Writing The Mathematics of the Science of Reincarnation is a collaborative project. The premise of the book is simple. We are going to look at the probability of reincarnation from an exclusively scientific perspective to assign probabilities as to whether humans reincarnate. We are going to use the scientific method, observations, experiments and hypothesis using double blind experiments to achieve the most fact based and logic driven probabilities in order to ascertain our reality. Once the most probable model has been ascertained it will be examined from a mathematical structural protocol.
We invite scientists to contribute content for the various chapters per their specialty. This project will be updated as the book and the best fact based analysis is developed. Please join our mailing list so that you may be notified of the changes. Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
- Chapter 1 2-9 Introduction
- Chapter 2 10-20 Our Bodies
- Chapter 3 21-31 NDE’s
- Chapter 4 32- 44 CWRPL
- Chapter 5 45- 59 PLR
- Chapter 6 60-75 Non Local Consciousness
- Chapter 7 76-89 DNA and Gender
- Chapter 8 90-114 QA and CP
- Chapter 9 115-132 Set Theory, Fractals and Physics
- Chapter 10 133-139 3 People
- Chapter 11 140-167 Making SOR Personal
- Chapter 12 Davos 158-172
- Chapter 13 Enterprise Risk Management 173-185
- Chapter 14 Military Applications and Corporatocracies 196-202
- Chapter 15 Community 203-213
- Chapter 16 Implementation 214-233
- Chapter 17 Harmonizing Economic Systems 234-238
- Chapter 18 Harmonizing political systems 237-242
- Chapter 19 The Last chapter Truth Decay 243-247
Chapter 1 MSOR
The Mathematics of the Science of Reincarnation
Designing Artificial Intelligence and Beyond
Truth: not the words of the teacher
From James Madison’s personal seal
The premise of this book is simple. We are going to look at the probability of reincarnation from an exclusively scientific perspective to assign probabilities as to whether humans reincarnate. We are going to use the scientific method, observations experiments and hypothesis using double blind experiments to achieve the most fact based and logic driven probabilities in order to ascertain our reality.
In order to ascertain what probability percentage we could apply to the likelihood of humans’ reincarnating we have to break the larger math problem down to it’s component parts and assign probabilities to every subset. You cannot average percentages however collectively they indicate trends.
There is no room for beliefs in our results, but we will look at belief systems to try to understand their specific logic as to why they may or may not believe in reincarnation and what factual basis they may use to support their belief. No data is off limits in this pursuit.
That includes the possibility that we may one day be able to program reincarnation where we are able to take our consciousness across the threshold of death and back to a living and completely new body.
While that may seem an outrageous assumption factually today DARPA, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working on a neural link to be able to upload information directly into the human brain as is Elon Musk’s organization with the development of their neural net. We have already in 2016 been able to link a camera to the optic nerve so the blind can see. We are now working on linking a processor directly to the brain. This book will explain where we are with that development, how that process works and how the upload and download of information mirrors the process of reincarnation itself.
Regarding the development of AI (Artificial Intelligence) by 2020 IBM is promising us a brain in a box. The difference between human and artificial intelligence is that on the human side we measure SOPS, synaptic operations per second, on the AI side these transactions are measured as FLOPS, floating point operations per second. That means to create a brain in a box we will have artificially created something that is 2 liters, has 1 kilowatt of power and can do 10 million transactions a second. The same size wattage and processing power of a human brain. By 2035 Artificial Intelligence will be smarter than humans.
When that is the case, that AI will be smarter than humans, what will it believe? How can we design a belief system for AI without analyzing our own belief system? Will it choose to be a Muslim? A Hindu? A Christian? When AI is smarter than us does it have a religious belief system at all? Will this emerging scientific model be it?
I can take people who have had a near death experience into a lab as I can children who remember prior lives but I can’t take Jesus or Mohammed into a lab for a quantitative analysis. Will AI when it is smarter than we are look at this evidence as objectively as we are trying to? Or will it do that analysis better?
By 2050 we will be able to upload to the cloud and download to a new computer more information than exists in the human mind. But by looking at the observations and experiments that we have before us right now we can make the case that this is already happening to us.
By mirroring human intelligence in the development of artificial intelligence we are seeing the systems operate similarly. The uploading and downloading of information which we use every time we use a computer mirrors what we believe but haven’t formally proven, reincarnation itself. The fact that they are iterations of information transfer and are self-similar creates a basis for them being fractals. How many fractals do we see? The difficulty at looking at this model objectively is our own belief systems, not what is true but what we believe is true.
