6 ms·

Hacker irked by reincarnation

30 points by joeyespo 14y ago

thaumaturgy 14y ago
The essence here really has nothing to do with reincarnation, but rather that a researcher has met the most basic scientific criteria in an area of research, and their research has been altogether dismissed anyway. That's a fair criticism of the current scientific community, but I suspect that nothing can be done about it without huge cultural changes, at least in the U.S. Strong refutation of someone's research would require a great deal of research and resources. For that work to become notable in the scientific community, it would typically be supported either by a university or by a respected private organization. In the university environment, a researcher would be strongly advised against pursuing topics like the investigation of the paranormal. They would be warned that they would be jeopardizing their career; they should go and work instead on some other subject, especially something that's a current hot topic that might lead to some solid funding. In private industry, if there isn't any money to be made from it, it won't be pursued. It's not altogether unlike the startup community. I have trouble imagining YC accepting a team that seriously proposed to develop, say, an entirely new operating system from scratch (unless perhaps it was already half complete, and that would be cheating in this case). "Who would use it?" "How will you make money?" "You seem like a great team, why don't you do X instead?" There seems to be very little space available right now for people who want to devote lots of resources to pursuing something for curiosity's sake.
- drewcrawford 14y ago
  There exist people who write operating systems purely for curiosity's sake. This is essentially the story of Linux. But it doesn't make sense to advocate funding these ventures. The people who are motivated purely by curiosity will by definition not be motivated by funding. No amount of funding would produce a second Linux. In fact, too much funding might have distracted Linus into working on something else instead. If you're really passionate about something, you figure out how to do it. Maybe you moonlight, or do it part-time, maybe you save up for a few years and cash out. But I think any software developer who feels that he cannot pursue a software project because of lack of funding needs either a reality check or a career change.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    > For that work to become notable in the scientific community, it would typically be supported either by a university or by a respected private organization.
cup 14y ago
To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science except in non-scientists. In my opinion science, the thing we do to further humanities knowledge, is deeply flawed, unnecessarily complicated and painfully dirty. Let me provide a few examples: The "3 year degree". When I finished my three year Science degree I looked back on my time not with pride but rather disdain and anger. I felt like the work I had done to achieve the piece of paper my degree was written on did not warrant three years of my life. I felt like if the university gave me the opportunity, I could have completed my degree in a year, with full time or over time studying. That being said I had the luxury of living in a country with free or freeish education. Don't even get me started on PhDs and postdocs. Science funding: While science is supposed to be impartial, illuminating and free for all it sadly isnt. Pharmaceutical companies pay big money to get results that allow them bring drugs on the market. I'm not suggesting there methods are corrupt, far from it, but the fact that they have a vested financial interest in results steers there line of thinking so that any scientific discoveries that arn't beneficial to drug x are shelved. PhD students who are supported with financial grants are also impended by NDA paperwork and a wall of patent/commercial impediments. The point I'm making is that It's not suprising people lose faith in science when they start to look beyond the superficial layers. Science is difficult, confusing and complicated but It's also essential, It's also wonderful and It's also fundamental for human society. The problem though (at least it appears to me) is that in many ways there is a huge disconnect between cutting edge science/peer review articles and the general public. I've been thinking about what to do to plug that gap and make science more accessible to people without requiring 5 years of studying but thats another story all together.
- dhechols 14y ago
  > To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent without a shred of observable evidence? > Science is difficult, confusing and complicated. Science is cherry pie compared to trying to appease some mystical, invisible, unobserable, unknowable, all-powerful, imaginary god.
dhechols 14y ago
The "evidence" here is that children "said words" and "did things" that made it seem like they were "reincarnated". Also there are some anecdotal cases of injuries other people had turing into birth defects / birth marks for other people... Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".
- derpmeister 14y ago
  Inception.
- nodemaker 14y ago
  Not that I believe in re-incarnation, but nonetheless your argument is misleading. Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?
  - simonh 14y ago
    What Ian Stevenson collected were anecdotes, not evidence. Evidence would be statistically significant instances of characteristics, not transmittable through any other mechanism , verified against a control group. He never even proposed a mechanism for transmission that someone might actually investigate, or even prove or disprove, let alone actually conduct anything resembling a real test or experiment himself.
    - nodemaker 14y ago
      Yes I agree with your first statement.But then IMO one doesn'nt need to propose a mechanism for a phenomena in order to prove that the phenomena exists. Just statistically significant positive results balanced against a control group is enough.
emilchacko 14y ago
I personally feel that there is no need of any sort of 'scientific' investigations into reincarnation,because these things where already researched by buddists and hindus and several other religions.Just reading their literature can give enough insight on reincarnation.For those interested: Astavarka Gita : - https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxqQEtWMi5dZHekXvvrTegKutnzEKfs8P7hb&authkey=CJ-cx_IK https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxq... Raja Yoga :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatEbV6ut5XZENjs8BYEaYFIcwozdfpnyHOS9 https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatE... Tao Te Ching :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-9QKs865JUqzcNqe-K-shRK-X-IIfdhBks https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-... The above books are not directly related to reincarnation. On reincanation you can read "tibetan book of the dead"
- mping 14y ago
  Although I see your point, I'm not sure that most of the hackers here would agree with you. It's almost like there was a different universe where this universe's physics laws would not apply. People cannot grasp physics in this new universe if they try to use the same methods from their known universe. Science, currently, has no way to "prove" reincarnation because its current paradigm cannot support a way for reincarnation to work. Lukcily, we don't need science to prove EVERYTHING to know that something's true or false ;)
avstraliitski 14y ago
Buddha's take: don't believe anything because it is written in your religious texts, handed down by your parents or teachers. Instead, after consideration, should something accord with your own experience, then and only then accept it. Incidentally, as far as the earliest records we have, the historical Buddha is also known to have taken an approach of dissuading the pondering of unanswerable questions, as a waste of valuable time.
yesbutwhy 14y ago
The problem with life before birth (edit:you know what I ment) or after death is that I am the sum of my memories, evolutionary quirks and my bodies interaction with the world. If I don't remember a past life - even in the unlikely event that it was a real thing - that wasn't me, that was someone else. If you agree with the basic facts used to justify that, but not the conclusion, I'd appreciate any feedback. Likewise if you disagree with the whole thing. Still working on this one.
olavk 14y ago
The blogger claims that the research was ignored without any consideration, but comments points out that the research have been considered, but rejected as pseudoscience.
- yaniv_aknin 14y ago
  And I replied to the comment: I’m not happy with the ‘bunch of scientists claiming crazy stuff’ bit. I’m especially unhappy about these scientists still teaching classes, or worse, leading sections of hospitals. If they are correct, let’s research this more. If they are not, let’s have a proper refute and be done with it. If their research and methodology are ‘so flawed as not to be worthy of a proper refute’, why does anyone publish their papers and why aren’t they promptly thrown out of their respective academic organizations? meh. I guess I should get back to Pythoneering.
bfrs 14y ago
Reincarnation, telepathy, extra sensory perception etc. are pipe dreams for us, but ironically, for AIs that we build, they will be routine! Current operating systems are like rudimentary souls, and any OS routinely uses these capabilities: Rebooting <-> Reincarnation Networking <-> Telepathy USB devices <-> Extrasensory perception Andy Tannenbaum's MINIX-3 explicitly calls rebooting as reincarnation. Future AIs will have Thompson & Ritchie to thank for making flexible reincarnation possible for them.

