
Hacker irked by reincarnation - joeyespo
http://tech.blog.aknin.name/2010/08/16/hacker-irked-by-reincarnation/
======
thaumaturgy
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
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
> _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
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
> 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.

~~~
simonh
I was thinking "Do people really attack you for being religious in that way?
Surely not." And yet here we have someone doing just that. How sad.

Human beings believe things without a shred of credible evidence all the time.
In fact, taking things on faith is a valuable, even vital intellectual short-
cut that allows us to get on with doing stuff without having to work out every
detail of our lives from first principles all the time.

I happen to believe that this explains belief in god, i.e. that it's an
intellectual short-cut that allows societies to construct functional moral and
social frameworks that historically have served a valuable purpose. Frameworks
that nowadays are not so valuable because we now have well worked out
philosophies of life and morality that render divine fiat unnecessary to
leading a healthy, productive and satisfying life. I see religious as being a
vestigial social construct that is withering away as it's nolonger required.

However I am also very much aware that I still use all sorts of intellectual
short-cuts and assumptions every day. Anyone who thinks human beings are
inherently rational logical beings is IMHO delusional. We are primarily
emotional, instinctual beings overlayed with thin layer of self awareness and
congnition.

Therefore I think there's plenty of scope for sensible people to adhere to
religious belief systems if they so choose, as long as they don't expect
special rights and privileges for doing so. But can we all agree to at least
be civil about it?

~~~
kmm
He wasn't attacking him. What's sad is that you need to feel persecuted.

The point is exactly as you say, just because you have faith you don't get any
privileges. I and many others cannot understand how one can bring the
empiricism inherent to science in accordance with the irrationality of faith.
(And I don't use irrational as an insult here, I just mean that faith isn't
based on a rational basis). It's not attacking for finding that incredulous.

I think of myself as a scientist and a rational person, yet I believe in some
form of an immortal soul, or at least that the mind is not physical. I
absolutely don't feel like I should be free from scepticism and even if I did
I wouldn't feel attacked if someone questioned my "faith".

EDIT: A single downvote and no reply. That means I'm right, right?

------
dhechols
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".

~~~
nodemaker
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
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
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
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=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxq...](https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxqQEtWMi5dZHekXvvrTegKutnzEKfs8P7hb&authkey=CJ-
cx_IK)

Raja Yoga :-
[https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatE...](https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatEbV6ut5XZENjs8BYEaYFIcwozdfpnyHOS9)

Tao Te Ching :- [https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-
jRlOc0u_n1-...](https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-
jRlOc0u_n1-9QKs865JUqzcNqe-K-shRK-X-IIfdhBks)

The above books are not directly related to reincarnation.

On reincanation you can read "tibetan book of the dead"

~~~
mping
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 ;)

------
olavk
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
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.

------
yesbutwhy
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.

------
bfrs
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.