Right now there is a mathematical proof for reincarnation that is more probable than any other alternative scenario and our most probable reality. That means that this model is more probable than any religious narrative about an afterlife.
Let us look at what people believe regarding reincarnation and an afterlife:
- World Population Estimates 7.5 Billion
- Christians 2.18 Billion 33%
- Muslims/Islam 1.6 Billion 21%
- Non-Religious 1.2 Billion 16%
- Hindu* 1.1 Billion 14%
- Primal-Indigenous 450 Million 6%
- Chinese Traditional 450 Million 6%
- Buddhist* 500 Million 6%
- Jews* 16 Million .002%
- Sikhism 20 Million .0036
The asterisk * on the above groups represents each of those religions that has a model for believing in reincarnation written directly into their religious texts.
A survey conducted by the Global Research Society and the Institute for Social research found that 57% of people believe in reincarnation.
According to data released by the Pew Forum not only do 25% of Americans believe in reincarnation but 24% of American Christians believe in reincarnation.
In the UK 53% of people believe in life after death and 70% believe in a human soul.
There are a lot of beliefs, but what is our reality? What does science see? What image of reality would a scientific examination of all aspects and facts produce?
This is The Science of Reincarnation
If we apply a scientific method to the study of reincarnation we have observations, experiments and theories. What does that objective model look like?
How do we measure it?
Could our ancestors have seen the same observations and come to a decision to believe in reincarnation?
Over the last 40 years new studies have changed our view of our own bodies as well as reincarnation and this book is an overview from a scientific perspective.
Criteria for our analysis
Let’s begin by defining the parameters of what reincarnation is and how we search for the criteria.
Our search for reincarnation begins with our death and ends several years after our re birth. Our consciousness would need to remain discreet after our death. Our consciousness is discreet during our lives. All this means is you are you when you are alive and you continue to be you, conscious and aware after your death. In our study we would need to find scientifically sound and repeatable events that could be studied in double blind experiments that showed our consciousness has the ability to leave our bodies in some scientifically measurable and repeatable way for scientific validation. We would then need to correlate all the related data points to have a complete model. This model would need to be consistent with the other sciences as well.
So what is our reality? What is the best scientific explanation for what we see and what we believe?
If we are to prove reincarnation is as natural as our births the “soul” or our disembodied consciousness would need to be “discreet” that is still us after our deaths.
We would need to
*Look at the human body to see where the soul or mind might be housed. We now have quantum biology as an emerging field that might provide some answers. We now know the human body completely replaces itself every 2 years down to ever atom in your body, memory is the only thing that is constant and in a technical sense this is an example of body replacement.
Technically this is reincarnation already as your mind has shed its body entirely and does so every 2 years over the course of your life. This is information we have developed over the last 30 years yet our “belief” about reincarnation does not take in this new integrated information about how our bodies operate.
*Prove that the mind can reach outside the body; actually clairvoyance was proven using DNA evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
*Have cases we can measure using odds against chance probabilities, of people claiming to be aware after death, we actually have a large body of people who have experienced a near death event, people who have died and been resuscitated. There are hundreds of millions of these cases globlly.
*Examine children who remember a prior life. These two three and four year olds all remember a prior lifetime verifiable by written history and events we can verify, but more compellingly they are accepted by the people who knew them in a prior lifetime. What are the odds against chance of that happening repeatedly?
*Understand why people can be regressed, a form of hypnotism, that allows access to memories of a prior life.
*Compare those narratives and then do an odds against chance Meta-Analysis of all the data.
*Once we see a fractal patterns emerge from the information we will know our reality whatever the information may show. This can be considered a math proof of reincarnation.
*Evaluate the impact this information will have on the development of AI and how using a math base model will support the design and the development of AI.
*How this overall information may help us reimagine how we should govern ourselves.
What this book will attempt to do
This is an analysis of all the pertinent data points to ascertain what our reality is. What would leading mathematicians and scientists say about this data? What would a book maker say if he were giving odds about the right answer? Would he handicap one religion as opposed to another as the belief system closest to the truth?
What happens to religion if this is true?
Any religion who preaches an afterlife is immediately validated by the science model. The emerging model proves consciousness after death. Thomas-Mellon Benedict who had one of the longest near death events reported that all religions were present in the afterlife and could be visited. Other people who have NDE’s corroborate his account. But does that prove life after death? Not yet; but the numbers we are going to present in this books are beginning to add up to improbable odds as to the likelihood we are facing after we die.