30 points by joeyespo 14y ago

The essence here really has nothing to do with reincarnation, but rather that a researcher has met the most basic scientific criteria in an area of research, and their research has been altogether dismissed anyway. That's a fair criticism of the current scientific community, but I suspect that nothing can be done about it without huge cultural changes, at least in the U.S. Strong refutation of someone's research would require a great deal of research and resources. For that work to become notable in the scientific community, it would typically be supported either by a university or by a respected private organization. In the university environment, a researcher would be strongly advised against pursuing topics like the investigation of the paranormal. They would be warned that they would be jeopardizing their career; they should go and work instead on some other subject, especially something that's a current hot topic that might lead to some solid funding. In private industry, if there isn't any money to be made from it, it won't be pursued. It's not altogether unlike the startup community. I have trouble imagining YC accepting a team that seriously proposed to develop, say, an entirely new operating system from scratch (unless perhaps it was already half complete, and that would be cheating in this case). "Who would use it?" "How will you make money?" "You seem like a great team, why don't you do X instead?" There seems to be very little space available right now for people who want to devote lots of resources to pursuing something for curiosity's sake.

drewcrawford 14y ago
There exist people who write operating systems purely for curiosity's sake. This is essentially the story of Linux. But it doesn't make sense to advocate funding these ventures. The people who are motivated purely by curiosity will by definition not be motivated by funding. No amount of funding would produce a second Linux. In fact, too much funding might have distracted Linus into working on something else instead. If you're really passionate about something, you figure out how to do it. Maybe you moonlight, or do it part-time, maybe you save up for a few years and cash out. But I think any software developer who feels that he cannot pursue a software project because of lack of funding needs either a reality check or a career change.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  > For that work to become notable in the scientific community, it would typically be supported either by a university or by a respected private organization.

