The Boy Who Lived Before - Documentary about a childs memories of another life

[Michael Allen]

It's sincere Michael. I knew when I first started reading your input here some year ago or so that you were the real deal. Fast, very educated, and sharp.

I've just spent a lot of time thinking and reading...keeps me out of the bars, casinos and strip joints.

Believe it or not, I honestly read through and understood where your analogy went. I really appreciated it, but there was a problem, please let me attempt to exlain it.

You identified a problem based on the assumption that what I provided was an analogy with reality itself--but what I was proposing was an analogy of the human mind and its interaction with the environment. More to come on this...

With respect for these FP (fortean phenomena), they always seem to be observation based events that do not arrise from humanly induced situations. In the case of your analogy, all these possible scientific aberant, or accidental artifacts (anomalous phenomena initially) come about, it is still within a context from which we can draw substantial meaning and relevance as to their possible origin or cause.

So the analogy here would indeed break down if it's target was the hypothetical reality-situation of "fortean phenomena." But what I was trying to do was show how our body/mind as a control system developed into the surrounding world, creating a clearing for equipment, tools, methods, objects, and the space for mere existence. This clearing is not something that just "happens" inside the human brain, and neither is it totalized into the surrounding world (i.e. as the third-person quantitative reductionist interpretation). Both aspects of reality seem to "hinge" or "bear" on each other and even this is saying too much because it tries to sneak in the failed dualistic (mind/matter) ontology. Getting back to the question of context, you realize that such a question of context necessitates the inclusion of the world into that context as well as the historical development of the artifacts in the world including the links to all other inter-subjective interactions with the same (i.e. culture, architecture, art, infrastructure, books, papers, methods, etc). It isn't as if we draw all relevance from a hermetically sealed "context" that applies only to our immediate personage standing in an immediate place or time in existence. Your existence necessarily encompasses the entire time-bound world of contexts and relevant entities all the way back to the first genetic organism--that you simply cannot escape your own historical particular significance means precisely that you cannot escape the entire world of references going back to the beginning. So there goes the context-immediacy-subjectivism--it has dissolved into the real world of things, of which you yourself are an immersed and absorbed particular. This absorption is not a sufficient claim for which to base a radical human-centric fallibility argument. If anything, what is supported is the massive cultural and technological development which proves the interconnected nature of all contexts and relevant structures--in spite of this thesis.

We have a very finite and definitive environment from which we can launch our anomalous investigations within. With PF, not so much. Here is an example. Bigfoot. How many times have credible (and certainly not so credible!) investigations taken place, wherein searches and hunting expeditions are formed and executed to find the observed phenomena? Have they ever been found, or even observed as a result? I know for a fact that some expeditions have resulted in strong suspicions arrising from local noises heard, gutteral animal noises or screams, trees knocked, or rocks thrown, but I do not know of a single case wherein what I would call a clear substantiated observation of the phenomena took place. You hear about these things showing up in people's back yards. National Parks, etc. They SHOULD be more than abundant with respect to a serious search for them. This is not the case and we find the matter just getting insanely wierder as we read up on all the documentation witnesses claim concerning this phenomena. We have reports from credible witnesses seeing them dematerialize after being shotgunned directly at point blank range. How about them coming from, walking around, or going into, UFOs! We have credible documented and substantiated reports of tracks of the supposed animal simply stopping in the middle of what were large open muddy areas where the phenomena had been crossing. So my quandery becomes, how do we use an anology that takes place within the confines of a lab or a reactor, and arrive at a truly logical analgous comparrison?

There are some instances where weird phenomena are later found to have an explanation (most of the time with an explanation no one likes--this goes for both believers and skeptics alike)--the explanation of UFOs is ET from another world, and the fact that this is so mundane is what causes consternation among all, including the "believers" who think that the phenomena are simply too weird for the ETH. This is not a problem with context or relevance, but of human emotional baggage. The simple reason (which is not even addressed in Vallee's books) that so many instances of the phenomena are recorded is simply due to memetic copying of stories and other confabulations...simply put, a great deal of stories are interesting and perhaps show us a window to the human psyche, but are nevertheless made up or adapted from earlier events. That one event could spawn many copy-cat stories of people just trying to get attention, this is never addressed--Vallee simply accepts too much; he is too promiscuous with his input validation. Does this invalidate his points regarding the parallels to earlier stories, myths and fables?--of course not. There's value in examining the raw data and trying to sift out the noise, but making claims like "there are too many events" begs the question that the stories are all somehow true. Well others like Vallee come by and re-ask the question to themselves and then try to forge a unified theory of the paranormal, which was a bad move based on a bad opening from the start. This problem would have been easily dismissed if they had just stuck to the facts and not try to change every anecdotal story into a singular event of reality.