Finally in light of this new information how should be govern ourselves?
If we accept the data presented here then the most likely scenario will be our return through the process of reincarnation. How should we prepare the world we return to, and for that matter ourselves?
The math that supports the Science of Reincarnation is the math that supports life. Uploading a file to the cloud and downloading it to another computer is the same type of iteration and self-similarity as what we are observing in children who remember prior lives and NDE’s. It is also the math that supports the religious belief in an afterlife.
It is imperative to know what the truth is
Once AI is smarter than us it will be AI that controls the nukes in Korea or America or anywhere else and that is a threat to us all. We need the collective intelligence and courage to know the truth.
One cannot speak truth to power if power has no use for truth. But you cannot speak truth to power if you do not know the truth. This book will look to provide the mathematical model so we can know what the truth is. From the truth you derive power. So what is the most probable model, what is our truth?
To start there are no villains in this information, this information treats us all the same; as humans.
To prove reincarnation mathematically we have to break a large problem into component parts.
Chapter 2 MSOR
“You only live once,” he said.
“How do you know?” I asked.
In 1850 French farmers came to the French scientists in Paris and said do you see these rocks, they fell from the sky. The French scientists knew the farmers were lying. After all, all you had to do was look at the sky and you could see there were no rocks. It would be another hundred years before we understood the science of meteorites.
The thought of rocks falling out of the sky was a scientific anomaly at the time, something the science of the time could not explain. The scientific paradigm of a science explains the science and predicts where the science is headed. The scientific paradigm of astronomy at that time could not incorporate this information into its explanation of what we saw and regarded as reality and therefore the scientists regarded the information as false and the farmers lying.
So anomalies are things that don’t fit into our understanding of reality. Sometimes things happen that force the anomalies into the paradigm which forces the paradigm of a science to change to incorporate the new information. The thing that happened in this instance with meteorites was better telescopes.
The Meta paradigm is the paradigm which incorporates all the scientific paradigms into one overriding explanation of our reality. The Meta paradigm defines how we perceive our reality.
The first Meta paradigm was the Genesis Meta paradigm. Science was done based on God having created the heavens and the earth. The Genesis metaparadigm died in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species by Darwin. The theory of evolution defeated the perception that the earth was made in 6 days. We saw the truth in the emerging sciences like geology and archeology.
The second metaparadigm is the Grand Material Meta Paradigm. By 1905 “The Grand Material world view now held unquestioned sovereignty. Its premises…are (1) the mind is the result of physiological processes; (2) each consciousness is a discreet entity; (3) organic evolution has no specific goal; (4) there is only one space time continuum, providing for only one reality. Its rules concerning the separation of the researcher and the experiment and the Covenant of Replicability became the only acceptable basis for science. All else was at best un science and at worst mysticism and quackery.” (p270-271 The Secret Vaults of Time-Schwartz).
As science has advanced new anomalies are weighing on the Grand Material Meta Paradigm. Near Death Experiences suggest death may not be our end. Children who remember prior lives are now being catalogued and narratives compared. Experiments in non-local consciousness are becoming better and providing interesting proof on parts of our larger “Do we reincarnate?” math problem.
The growing weight of these current anomalies is shaping something called the Grand Unified Meta paradigm. It states;
“The communication of the world did not occur in the visible realm of Newton, but in the sub atomic world of Werner Heisenberg.
Cells and DNA communicated through frequencies.
The brain perceived and made its own record of the world in pulsating waves.
A sub structure underpins the universe that is essentially a recording mechanism of everything, providing a means for everything to communicate with everything else.
People are indivisible from their environment. Living consciousness is not an isolated entity. It increases order in the rest of the world. The consciousness of human beings has incredible powers, to heal ourselves, to heal the world-in a sense, to make it as we wish it to be.”
(P223, The Field, Lynn McTaggart)
This scientific revolution of changing the Meta paradigm impacts religion significantly and our view of ourselves.
“Far from destroying God, science for the first time was proving his existence-by demonstrating that a higher collective consciousness was out there. There need no longer be two truths, the truth of science and the truth of religion. There could be one unified vision of the world.”
(P226 The Field, Lynn McTaggart)
Change like this does not occur in isolation. The changing of the scientific Meta paradigm forces change throughout the individual scientific paradigms, including but not limited to politics, medicine and societal structures.
