Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum WILLpower. The Birth of a New Science? Yes, or no?

THE BIRTH OF A NEW SCIENCE?

The thread is based on professor Roy Baumeister’s book: WILLPOWER—Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (2011).

The book was given to me for Christmas, 2011 by my three very perceptive grandchildren—then 16, 20, & 23. I read it--and I underlined it as I did so, as soon as I could; and I have been studying it ever since. Here is a review from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/...?pagewanted=all

In addition to facts listed in the following link—
http://www.ideafit.com/library/how-to-strengthen-willpower-part-1 — those which I found with the help of my personal experiences and those which I found in a search for other links on the topic--I also add that I am having lots of fun using my personal supply of WILLpower.

BTW, in addition to the above, I found that this information continues to help me to further the rediscovery of “the Greatest Human Strength” which the ancient Greeks called agape—the highest and moral good for all of us, without any negative-emotions and other such limiting conditions.

There have been 57 hits. Is no one interested in answering the question? Or making a comment?

It generally leads to you wanting to bring the attention to yourself...., your beliefs, your biography etc. etc.
Your quote regarding Agape is not a word one would normally use to describe willpower but rather a condition of mind or state of being that is without conditions or conditioning. Willpower applied to the conditioned mind is inclusive of attachments, beliefs, opinions and conditioning.

Baumeister is a psychologist...

The word "psychology" is the combination of two terms - study (ology) and soul (psyche), or mind. The derivation of the word from Latin gives it this clear and obvious meaning:

The study of the soul or mind.

This meaning has been altered over the years until today, this is not what the word means at all. The subject of psychology, as studied in colleges and universities, currently has very little to do with the mind, and absolutely nothing to do with the soul or spirit.

It is important to understand that words and ideas are supposed to refer to something. "The large tree in the front yard" refers to an actual thing that can be seen, touched and experienced. "The man walking his little dog last night at sunset" refers to an actual event that can be seen, observed and experienced. The realm of mind is an actual realm that can be experienced, and at one time there were words that accurately referred to this realm.

Let's see what a few dictionaries have to say and how a word could alter and lose its true and actual meaning.

"Psyche" is defined as:

1. The spirit or soul.
2. The human mind.
3. In psychoanalysis, the mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior.

And defining "soul", we have:

1. the spiritual or immortal elements in a person.
2. a person's mental or moral or emotional nature.

Most of us would agree we have a "psyche" per the above definitions in the sense of mind, thought, and emotions. Most would also agree they have a "soul" per the second definition above relating to man's mental, moral or emotional nature. We might all have different notions about what these ultimately are, but few could sanely disagree they exist.

The derivation of "psyche" comes from Latin and the Greek psukhe - breath, life, soul. To get a better "feel" for this term try to think of it as the invisible animating principle or entity that occupies, interacts with and directs the physical body.

The following is from Wiki:

The word psychology literally means, "study of the soul" psukhe;, meaning "breath", "spirit", or "soul"; and -logos, translated as "study of" or "research"[10]).[11] The Latin word psychologia was first used by the Croatian humanist and Latinist Marko Marulic; in his book, Psichiologia de ratione animae humanae in the late 15th century or early 16th century.[12] The earliest known reference to the word psychology in English was by Steven Blankaart in 1694 in The Physical Dictionary which refers to "Anatomy, which treats of the Body, and Psychology, which treats of the Soul
10. ^ Psychology
11. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary. (2001). "Psychology".
^ "Classics in the History of Psychology – Marko Marulic – 12. The Author of the Term "Psychology"". Psychclassics.yorku.ca. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
13. ^ (Steven Blankaart, p. 13) as quoted in "psychology n." A Dictionary of Psychology. Edited by Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press 2009. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. oxfordreference.com

Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not an objective science. Other concepts that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured[70] and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic.
70. ^ Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 9.
----------------------------------
Getting back to your quote, and the claim that willpower furthers your rediscovery of Agape.

1. One cannot will away conditioning. Self hypnosis (positive affirmations) does not remove stress or belief, it can only add an idea conjured from the existing foundation of belief.
Nothing changes until the subjective and objective mind can experience something superior to the stress or beliefs within the psychological profile of personal opinion and belief (which is constantly changing).

2. The conditioned mind steps outward from belief and experience. If one believes love looks a certain way, then his will is powered by that belief, not necessarily a universal and objective platform encompassing a unity of all beliefs. Personal opinions about ones self and reality are going to be the foundation of outward projections in thought and action.