[BTW, I don't mean any disrespect to Vallee on this: if anything I have said is contradicted by his own writings, please let me know and I can edit the above and stand corrected. It's been quite some time since I read through his works, including the Passport to Magonia, so my memory may be fuzzy]

Now with regards to the nuclear reactor control room, we have a good example of how diverse causes in a human environment can give rise to a particular singular signal in the control room, or how one unified cause can cause a diverse explosion of separate measuring tools in the same. The plain fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between these signals and their causes should be a reminder of how badly we can get things wrong if we start off with bad assumptions. The analogy is so rich with examples of this I hardly think it as unworthy as you have stated.

Weather phenomena might be a little closer to the heart of the matter, but here's the thing. When weather related phenomena are observed, then latter discovered for what they truly are, they rarely manifest themselves via the initial reporting of nearly identicle observations. They are non archetypical as are our lab/reactor results.

I am happy with this, because it doesn't really change the point. The reactor is just a good real world example of a unified control room which fits well (at least for our purposes) as an analogy of the brain. I picked Chernobyl because of the unlikelihood that someone who raise the "controlled environment" objection. The point is that many of the things in the reactor were not in human control, in spite of all measures to do otherwise. The weather analogy works better. Archetypal events do occur in nature in the forms of clouds and fractals--they may not represent good "psychological" artifacts, but they are patterns and templates of phenomena nevertheless. And of course you could even apply the weather analogy to your thoughts themselves, almost as if your mood was some kind of thunderstorm or dreary day that could just happen (regardless of the real weather outside) without you having anything to do with or about it. And indeed even what are considered to be "archetypal" images and artifacts of thought do not repeat themselves in exactly the same way--or can even be considered to be nearly identical. So the thesis of archetypes, when viewed critically, appears to be something that applies to both natural and fortean phenomena, further dissolving the line between the two categories.

Again, a problem here arises from a controlled, albeit one that achieves random results, experiment. Of course you are correct. Your logic is perfect. The problem is that when we observe (key word my friend) FP, there is typically zero prep or anticipation involved. It just happens.

Many random events in the world happen regardless of planning of anticipation. The funny thing is that people say they had "zero prep" in scenarios where emergencies arise that they had planned for many years. Anticipation is also admittedly a concept that only makes sense in retrospect--no one remembers the zero prep that got them through driving a car, eating a bagel, or putting in the wash, but they will always anticipate the boiling of a pot. Feelings of anticipation and post-facto-zero prep are aspects of one's mood with respect to reality, but certainly cannot be considered as a mark of some force in reality itself. "Just happenings" are all the time, "fortean" or otherwise.

A quick observation example. When back in the day, mariners were certain that because they observed a very specific vista or horizon in the distance, that the world stopped there and that all the water plummited over the far edge and that we would do so along with the water if they ventured too far. How was this miss perception corrected? Through the only means possible, experience. We had to go there and find out for ourselves. This is the ONLY reason that I have suggested the study of consciousness as the ultimate answer to mankind's environmentally induced observational limitations with respect to FP.

[Well this is where I started visualizing in my head this event, dozed off for a moment and realized I was getting tired and had to stop ... will try to pick up in the morning .... oh sh*t...its already morning]

 

[Randall]

... While I don't necessarily subscribe to the extreme nonsense of "What the Bleep do We Know" I think there's a certain truth regarding the interaction of consciousness with our world, this cannot be dissolved easily, and dualistic attitudes (like the one professed in WTBDWK) that underlie the psuedo-scientific or quasi-scientific jargon veneer in the film don't do much to alleviate the confusion.

Worse actually. They add to the confusion.

When you say, "there's a certain truth regarding the interaction of consciousness with our world." What exactly are you saying? Once again a seemingly simple proposition turns out to be more complex than first glances assume. Some would say that our consciousness is our world and therefore it can only be something that is rather than something that can be interacted with. On the other hand if our world is seen in the context of objective reality, then our consciousness can be seen as our subjective reality, and we can discuss ways in which the two are connected. The concept of truth regarding these two situations is also different. In the former, truth is an expression of the moment. In the latter, truth is an equivalency between the way things actually are and the way things are proposed, or perceived, or believed to be.