If we accept what the current scientific model is showing us then laws such as apostasy laws and blasphemy laws should be immediately ended. This scientific model also means catholic healthcare organizations cannot impose their beliefs upon those who come to their facilities. They have to offer birth control, do abortions where the mother’s life is threatened and offer full health care even when it contravenes their canonical beliefs. This now is a scientific argument not an argument of belief.
So before we get too far ahead of ourselves we have to look at and understand what our increasing knowledge base is doing to our collective worldview. We are back to anomalies.
Sometimes in science we see an effect before we understand the cause, like the meteorite example. These effects that we don’t understand and can’t explain with our current understanding of science are called anomalies. Understanding anomalies changes our understanding of our environment and ourselves. We have to let go of our old understanding and integrate the new information into our world view. Once that is done new sciences unthought-of of the generation before emerge.
This is the case with the emerging Science of Reincarnation. More than half the human population believes in reincarnation or an afterlife. But what is the proof? Is there any scientific information that shows our mind can go from one body to another?
The Science of Reincarnation is a science. A science is made up of parts called disciplines. Each discipline examines a different part of the science. All the disciplines together make up the paradigm of the science. The science is made whole when each discipline interacts with the other.
A scientific paradigm explains the science based on the total of the disciplines and posits where the science is headed.
To make our math case we need to go through all the disciplines and calculate odds against chance or explain why an experiment is proof. There are two types of disciplines, anecdotal and technical. Anecdotal are field reports or observations and technical are experiments. We start with anecdotal.
Observations – The anecdotal disciplines
Observations are examining things in the real world. Sometimes we cannot explain what we are seeing. The anecdotal disciplines are observations that cannot be explained by our current understanding of science. They are scientific anomalies, something our current understanding of science cannot explain.
1-Near death experiences. NDE’s are becoming more and more common as the quality of medical care increases. NDE’s are events where someone dies, is clinically dead for a period of time, and then is resuscitated. It is estimated that over 4% of Americans have had NDE experience which is more than 13 million people or 300 million globally.
People who had NDE’s describe a common process. They can have an out of body experience, OBE where they look down upon their own body.
2-Children who remember prior lives. This is a child between the ages of two and five who claims to have lived a prior life. Studies began more than 50 years ago at the University of Virginia to study children who made these claims. These children also had memories from before they were born describing the environment through their perception of it. The current state of the examination at the University of Virginia is they are coding 2500 cases with 400 variables seeking trends.
3-Past life regression. A past life regression is when someone is regressed, or hypnotized, or enters a meditative state where they claim to access information from a prior life.
Our science cannot explain why we have these observations. They are anomalies, things our science cannot explain. However as a group collectively when they describe the environment that exists when they weren’t alive they describe a common landscape. The odds against chance that this would occur is improbably high suggesting some form of root cause among the three different types of observations.
All three of these disciplines describe the same thing, that reality that we inhabit after our deaths. What makes this new assessment so important is that each of the descriptions of this reality are similar to each other. When calculated the odds against chance that we see happening is improbably high.
Let’s put that simple words, when one of the 2500 children that are currently being studied at UVA describe what it was like before they were born they all describe the same thing. These are children between the ages of three and five. When someone has a near death experience they also describe this experience in the same way that children do. When someone is regressed with past life they also describe the same landscape/reality.
Using odds against chance probabilities the likelihood of all of these diverse people describing the same thing would be astronomical. But we have no idea what this “thing” actually is.
Is this then our reality? We are going to see how the pieces of this puzzle fit together to suggest that we actually do reincarnate. We are also going to see where the “suggestions” fails to prove reincarnation and what might be done to help clarify whether this might turn into a proof.
These three disciplines describe it from three different viewpoints: going to be born, having just died, or being hypnotized or regressed to a life before you were born.
What makes this so important is that you can actually meet and talk to the people who experienced it and there are hundreds of millions of them. They can include your next door neighbor.
To meet them you simply go to their conventions. Near Death Experience researchers and experiencers go to the annual IANDS convention, for remote viewing there is the IRVA convention and for past life regression just go to a Weiss or Newton event. The largest organization is The Near Death Experience Research Foundation www.nderf.org.
So what are you made of? Let’s start with you the reader of this book.
The body we currently occupy is really a human biome. That means of the hundred percent of the cells in your body 50% of those cells are other organisms for instance bacteria in your intestines. Of the remaining cells that are “you” all the matter in those cells changes completely every two years. Your stomach lining changes every day, your skin cells change every two weeks, even the enamel in your teeth and the calcium in your bones changes completely every two years.