3. The soul cannot be measured. It cannot be contained. And there is no general blueprint or standard for what is called humanity. These words are descriptive to a point and because humanity is continually redefining itself, to say the study of the human soul can be scientifically quantified is going to be subjective.
The soul is beyond all boundaries of subjectivity and the power of will as a subject cannot be standardized, predicted, or qualified other than thru the subjective mind of one who is bound by beliefs and conditioning. To diagnose the soul and prescribe a cure to a condition is outside of the rationale of science. It is more akin to witchcraft, illusion and dementia.
It would be more likely that a relationship to the ineffable soul could be experienced, rather than the soul itself.
All experiences are but reflections of conditioning and identification with reality thru psychological reference points gathered from the personal value systems which are attached to the past. To say one can experience the soul in the present moment without having any conditioning based on personal beliefs would be a stretch of the mind. How would one decide for themselves that they do not in fact carry any influences of past experiences and beliefs regarding who and what they are in relationship to the soul?
You can say to yourself, " I choose to be without influence of my past" but that does not make it so.

Since every individual has a relationship with destiny (due to personal preconceptions of future idealism), it is only the religious who continually attempt to define the principles of God and to define what the relationship to God is from the platform of the human soul.
The religious do this strictly to protect their beliefs and to justify their lives due to the fear of having an end to their lives without some standard to measure that one's life has being successful or not, or that it can qualified as good or bad. Which is why so much focus is given to the rewards of good behavior in some kind of afterlife.
In that respect the preacher attempts to corral as many as he can that will corroborate the terms of reality to help substantiate his own beliefs, so as to give meaning to the personal choices one makes. The numbers give one satisfaction that ones thinking is sound.
However that didn't necessarily work when the numbers insisted that the world was flat, did it.

The idea of creating the perfect life is subjective and generally spurred by fear of failure, and ones own self judgments. The need to be able to substantiate ones will and its power comes from the idea that one is without some symbiotic resonance to the inner force that leads one thru life to their destiny, because of the belief in being victim to a power greater than their own choice and outside of themselves.

Once one realizes that there is nothing other than that which is the result of ones choices, focusing on improving the power of choice is going to be a moot point if nothing within the psychological profile of belief has changed.
It becomes tantamount to straining while taking a crap, rather than simply relaxing and letting what happens naturally just happen.

If one does not become more conscious, then subjecting the unconscious (ignorant) mind with all of its habits to be more forceful when making unconscious (ignorant) choices, only results in similar action and results.

Hitler is a great example of willpower. His mind was saturated with his own projections of reality, and he was capable of influencing others to a point. That point led to war and genocide. Teaching just anyone to forcefully project their ideals is going to be subject to ones state of mind and their relationship with self and humanity.
It's like the parent telling the son to man up! The child does not live the parents beliefs, and if they are lucky, they won't adopt them and live their life for their parents.

You Reverend, have a relationship with yourself and the ideal you wish everyone to see. So did the Church and it had its definitions of good and God, same as you.

That is what you bring to this form and to every other thread I have read.

Probably why few respond after reading your posts, and why those who do respond fall away and discontinue their dialogue with you. You don't bring anything other than your belief of reality to your threads, and tho you say you want to dialogue, what you really mean is you want to talk about yourself.

You should really get honest and just start a thread that is titled, "ME" with the following subtitle..
"Lets talk about me!"

It's all Greek to me!

"all Greek"? Bill S? Surely with our commonly-held British-cultural backbround, we both readily agree that we owe a lot to what the Latin, and many other cultures, past and present, have done to enrich our modern British one.
======================
But staying on this science-based topic, may I ask: Do scientists, and others interested in science who are a part of this science forum, agree that the extensive research on "willpower ... ", by Roy Baumeister and his colleagues, has brought to humanity a valid and important new science?

Is it, as he calls it, "the greatest human strength"?
Note that he does not use the term "animal" or, "psychological strength".

A friend sent me this example of what human willpower can do, when it is focussed. Amazing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RqAdoin8z28

What kind of strength if not psychological or physical. How does one focus something that is not part of either the psychological function of the mind and its connection with the physical?

How is it that playing with the diablo is non psychological or connected to animal strength. What is animal strength? Is it something to be reckoned with and is it part or not part of being human? What is being human?


You precede the question of whether it is science by stating that it is science based. Nice touch. Just how did you determine that?

But to answer your question: NO! Not as you present it.
What kind of science do you suppose it is? What is the focus on if it is not either psychological or animal strength?