It's not easy for everyone to switch between these paradigms, but when we do so, it seems to me that while both are true, the former is somewhat one dimensional, a version of reality that has the universe revolving around our consciousness, as opposed to something our consciousness inhabits along with the other animals, planets, stars, and so on. To use an analogy it's like the video I posted here not long ago showing the difference between the standard heliocentric model of our solar system, and an updated version.

If we personify the Sun, then in the phenomenological approach, the Sun perceives itself at the center with the planets orbiting in near perfect circles around it, and indeed this model was proven to be correct, replacing the geocentric model. However in a dualistic approach, our Sun's subjective perspective is complimented by a separate objective reality that extends off into the distance far beyond what it can perceive, and if the Sun could use its rational mind to visualize itself at some distance as an objective observer would, suddenly it would see things substantially different. No longer would it see near perfect circles and itself at the center of things:

See the video here: A Science Minute | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

The point: Both models are true depending on the frame of reference. But which one goes further in explaining the actual state of affairs within the bigger picture?

Regarding Jeff's attitudes toward this, I think it would definitely be a good exercise if we are to communicate precisely why this stuff fails to fit that facts and even certain possible truths within the "fortean" world hypothesis.

Maybe that's a whole new thread. This one is supposed to be focused on past lives.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Randall (Ufology Calgary)is most definitely not a Troll. Randall could be called tenacious, dogged and argumentative to a degree but he most certainly not here just to annoy people or argue.
Many will have noticed that Randall likes to get to the exact centre of what someone is trying to say and it can appear pedantic at times but he just likes to be exact cos this is his favourite subject, and a huge part of his life (like many of us). My understanding of Trolls is that they usually hide behind sock-puppet accounts and just pop to annoy or start arguments. Randall does not hide who he is (and it's understandable many do, unfortunate but understandable) and he does not start arguments just for the sake of it. He does like discussion - ad nauseum maybe for some but it is what it is and he is what he is, and that is not a troll.
I consider him an online friend and someone who I would run something by, especially on the UFO topic.

Thats the opinion of Goggs the forum member and Goggs the moderator.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yes, I may not agree with Randall, but his heart is in the right place, and we are happy to have him in our forum.

 

[Jeff Davis]

This is a good illustration of the culture of science degenerating into a cult of nonsense. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the extreme nonsense of "What the Bleep do We Know" I think there's a certain truth regarding the interaction of consciousness with our world, this cannot be dissolved easily, and dualistic attitudes (like the one professed in WTBDWK) that underlie the psuedo-scientific or quasi-scientific jargon veneer in the film don't do much to alleviate the confusion. Regarding Jeff's attitudes toward this, I think it would definitely be a good exercise if we are to communicate precisely why this stuff fails to fit that facts and even certain possible truths within the "fortean" world hypothesis.

Whereas Ufology has now basically just resorted to sheer snippet level trolling for sod trout, all of which at this point I am certainly a little too alive to oblige in the least, I sense a far more so sincere level of fear coming from you my friend with regard to these "cults of nonsense". That's a bit alarming to me. Micheal, fear is NOT really a bad thing and I know that, however with respect for science, we have historically witnessed the same thing over and over in terms of the scientific community's acceptance of unusual, unorthodox, yet empirically recognized, and therefore, SOUND THEORETICAL SCIENCE . Do you agree with me that, that alone demonstrates that science itself is in no way exempt from the same ego based, survival instinct laden, confusion that the rest of us struggle with? It's more or less impossible to escape the human condition IMO. That's why I believe it's the human condition that is ultimately responsible for FP's consciousness uptake and process.

So MR. Allen, I'm going to do my level best in an effort to help you overcome this fear based hurdle of scientific progress by encouraging yourself to participate within as much. I believe (and I accept the dangers of this belief) that you have what it takes with respect to real scholastic aptitude. This being because I honestly (and I mean this in the truest of ethical senses) hope you will do your best to convince me, minus any belief based, or peer aligned delusion, of these ill truths as applied to the specific act of the observation of FP.