Your consciousness is what is permanent about you until your death not your body. So where is it located? Does the fact that you replaced all the matter in your body in the last two years mean your consciousness has moved to a new body? Do you still have the same body you had when you were six?
You are primarily water 95%-chemicals-4% really the 4% is binders to hold the sack of water together.
You already reincarnated if you move on to a replacement body.
But does the fact that your mind will move from body to body through your lifetime indicate that once you die it will migrate to a new body?
Much recent work is been done to locate consciousness and memory. It has been found that memory has been stored as a waveform throughout your body.
An example of that is Transplant Memories – As our medical technology has developed we are now able to transplant body parts from a donor body. An example of transplant memories is the Clare Sylvia case where she received organs from a recently deceased teenager who died in an auto accident. She then reported memories from his life she could not have known as well as developing new tastes in this instance for Chicken McNuggets and beer and other women.
But is there scientific proof of wave form action that would affect us like this prior example is claiming?
Can we take that into a lab?
In France they used a state of the art surgical technique for heart transplants and kept the heart of a male Hartley guinea pig alive on a purpose built scaffolding. They then applied acetylcholine and histamine, two known vasodilators, then atropine and mepyramine, both antagonist to the others and measured coronary flow, and such mechanical changes as beat rate.
“The only unusual aspect of the experiment was that the agents of change weren’t actually pharmacological chemicals but low frequency waves of the electromagnetic signals recorded using a purpose designed transducer and a computer equipped with a soundcard.”( P59 The Field-Lynn McTaggart).
In short they digitized a chemical like atropine, and sent its electromagnetic signal,
“Which take the form of electromagnetic radiation of less than 20 kilohertz, which were applied to the Guinea pig heart, and were responsible for speeding it up, just as the chemicals themselves would.” (P59 The Field-Lynn McTaggart)”
If the chemicals we just referred to can be digitized can you? They retain “discreetfulness”, they are simply the wave form of the particulate. Are you able to do the same thing? To look at this quantitatively the chemicals have a particulate presence and a wave presence each compatible with the other. Can we brake consciousness into similar component parts? Anyone who believes in an afterlife believes we can.
But if these cells are made up of energy then where and how is our memory stored? Especially since the cells change all the time. So the questions are really where are “you” stored? How are you stored there?
Another even more important question. If we can transduce a particle to a wave and have it retain its “discreetness” can we transduce a wave to a particle and have it retain its “discreetness? If we can we have just laid the first block in the quantum foundation of designing reincarnation.
There is much evidence to say that what is regarded as “you” as your body changes is not stored in the cells but in the energy of “you” and that energy however directed there is manifested in those cells as effect much as we see the effect in the hearts of the Hartley guinea pigs when we direct wave energy at their hearts.
We see this not just in wave experiments, or our understanding of how the mechanics works, but very mathematics that support it which lay in the fractal geometry of its makeup.
So in this chapter we have explained the new emerging Science of Reincarnation and shown that every atom in your body changes every two years but your memory, who you are, stays the same. We have explained the disciplines that make up the science and now we are finally going to be able to do the math this book promised.
We have now proven that your body is replaced every two years completely, down to the atoms in the enamel in your teeth and the calcium in your bones. Your stomach lining changes every day. You shed your skin every six weeks. These changes go on over the course of two years until you complete new body. You no longer have the body you did when you were four, or six, or 20. Yet you have your memories intact. The information of who you are and what you have done is more permanent than cells that house that information. You have in fact taken the information that is you and moved it to a totally new body.
Then Dean Radin offered these thoughts:
“Proof” only makes sense in mathematics, logic, and alcohol. In the scientific world, in field studies, and in case reports, there is no proof. There is only evidence, and evidence is always in the eye of the beholder. That’s why controversies persist — the same body of evidence might be highly persuasive to some, but not to others.
For example, “Our bodies are 50% other organisms and that they are completely replaced down to every last atom every 2 years. That would seem scientific proof that our mind is able to migrate to a completely new body…
Not really. Just because the material in our bodies is dynamically recycled, the informational patterns that constitute our physical structure can (and does) remain highly stable throughout our lifetime. If memory and personality are encoded in us physically (which most neurobiologists believe), then just because every couple of years we have a new set of atoms provides no evidence that the mind is separate from the body.