What is will and how do you identify it as other than a thought?

Bill, as I understand your questions they have more to do with philosophy than science or art. As I said I would, here are my answers:
As a child, like our pre-scientific ancestors, I thought of the earth as flat and steady. What I saw was, for me and our ancestors, all there is. And, from our point of view it was the sun, moon and stars that moved. Later, science and education changed all that, and a whole lot more. Is the universe rotating? If so, in what is it rotating? What I call G~O~D? Is that a rhetorical question--one to which you know the answer? What do the physicists--the micro and macro cosmologists who operate the LHCollider--tell us at the point?

Then you comment: Is this your answer? Do you, and should we? What is the "everything else"?

LHC experiments bring new insight into matter of the primordial universe

Geneva, 13 August 2012. Experiments using heavy ions at CERN1’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are advancing understanding of the primordial universe. The ALICE, ATLAS and CMS collaborations have made new measurements of the kind of matter that probably existed in the first instants of the universe. They will present their latest results at the Quark Matter 2012 conference, which starts today in Washington DC. The new findings are based mainly on the four-week LHC run with lead ions in 2011, during which the experiments collected 20 times more data than in 2010.

Just after the big bang, quarks and gluons – basic building blocks of matter – were not confined inside composite particles such as protons and neutrons, as they are today. Instead, they moved freely in a state of matter known as "quark–gluon plasma". Collisions of lead ions in the LHC, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, recreate for a fleeting moment conditions similar to those of the early universe. By examining a billion or so of these collisions, the experiments have been able to make more precise measurements of the properties of matter under these extreme conditions.

“The field of heavy-ion physics is crucial for probing the properties of matter in the primordial universe, one of the key questions of fundamental physics that the LHC and its experiments are designed to address...."

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR21.12E.html

Oh lackaday!
How sad to say,
My little quip profound
Did lose its way
And go astray,
And fall on stony ground.

Once again.. the Reverend takes a detour from the topic of discussion. Shocker!

Talk about the AMAZING power of the WILL, my Uke friend taught me this one. I think I know the solution. Anyone already know? https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/13963deabf18b0e0

Someone will probably point out that will power and mind power are not necessarily the same thing, but I thought this was interesting, anyway.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beat...prosthetic-leg/

BTW Rev, did you realise that the link in your post above takes each person to her/his own email account. I guess that was not your original intention.

Are you aware that the link you provided goes to a subscription selling page? I'm sure that's not what you intended.

Absolutely! That was not what I intended. I don't know how that happened - age, technical ignorance or something.

I'll try again:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beat...prosthetic-leg/

I tried it, and although the link looks the same, this time it took me to the right place. I hope it does the same for others.

Great story Bill S. That would have required so much dedication from everyone, but the motivation would have been strong I think.

Is motivation the same as will power? I don't think so. Motivation has a clear goal, will-power is less focus oriented. A two year od has will-power. Lots and lots of it. Sometimes focussed-- mostly not!

I do not think that will power is a new science. Will power is a personality trait--- we may as well state that Kindness is a new science. Exactly the same type of argument could be made. After all maybe those neutrons and protons are budging over out of kindness towards each other and giving them a fair go!

What a great story! When I first read it I thought they meant he had climbed up the outside of the building. Now I see that they meant climbing the stairs, of course. That is a great accomplishment. Maybe we will see more of these "Mind controlled" artificial limbs in the near future. Thanks for sharing.

That would be what spiritual teachings say about consciousness. The level of the ego, or state of consciousness limits or expands the power of will, according to the foundations of belief, experience and self identification.

What one imagines within the box of reality one prescribes to may not be what exists outside of the box. Which is why an entire planet of people could not will the earth to be flat when it is round.

So when it comes to imagining ones self into experiencing realities that are unable to be supported by natural laws, there will be a tension of sorts, where the greater reality will win out over the imagined one.

As long as one understands the nature of reality, what can be created within the laws of nature will be supported, as long as one has some familiarity with nature and its laws.

TT- How about those realities that are induced by chemical states? Are they not real? Does not reality rely on perception for validation, no matter where it comes from.

Chemicals are a time honoured way of inducing alternate realities. The Delphic Oracle was high as a kite when she gave hr predictions and sayings, which were acted on by powerful people prepared to give them reality.

Modern examples can easily be found. The numbers of people who share the realities of various gurus are everywhere. There are plenty of people living in fear of the world's ending next month. For them the prediction is a reality and they have their well-stocked cellars to prove it.

