeping with the crime.

Scientists theorize (based on the information available to them at the time) and experiment (look for evidence) to support or discount those theories.

My hunch, my theory, (based on what’s available to me now) is there is no such thing as reincarnation or reincarnated information.

I await evidence my hunch is wrong.

*shrug*

henry quirk wrote:Cops may start with a hunch (based on the information available to them at the time) but they'll never make an arrest stick without evidence in keeping with the crime.

Scientists theorize (based on the information available to them at the time) and experiment (look for evidence) to support or discount those theories.

My hunch, my theory, (based on what’s available to me now) is there is no such thing as reincarnation or reincarnated information.

I await evidence my hunch is wrong.

So cops only arrest people? ..that's new to me. I thought they also brought in people for questioning, or searching for evidence.

No, sometimes they have to start from scratch, when their previous theories or laws doesn't make sense, hence the term "invention" and "pioneering".

I'm sure you know the term "black hole" and Steve Hawkings, he said that information is preserved when an astronaut falls into a black hole, why shouldn't information also be preserved at death? ..maybe not all of it, but partially?

therammo wrote:If we live in a multiverse that indicates eternal inflation, does it mean we actually live over and over again the same life?

Sorry if it was hard to understand or just bad grammar, english is not my main language.

Greetings

We are on a balloon that is inflating. Do balloons live again? I don't know why you are asking this question.
Hurry up! You balloon will burst one day and that will be the end of you.
So stop dreaming and start living.

The reason I stopped by this thread is because of two reason. I thought the OP was about Nietzsche, and his notion of the Eternal Recurrence(ER), and because in the USA it is Groundhog Day.

Groundhog Day (the film) is the best explanation of the meaning of the ER.
Nietzsche was not a spiritualist, mystic or theist. He did not believe in any kind of re-incarnation, soul, or eternity.
The nut-case brigade often seize on the ER as some sort of support for a wacky theory of eternal life, or re-incarnation. This is a total misconception.

The whole of the idea of ER can be encapsulated in a single idea: Live your life as if you did so with maximal knowledge. In the film Groundhog Day, Bill Murray lives a day again and again until he gets it right; flawless.
Nietzsche uses ER to demands that we do not live life, like a pathetic Christian as if it were some sort of rehearsal. There is no heaven, no reward in Nietzsche's world, and when we live it had better be done right, as if we had to face the day eternally, as if we had to endlessly repeat that life the same way. He asks simply would you live your life again repeating the same dumb mistakes again and again?
No you must live your life the best you can.
There is nothing more to the ER.