I WANT to learn. I WANT to be shown, albeit sincerely. I just don't want the loud mouthed BS associated with a needless parade of folly we witness in professional entertainment venues like that moron Richard Dawkins perpetrates on the ignorance of both the scientific elite, as well as the gullible "true believer" mentality that litters the social landscape of real civilized progress.

I've seen pentecostal church services with less spectacle based screaming and hollering resultant confusion than that which surrounds, and is directly coming from, all the hand waving and alarmist critique within the presently fear tainted well of the scientific community. Is the outline of as much simply due to the typical 3 stage process of socially accepted scientific truths? Is there honestly something of FAR greater value to be explored, extrapolated, and then applied to many existing and developing sciences? Branches of Science that these present studies within TQP will make progressively yeilding in terms of their practical growth. I would certainly state that at very least the matter deserves as critical, and unbiased an examination, as is possible to be implemented.

I DO NOT pretend to understand the heavy math of TQP. I DO NOT pretend to know or understand how legitimate associations can be made between observation based, double slit experiment induced/Bell's Theorem bolstered, consciousness/matter relationships. <-----I am NOT a "true believer" in this aspect of TQP due to my own ignorance, I never have been, as if it was some automated mystical link to a Terrence Mckenna described mushroom intelligence hierarchy that allows for an esoteric shamanistic assent into what would be the ultimate ride in a UFO or whatever.

But damn it, let the clowns take a seat long enough to get the dog and pony show over, long enough to actually apply serious critical process to the examination of the matter, before slapping it down like some dime store novel critique amongst it's own competing authorship.

The trolls can just continue along their merry way. Playing to their sold out vacant house of cards. Executing as many repeat satirical, torturesque performances of their old and tired routines as they themselves can muster. In the mean while, maybe I/the rest of us, can actually learn something integral to the observation of FP via encouraging superior learned minds, and perhaps the many unlearned, however inclined beyond what most could imagine, to get busy with this TQP stuff as it applies to the study of consciousness.

If, in the end results we find that we can all agree in a unified sense, on ANYTHING, with respect to the observation of FP, just imagine how monstrous an accomplishment that, in and of itself, would truly be. Are observations in fact, facets of that which are within? Or is matter truly separate from the human condition apart from our physical interactions with it, and relative measurements of it?

Is consciousness possibly tuned ultimately to the relative frequency of light in which an energetic informational transferal results in an influenced constructive process which integrally yields an informational assembly process known to us as reality? , Further, is there, or is there not, a direct effectual relationship between human consciousness and perhaps a yet unrecognized quasi, or as of yet, elusively physically natural component within our environment that acts as a basic interface for such a resultant informational uptake?

Peace/Thanks/I'll do my best to stay tuned in, but if potential replies don't come until next week, I understand as I am a man of action myself, or at least I try to be on the weekends. You can only fit so much into the course of any given day.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes, I may not agree with Randall, but his heart is in the right place, and we are happy to have him in our forum.

At the awesome Goggs, I was just honestly thinking about you this morning! Where have you been? I kind of miss your UFO weigh ins, your general input and such. Did you see my Whiskey David submission in the "music" thread? I was conveying to Pixelsmith yesterday that it was ultimately the forum member roundtable episode that attracted me (much further anyway) to this forum. You, Jeff, Ufology, (I'm guessing that's Randall), and the awesome pixelsmith, did a phenomenal (pun intended) job! So in retrospect, in complete and total respect for the show, it's hosts, you as an authority to whom I am grateful for this forum, and this forum's general membership, I agree that Ufology is not a troll in the sense that you have described, and he's NOT a mean or nasty human being in the least. However, with respect to his routine to cut n paste to elicit the same emotionally driven "prick" over and over predictably, no dice. He's as guilty as a fox in a hen house and I can demonstrate as much via the forum's history itself in a heartbeat. He knows what he's doing, he's just experimenting and further testing the waters. It may be his nature, but it's still tiresome at times. I know that there is WAY TOO MUCH GOOD in Ufology not to basically really like the guy. I do still respect him greatly and value his personal investments of time and energy into what is my favorite and most passionate subject.

At sincerely one of my real life heroes, Gene Steinberg, as usual, I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY. What else can I say?

I apologize to you Randall, for any hurt feelings. It's nice to know your real name, as I had forgot it since that particular episode.

 

[Michael Allen]

I try to stay out of anything resembling drama and just stick to the content. Randall's a good sparring partner...