For them it may be reality-- but is it science?

I feel the same way about the 'reality' of the science of will power. Can it be a science? I think not.

Altered perceptions of reality do not make reality do they? If everyone believes the world is flat, and that belief creates the delusional experience of a flat world, does that make it so?
If an atom is 99,9999% empty space, then what does one see that is real?

In the perceptions of reality what is seen, and what can be seen, might depend on the state of the mind and body.

What does an innocent child see of the world when there is no experience or understanding of the relative values that the adult has accepted, thru the programs and influences of those who have gone before the child, projecting what is defined as reality?
If physics tells us that what we see is what we choose to see, then is the underlying reality what we project, or is what we choose to project as our own illusion and interpretation based on the chemically produced state of mind that is our current state of awareness in consciousness?

You are familiar with three states of consciousness, sleeping dreaming and waking. Each of those states of consciousness can be defined by their subjective and objective experiences. What makes them similar to everyone is the broad perspective of similarities, yet no two people experience these states with the exact same experiences. Each individual has their own unique perspective.

In higher states of consciousness the individual perspective is going to be similar in the fact that each perspective of reality will still be inclusive of those relative belief systems and their objective experiences.

Even a drug induced experience which pierces veils of subjective determinations are rapidly fit within the walls of the established box of the ego and its ideal perception of itself, if those walls are not taken down and expanded beyond the level of the current state of mind and body that is the egoic waking state perception of reality.

Sharing perceptions of realities require the direct experience. Sharing beliefs requires no effort at all other than to accept the personal projection of another thoughts as they are interpreted thru the ego and the present nervous system.

Fear is created from illusions that are the projections of future moments initiated by the perceptions of reality in the limited awareness and understanding of reality. Pain and suffering is a condition that is subjective, and an attachment to the body-world.
Again.. if the atoms within the very things we see are 99.9999% empty space, what is feeling and thinking that it feels?

What is science if not a subjective determination in what is real?
Science defined by who? Is science something that is measured and defined by man, or something defined by the objects and instruments made by man?

Yes science is something measured and defined by man. And the idea of science includes the ability to measure and replicate observations and experiments.

Keep in mind that science is a word. The meaning of words depends on how they are used. Some words have much more definite meanings than others. For example the word 'love' has many different meanings. But some words have very definite meanings. Science is one of those words. For something to be science it must include the idea that I expressed above.

Bill Gill

For you....

In other words.. if you cannot replicate something, or someone who labels themselves as a scientist cannot replicate something that another (who might not be labeled as a scientist) has experienced, it isn't science.

Now wonder, I, and perhaps others, find it difficult to understand what our resident genius writes, eh?

Here is what he tells us in his profile:

No joking!. This is what I found.

That's right, you finally got it.

Bill Gill

Well in truth I always got that those who live in a box, refuse to step outside of the box, and also refuse to include any reality that is not perfectly aligned with the designs of acceptable social mores.
It usually takes time for some to let go of their ideals in order to expand their mindset into something new.

The materialist will never accept anything outside of material references and the instruments of material measure.


But then science doesn't always play with things that can be heard, seen or touched when it comes to theory. And those who claim to have experiences that aren't replicated by those who don't believe, will not include something that doesn't get the democratic seal of approval.

I get that.

If a theory isn't falsifiable/verifiable by repeated experiment then it's not a scientific truth, no matter what the people conducting the experiments call themselves.

Bill G, because I am always curious about who fellow posters are and what they do for a living, thanks for what you tell us in your profile. Feel free to elaborate. I wish others would say at least as much.

Of course I always give others the right to tell me to stop being so nosey. I'm easy. However, Bill G, thanks for telling us the following in your profile. You tell us May I ask: What do electronic engineers do? Does the following from Wiki cover it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineering#History

I would like to know more about your hobbies and how they relate to your career.

STEPHEN HAWKING AND THE WHY QUESTIONS
In what ways does it (PE) help you understand the 'what' and 'why' questions raised by Stephen Hawking when he wrote--A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME--From the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988).

When I read it in 1988, much of what he said was beyond my understanding then, and still is--especially Chapter 10--THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS. Can you help us, here?

IS THE UNIVERSE COMPLETELY SELF-CONTAINED? WITHOUT A BOUNDRY? WITH NO SINGULARITIES?

HAWKING begins the final chapter (11) of his book with the sentence: "We find ourselves in a bewildering world."