cup 14y ago

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science except in non-scientists. In my opinion science, the thing we do to further humanities knowledge, is deeply flawed, unnecessarily complicated and painfully dirty. Let me provide a few examples: The "3 year degree". When I finished my three year Science degree I looked back on my time not with pride but rather disdain and anger. I felt like the work I had done to achieve the piece of paper my degree was written on did not warrant three years of my life. I felt like if the university gave me the opportunity, I could have completed my degree in a year, with full time or over time studying. That being said I had the luxury of living in a country with free or freeish education. Don't even get me started on PhDs and postdocs. Science funding: While science is supposed to be impartial, illuminating and free for all it sadly isnt. Pharmaceutical companies pay big money to get results that allow them bring drugs on the market. I'm not suggesting there methods are corrupt, far from it, but the fact that they have a vested financial interest in results steers there line of thinking so that any scientific discoveries that arn't beneficial to drug x are shelved. PhD students who are supported with financial grants are also impended by NDA paperwork and a wall of patent/commercial impediments. The point I'm making is that It's not suprising people lose faith in science when they start to look beyond the superficial layers. Science is difficult, confusing and complicated but It's also essential, It's also wonderful and It's also fundamental for human society. The problem though (at least it appears to me) is that in many ways there is a huge disconnect between cutting edge science/peer review articles and the general public. I've been thinking about what to do to plug that gap and make science more accessible to people without requiring 5 years of studying but thats another story all together.

dhechols 14y ago
> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent and omnipresent without a shred of observable evidence? > Science is difficult, confusing and complicated. Science is cherry pie compared to trying to appease some mystical, invisible, unobserable, unknowable, all-powerful, imaginary god.

dhechols 14y ago

The "evidence" here is that children "said words" and "did things" that made it seem like they were "reincarnated". Also there are some anecdotal cases of injuries other people had turing into birth defects / birth marks for other people... Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".

derpmeister 14y ago
Inception.
nodemaker 14y ago
Not that I believe in re-incarnation, but nonetheless your argument is misleading. Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?
- simonh 14y ago
  What Ian Stevenson collected were anecdotes, not evidence. Evidence would be statistically significant instances of characteristics, not transmittable through any other mechanism , verified against a control group. He never even proposed a mechanism for transmission that someone might actually investigate, or even prove or disprove, let alone actually conduct anything resembling a real test or experiment himself.
  - nodemaker 14y ago
    Yes I agree with your first statement.But then IMO one doesn'nt need to propose a mechanism for a phenomena in order to prove that the phenomena exists. Just statistically significant positive results balanced against a control group is enough.

emilchacko 14y ago

I personally feel that there is no need of any sort of 'scientific' investigations into reincarnation,because these things where already researched by buddists and hindus and several other religions.Just reading their literature can give enough insight on reincarnation.For those interested: Astavarka Gita : - https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxqQEtWMi5dZHekXvvrTegKutnzEKfs8P7hb&authkey=CJ-cx_IK https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxq... Raja Yoga :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatEbV6ut5XZENjs8BYEaYFIcwozdfpnyHOS9 https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatE... Tao Te Ching :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-9QKs865JUqzcNqe-K-shRK-X-IIfdhBks https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-... The above books are not directly related to reincarnation. On reincanation you can read "tibetan book of the dead"

mping 14y ago
Although I see your point, I'm not sure that most of the hackers here would agree with you. It's almost like there was a different universe where this universe's physics laws would not apply. People cannot grasp physics in this new universe if they try to use the same methods from their known universe. Science, currently, has no way to "prove" reincarnation because its current paradigm cannot support a way for reincarnation to work. Lukcily, we don't need science to prove EVERYTHING to know that something's true or false ;)

avstraliitski 14y ago

Buddha's take: don't believe anything because it is written in your religious texts, handed down by your parents or teachers. Instead, after consideration, should something accord with your own experience, then and only then accept it. Incidentally, as far as the earliest records we have, the historical Buddha is also known to have taken an approach of dissuading the pondering of unanswerable questions, as a waste of valuable time.

yesbutwhy 14y ago

The problem with life before birth (edit:you know what I ment) or after death is that I am the sum of my memories, evolutionary quirks and my bodies interaction with the world. If I don't remember a past life - even in the unlikely event that it was a real thing - that wasn't me, that was someone else. If you agree with the basic facts used to justify that, but not the conclusion, I'd appreciate any feedback. Likewise if you disagree with the whole thing. Still working on this one.

olavk 14y ago

The blogger claims that the research was ignored without any consideration, but comments points out that the research have been considered, but rejected as pseudoscience.

yaniv_aknin 14y ago
And I replied to the comment: I’m not happy with the ‘bunch of scientists claiming crazy stuff’ bit. I’m especially unhappy about these scientists still teaching classes, or worse, leading sections of hospitals. If they are correct, let’s research this more. If they are not, let’s have a proper refute and be done with it. If their research and methodology are ‘so flawed as not to be worthy of a proper refute’, why does anyone publish their papers and why aren’t they promptly thrown out of their respective academic organizations? meh. I guess I should get back to Pythoneering.

bfrs 14y ago

Reincarnation, telepathy, extra sensory perception etc. are pipe dreams for us, but ironically, for AIs that we build, they will be routine! Current operating systems are like rudimentary souls, and any OS routinely uses these capabilities: Rebooting <-> Reincarnation Networking <-> Telepathy USB devices <-> Extrasensory perception Andy Tannenbaum's MINIX-3 explicitly calls rebooting as reincarnation. Future AIs will have Thompson & Ritchie to thank for making flexible reincarnation possible for them.