It’s tempting to use suggestions deriving from the many different lines of evidence to make an air-tight case for survival or reincarnation. But a devil’s advocate could easily poke holes in each line of evidence, and in so doing they can take what seems like a strong overall argument and make it collapse like a house of cards. Indeed, this is the rhetorical approach that most skeptics specialize in. In some cases their counter-arguments are probably sound; in others they are almost certainly wrong.
Some controversies are just ahead of their time; they clash too strongly with the status quo and as such, they’re relegated to the fringe. But science marches on. Someday the mainstream will catch up. Meanwhile, efforts like what you’re proposing, presented conservatively, can help sustain serious interest in reincarnation research long enough so that when the future scientific worldview becomes more compatible with the existing evidence, then it will be perceived as obvious.
– Dean Radin, PhD
– Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences
– Distinguished Professor, Cal. Inst. of Integral Studies
– President, Parapsychological Association
– Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore, an Elsevier journal
– IONS, 101 San Antonio Road, Petaluma, CA, 94952, USA
Now before we move on Dean Radin is correct.
Before we leave this chapter and begin our analysis there are couple of cogent points to carry forward.
Proof is quantitative. There are times in life however when the absolute cannot be known but new information allows us to discard old thoughts. This science of reincarnation is driving that process.
A heuristic technique (/hj___r_st_k/; Ancient Greek: _______, “find” or “discover”), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, guesstimate, stereotyping, profiling, or common sense.
Heuristics are strategies derived from previous experiences with similar problems. These strategies rely on using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings, machines, and abstract issues.
The most fundamental heuristic is trial and error, which can be used in everything from matching nuts and bolts to finding the values of variables in algebra problems.
Here are a few other commonly used heuristics, from George Pólya’s 1945 book, How to Solve It:
- If you are having difficulty understanding a problem, try drawing a picture.
- If you can’t find a solution, try assuming that you have a solution and seeing what you can derive from that (“working backward”).
- If the problem is abstract, try examining a concrete example.
- Try solving a more general problem first (the “inventor’s paradox”: the more ambitious plan may have more chances of success).
In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules, learned or hard-coded by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information. Researchers test if people use those rules with various methods. These rules work well under most circumstances, but in certain cases lead to systematic errors or cognitive biases.
The halo effect is a type of immediate judgement discrepancy, or cognitive bias, where a person making an initial assessment of another person, place, or thing will assume ambiguous information based upon concrete information. A simplified example of the halo effect is when an individual noticing that the person in the photograph is attractive, well groomed, and properly attired, assumes, using a mental heuristic, that the person in the photograph is a good person based upon the rules of that individual’s social concept. This constant error in judgment is reflective of the individual’s preferences, prejudices, ideology, aspirations, and social perception. The halo effect is an evaluation by an individual and can affect the perception of a decision, action, idea, business, person, group, entity, or other whenever concrete data is generalized or influences ambiguous information.
The halo effect can also be explained as the behavior (usually unconscious) of using evaluations based on things unrelated, to make judgments about something or someone. The halo effect specifically refers to when this behavior has a positive correlation, such as viewing someone who is attractive is more likely to be seen as successful and more popular. When this judgement has a negative connotation, such as someone unattractive being charged more firmly for a crime than someone attractive, it is referred to as the horn effect.
The halo effect was named by psychologist Edward Thorndike in reference to a person being perceived as having a halo. He gave the phenomenon its name in his 1920 article, “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings”. In “Constant Error”, Thorndike set out to replicate the study in hopes of pinning down the bias that he thought was present in these ratings. Subsequent researchers have studied it in relation to attractiveness and its bearing on the judicial and educational systems. Thorndike originally coined the term referring only to people; however, its use has been greatly expanded especially in the area of brand marketing.
What we need to do after analyzing the disciplines in the science of reincarnation is do a Comparative Probabilities Analysis against the competing theories and see which is most likely. While this is not proof it takes us in the most probable direction to find that proof. To do that we must make our beliefs stand up to the truth. In a comparative probability analysis the questions become do you believe what you see? Do you see what you believe?
What is needed in that case is a bookmaker and odds maker to calculate the odds about the way to bet.
We invite the public to post on r/reincarnationscience any thoughts comments or questions as this project develops.
The best comments or analysis will be included in these coming chapters from our contributors.
And we would like to find a bookmaker.
Takeaway: your body replaces itself every two years but “you” are the same.