This I CERTAINLY understand! And with the thought expressed I am in complete agreement.
===================
THE NATURE OF THINGS
Meanwhile, we need honest scientists willing and able to give us as complete a theory of the nature of things as possible--understandable in broad principle to any of us willing to listen and to ask questions?


As a lay scientist, I leave dealing with the 'what' and 'how' questions of science to the professionals, especially truly honest and humble scientists--ones truly motivated to serve the public good, not just their own egoes.

Me? If needed, when it comes to science, I am happy to be a layman, a helper, an amateur simply willing to be of help to scientists who have a clear goal in mind of what it is they want to accomplish--for humanity.


in the tradition of Aristotle, Kant and others I invite any scientists interested: join with philosopers and theologians and help us tackle the all important 'why' questions.

Perceptions of physical reality:
Our life is full of false perceptions, but those perceptions are designed to help us deal with life in a physical reality. As a quantum physicist-philosopher might note, physical objects observed by a human may or may not exist as perceived by the human conscious. A simple example of this philosophical challenge would be to consider colors. Colors are simply an impression made on the human eye, relayed to the human consciousness, but are actually a subjective quality of a light-wave’s specific frequency. There is no color green for example – simply a light-wave which is translated in the human conscious to help humanity deal with the physical world surrounding it. Thus, the color green exists as a subjective experience perceived only in one’s mind.(Russel. 2003 "From Science to God")
This provides the barest impression that there is some level of disconnect or separation between physical reality and human consciousness. One could note we never actually see light itself. When light strikes our eye we only become aware of this fact through the energy that is released on contact. This energy is then transmitted to the brain and is in turn translated into a visual image in the mind. Although the image our mind interprets appears to be composed of light, the light we ‘see’ is actually an interpreted quality, appearing in our consciousness. However, because of this disconnect we can never actually directly see or know what light is.
Returning to the earlier discussion about sub-atomic particles moving into and out of existence based on probability factors and wave functions, one could extend the implications of this observation. Particles also do not seem to have an independent existence. Particles are represented in mathematical theory only by wave functions, and the meaning of the wave functions lie only in their correlations with other macroscopic things. This idea is astounding because it implies that seemingly ‘solid’ objects like chairs and tables are macroscopic objects that are simply organizations of energy that merely provide some means by which our consciousness gains an impression of what physical reality must be like.
These impressions are such that we can believe that physical objects have a persisting existence in our reality, and have a well-defined location in space-time that is logically independent of other physical objects. Nevertheless, the concept of independent existence disappears when we zoom down to the level of individual particles. The limitation of the concept of independent existence at the level of particles emphasizes that even chairs and tables are, for us humans, but tools for correlating our experience in physical reality.
The problem can be rectified by understanding the simplicity of the human mind when interpreting life in physical reality. In other words, the real problem is that humans are used to looking at the world in the simplest terms possible. We are accustomed to believing that something exists or doesn’t simply because we can or cannot see it, touch it, hear it, taste it, smell it, etc.

Whether we can look at it or not, for example, we immediately reach a conclusion in our mind that it is either there or it is not there based on the results of our physical senses. Our experience in this regard has taught us that the physical world is solid, real, and independent of us. However, quantum mechanics asserts that this conclusion is incorrect.
Indeed, the implication that colors do not exist is expanded by quantum mechanics to imply that even light photons themselves do not exist independently. Rather, all that exists in physical reality is an unbroken Unity that presents itself to us as webs of relations, according to quantum mechanics. Individual entities become idealizations, which are then correlations made by us to better experience the illusion of physical existence. The implication here is that nothing can exist without consciousness to intend and then realize a physical reality wherein independent entities are perceived. The implication could be further expanded such that what consciousness expected to perceive might then be realized as a result. The Cartesian partition between one’s self and the surrounding world, between the observer and the observed, or the scientist and the observed particle, cannot be made when dealing with atomic matter. One interacts with and affects the other! These ideas have been proven in the lab by quantum physicists.

Geometry, or more specifically, Euclidean geometry was developed by Greek mathematicians more than two thousand years ago to help describe relationships in space. Geometry was considered a proven mathematical discipline, but unfortunately its two-dimensional rules do not translate to a three-dimensional world. Consider the rules of a square or parallelogram: four 90-degree angles connecting straight lines. Now consider a person standing at the North Pole and beginning a trek south. At the equator the person turns right ninety degrees and walks westward some distance. The person then turns right ninety degrees and walks north again. Eventually that person will reach the North Pole again, thereby creating a triangle, though the “rules” of a triangle prevent it from having two ninety-degree angles, and the ‘rules’ of a parallelogram required it to have four sides, not three. Two-dimensional geometry was thus insufficient to fully and accurately describe reality in three-dimensional space. But mathematicians like Henry Margenau have noted that geometry is a construct of the intellect but is not actually inherent in nature. This was a central precept of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Distance, or space, is naught but a mode of particularization for the benefit of a particularizing consciousness, but has no real existence of its own. This idea can be proven experimentally through the concept of super-luminal thought........



There are those who repeatedly draw the experience of God/consciousness into their awareness, and with time proven methods teach others to draw the experience into their own lives.
However this practice involves a discipline of mind and body.
Since science is determined by man and not man made instruments would you accept spirituality of this type as a science?

Here is something that is of interest to some scientists tho they themselves cannot repeat it in a lab or find a reason to deny the evidence other than thru simple disbelief..

Evidence for reincarnation is continually being experienced and expressed throughout the world, which has caused some scientists to reevaluate and explore the validity of this body of evidence. Examples include spontaneous past-life recall, as well as biological connections between successive lives, reported cases of xenoglossy (speaking foreign languages for which one has no prior experience), and hypnotic past-life recall. The evidence has attracted a growing cadre of scientists with medical and advanced research degrees, including amongst many others, Ernest Pecci, M.D.; Chet Snow, Ph.D.; Ian Stevenson, M.D.; Helen Wambach, Ph.D.; Brian Weiss, M.D.; and Roger Woolger, Ph.D.
These scientists and many others have sought to find proof to support or terminally disprove the concept of reincarnation. One might even consider all that would be required to prove reincarnation existed would be to find a single case of definitive evidence.
This mimics Dr. William James’ famous observation one does not need to show that no crows are black to defeat the law that all crows are black; rather it is enough to merely find one crow that was not.
The late Dr. Ian Stevenson, former professor of psychiatry and director of the Division of Personality Studies at the Health Sciences Center, University of Virginia, was one of the premier scientists in this regard. Dr. Stevenson researched children worldwide who had and talked about spontaneously recalled past lives. During his career, Dr. Stevenson assembled more than 2,600 case studies, many of which were published in exhaustive tomes that included in-depth discussions of his research methodologies to aid academic peer reviews of his research and conclusions.
One of Dr. Stevenson’s harshest critics was ironically, himself. Despite spending an entire career focused on researching a phenomenon that continually pointed towards the validity of reincarnation, Dr. Stevenson never accepted the precept of reincarnation, but rather allowed some of his case studies seemed to indicate the evidence was merely suggestive of reincarnation.
Dr. Stevenson claimed some type of flaw existed in every case he had ever investigated, which prevented him from being willing to declare any of the work over his entire career could prove reincarnation. However, he did admit the body of evidence was growing in quantity and quality over time, thus increasing the plausibility of the concept of reincarnation.
I would suggest Dr. Stevenson was overly humble at the quality and implications of his work and findings. Indeed, much of his casework is widely quoted by many authors on the subject of reincarnation and many cases in this genre seem stronger than merely suggestive. However, only a tiny fraction of those cases could be considered in the limited space provided herein.
Case Studies of Spontaneous Past-Life Recall
Dr. Stevenson felt it was particularly appropriate to research children in regards to spontaneous past--life recall because children were too young to have acquired any preconceived notions of the validity of reincarnation, or substantive information about a deceased person who had lived in another location for which their memories might correlate. Additionally, the occurrence of delusions and psychotic conditions in children is rare thus virtually eliminating the possibility of hysterical dissociation or split personality disorder on the child’s part.(Stevenson, Ian. [1987] Children who remember previous lives: A question of reincarnation. Charlottesville Va: The University of Virginia)
Also, in many cases in which a child in Western Society remembered living a previous life the family often found such claims to be a baffling and unwelcome event that was not condoned by their Christian-based culture. Thereby, a child’s verbal recollections were often met with active dissuasion, reprimand, and even scolding by parents who did not wish to take the child’s statements seriously, or have neighbors, friends or other family members know about and potentially ostracize the family because of the child’s culturally unacceptable claims.
Dr. Stevenson found if a child was going to speak about memories from a spontaneously recalled past life, the child nearly always began doing so between the ages of two and four. In most cases that Dr. Stevenson researched, the child continued to talk about the previous life until somewhere between ages five and eight, at which time the memories gradually began to fade and the child began to focus on their current life instead of the past life. Many times, these children would recall the manner in which the previous personality had died, particularly if the death had occurred following violent circumstances.
This memory in particular could aid Dr. Stevenson’s research to identify the previous personality, and then verify the manner and circumstances of death and other aspects of the recalled personality’s life against the child’s proclaimed memories.
In the next section, we will explore some of Dr. Stevenson’s research in which the manner and circumstances of death impacted the newly born personality through the location and appearance of unique birthmarks and birth defects that eerily corresponded with wounds received at or near the time of death by the previous personality. More frequently, however, the child could recall a number of proper names, places and other specific details from the deceased person’s life that were then researched by Dr. Stevenson’s team to determine not only the correlation of those statements but also how obscure such information was; the objective being to determine how plausible it was for the child to have acquired the information through normal means.
In those cases where the information recalled was specific, accurate and truly obscure, little could account for how the child might have acquired such information or memories from a previous life other than through the concept of reincarnation.
Though Dr. Stevenson researched and assembled thousands of case files on instances of spontaneous past-life recall, he never obtained enough information to convince himself, definitively, of the validity of reincarnation despite the fact he could not account for how such memories, emotions, and other phenomenon he researched might have occurred.
On a personal note:(Probably because science cannot fit such an idea within the scope of normal scientific definitions)

Hemendra Banerjee, an “extracerebral memory” investigator similar to Dr. Stevenson but without the medical credentials, noted he was personally convinced of an investigated case’s validity when he witnessed spontaneous emotional recognition.
Spontaneous emotional recognition occurred when a child claiming to be reborn visited an area or people meaningful to the previous life and then expressed an intense emotional reaction in their presence.
The following are a few of the thousands of cases Dr. Stevenson, Hemendra Banerjee, and others have investigated that highlight this unique body of evidence.
The case of Jagdish Chandra of India(208)
Jagdish Chandra was born in Uttar Pradesh, northern India, in 1923. When Jagdish was three years old, he began speaking of a previous life he had lived in Benares, another Indian state. Intrigued by these stories, which were culturally acceptable to most people in India, Jagdish’s father began keeping written notes on the boy’s memories. Jagdish claimed his ‘real’ father was named Babuji Pandey, had two sons and a deceased wife, and had owned an automobile, a rarity for Indians at that time.
Jagdish further described his mother and some family relatives, and provided explicit details of his former home, including the location of a safe hidden in a wall in an underground room at their residence.
Jagdish Chandra’s present father located Babuji Pandey and took Jagdish to Benares to meet him. Babuji Pandry tested Jagdish’s proclaimed memories by asking the boy to direct them to his former home as they walked through the maze-like streets of Benares. Jagdish did so despite having never been there in his current lifetime. Jagdish also recognized some relatives he had known in his previous life, and displayed a detailed knowledge of the religious and dietary customs of his former family.
Dr. Stevenson noted these recalled memories were from a very young child who lived far from the location of the recalled past life and in a separate caste so that his current family, neighbors and associates would also have had no natural exposure to information about the previous life. Most of Jagdish’s claims proved true upon investigation, and the child also exhibited behavioral traits appropriate for the previous life. As with all of Dr. Stevenson’s cases, however, the professor was reluctant to claim sufficient evidence was present to serve as definitive proof Jadgish was Babuji’s deceased child reincarnated.
The case of Kumkum Verma of India Kumkum Verma also began speaking about a past life in India at age three. Kumkum recalled living as ‘Sunnary’ in a neighboring town. She also recalled being married to a man in the blacksmith caste, having a son named Misri Lal, a grandson named Gouri Shankar, and two daughters-in-law; one of whom had caused her death by poisoning her food. Kumkum described Sunnary’s home as having a pond near the house and an iron safe hidden inside for which she kept secured by harboring a pet cobra near the safe. Interestingly, Kumkum also exhibited no fear of snakes as a child and had once even stroked a cobra that had fallen from a tree near her.
Kumkum further described an orchard of mango trees near Sunnary’s home and stated Sunnary’s father had lived in the town of Bajitpur.
Kumkum’s aunt carefully recorded Kumkum’s memories as Sunnary though her parents dismissed the stories for some time. Kumkum repeatedly asked to return to Sunnary’s home in Urbu Bazar but her parents refused. At age four, a friend of Kumkum’s father had occasion to follow up on the story’s details and located Sunnary’s son, Misri Lal, in the city of Urdu Bazar, as well as Sunnary’s grandson, Gouri Shankar. Misri confirmed most of the claims made by Kumkum about his mother’s life, including her death following a sudden, unidentified illness, though at the time he had suspected his mother had been poisoned. Unfortunately, relatives had dissuaded him from performing an autopsy so there was no confirmation concerning Kumkum’s claim Sunnary had died of poisoning. Much of the other confirmed information, however, was obscure, personal information, that would only have been known by immediate family members so there was no logical explanation for how a three-year old in another town, who had never had contact with their family, could have known such information.... From "The Hidden Truth" By Wade C. Wilson

NOW THAT TT HAS MENTIONED REINCARNATION, I have a question:

IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN WILLPOWER AND REINCARNATION? For an open-minded dialogue about it, here are two links:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/reincarnation-0?page=1#comment-679020

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm


There are two excellent videos at the site.

About Dr. Ian Stevenson
Omni Magazine's Interview with Dr. Ian Stevenson
Sweet Swarnlata: An Example Case of Dr. Ian Stevenson's

Dr. Ian Stevenson Probably the best known, if not most respected, collection of scientific data that appears to provide some evidence, if not scientific proof that reincarnation is real, is the life's work of Dr. Ian Stevenson.

RevLindsayGKing
Open Library
http://openlibrary.org/
==========================
I just got a request from OPEN LIBRARY--One web page for every book, or booklet--to write about a booklet that I happen to have in my library since 1961. The library wants to know and who wrote it.

What's It About?
Any Excerpts
Links
The booklet is, ABOUT REINCARNATION. It was written by the Rev. Leslie D. Weatherhead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead
===============================================
How would you describe this book, or booklet? There's no wrong answer here.

The title is THE CASE FOR REINCARNATION

ABOUT THIS BOOKLET: It was first published in 1958, and is the substance of a 19 page lecture given by the Rev. Dr (psychology). Leslie D. Weatherhead (1893-1976)--one of the great prophetic preachers and pastoral healers of the time.

His books, especially PSYCHOLOGY, RELIGION AND HEALING greatly influenced my ministry (1953-1994) in Canada.

The lecture was given in City Temple, a Congregational church in London, England, which was his parish at the time. He was ordained a Methodist. With my wife and family, I visited City Temple in 1984.

Sad to say, with the passing of LDW, it was no longer the great centre for the whole Gospel--the good news of holistic healing as preached, taught and practiced by Jesus.

Thank G~0~D (note I use a tilde and a zero here)--The Way, that is, all that is Good, Opportune and Desirable, basic to the message of Weatherhead, lives on in his well researched and documented writings. LDS took a rational and scientific approach to all aspects of religion. He was very open minded and inclusive.

LDS welcomed the questions of philosophers, scientists--even of sceptical scientists--and the contributions of creative poets and artists. He never asked his readers to have the blind kind of faith; the kind required by dogmatic religions; the kind that excludes the faith of others and demands obedience to the ONE True Faith, without any questioning.

It is no wonder that LDS was a very respected by minister and influential writer to those of us in the United Church of Canada (UCC) at that time--an exciting time of growth.

The UCC was the result of a union of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Congreational & others, established in 1925--5 years before I was born in Newfoundland.

For more information, check out, www.lindsayking.ca
==============================

Some tags perhaps? Please separate with commas.
Note any places mentioned? For example: London, Atlantis, Omaha

When is it set or about? For example: 1984, The Middle Ages, 1810-1890
Please, leave a short note about what you changed: (Optional, but very useful!)

By saving a change to this wiki, you agree that your contribution is given freely to the world under CC0. Yippee!
==================================
Please Note: Only Admins can delete things. Let us know if there's a problem.
More search options
Show only eBooks
==============

Around
The Library

Philosophical transactions. 1813 was updated anonymously 41 minutes ago
Diego De Castro was updated anonymously 19 minutes ago
henrique pasti merged 2 duplicates of Class, Heinrich 1 hour ago
blues updated Von Gott und Murmeln 1 hour ago

Problem?

Open Library is an initiative of the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.
Other projects include the Wayback Machine, archive.org, nasaimages.org, archive-it.org & opencontentalliance.org.

Your use of the Open Library is subject to the Internet Archive's Terms of Use. And, here's an index of all the pages.

Just what did you have in mind, other than to draw some attention to yourself?

So humble as to avoid the question and throw out the usual ad hominem.

The Reverend.., 80 years as the perfect example of all that is good, opportune and desirable.

I take it this is your example of willpower....

This may be where reincarnation might become useful. If you can't rise above your weaknesses in this life, then maybe the next.