 

[Randall]

Whereas Ufology has now basically just resorted to sheer snippet level trolling for bla bla bla ... [ snip - see the rest here ]

So let me get this straight. You're saying:

• I'm a troll. Really? What's a SOD trout?
• Michael is afraid. Really? He's certainly not afraid to state his position in detail and provide valid counterpoint.
• Dawkins is a moron. Really? I guess someone got this all wrong then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Awards_and_recognition

But damn it, let the clowns take a seat long enough to get the dog and pony show over, long enough to actually apply serious critical process to the examination of the matter, before slapping it down like some dime store novel critique amongst it's own competing authorship.

That's an about face. I've been advocating that position all along and posted a link to the Foundation for Critical Thinking more than once. So if you're serious about that then how about we start over. This thread is about past lives. The process of critical thinking would have us first ask: What do we hope to accomplish by exploring this issue? My reason is to determine the truth regarding claims of past lives. Can you please sum up your reason for us in a sentence or two? Then we can move on to the next step.

 

[Randall]

I apologize to you Randall, for any hurt feelings. It's nice to know your real name, as I had forgot it since that particular episode.

No apology necessary. But I would challenge you to substantiate your claim that my routine is to cut n paste to elicit the same emotionally driven "prick" over and over. If you actually look at the times where I cut and paste, it's to provide a citation or a reference, or an example from an independent source to either emphasize or prove a point. If I do it more than once it's because it's been glossed over or ignored or it may be useful for convenience sake to post it again. If you find that such references cause you emotional discomfort, then your best recourse is to address them by providing valid counterpoint, and experience the satisfaction that doing so makes. I have no intent to hurt anyone, but at the same time I'm not going to walk on eggshells or simply agree with a position that has been put on the table, just so as not to offend people's particular sensitivities.

 

[Michael Allen]

Thread branch here:

Natural and &quot;Fortean Natural&quot; | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Jeff Davis]

No apology necessary. But I would challenge you to substantiate your claim that my routine is to cut n paste to elicit the same emotionally driven "prick" over and over. If you actually look at the times where I cut and paste, it's to provide a citation or a reference, or an example from an independent source to either emphasize or prove a point. If I do it more than once it's because it's been glossed over or ignored or it may be useful for convenience sake to post it again. If you find that such references cause you emotional discomfort, then your best recourse is to address them, provide valid counterpoint, and experience the satisfaction that doing so makes. I have no intent to hurt anyone, but at the same time I'm not going to walk on eggshells or simply agree with a position that has been put on the table, just so as not to offend people's particular sensitivities.

"Sod Trout" is an old slang term for the dead. "Sewing for Sod Trout" is slang phrase for burying the dead. Johnny Carson used it numerous times in a routine skit in which he was either a mortician or a priest or something on his nightly show in the 70s. Pretty OTT hilarious guy, and also a helluva magician with respect to his never ending passion for the "slight of hand" aspect of Magic performance. As a play on words I used "troll" in the fishing sense/context, the very context I have ALWAYS referred to you in, via the word troll. In my recent refernce in relation to the satirical mention of trout which of course are common sporting fish, summed up, the joke was something to the effect that I was "too alive" to be bothered or distracted by the trolling. I wasn't going to "take the bait". Just satirical mania derived from Carson. Probably one the greatest of all the "70s, self styled comedians".

This will be my last word on the matter in this thread, because I have apologized here, and it really serves no useful purpose to focus on the obvious apart from the hope that we can avoid as much in the future between you and I.

Maybe it's my perspective that's off, but here you go:

1) Your repeated, habitual even, use of the term "mysticism" instead of "theoretical science" when referring to aspects of TQP. That's insulting to those deeply engaged in these scientific considerations, and further, credibly, legitimately, recognized, as some of the greatest thinkers of the past 100 years, plain and simple. It's also JUST NOT TRUE.

2) "woo woo", this isn't a derogatory adjective designed to elicit an emotional response eh? Better try a little harder for the sake of diplomacy. Even check directly for yourself into the vast and real number of empirically reviewed credible papers in the fields of TQP that have been published over the last 100 years. Yep, sounds like the people excitedly interested in as much should be regarded as woo woo first and foremost eh? Nothing condescending there, whatsoever.

3) Your completely predictable condescending video links (cut n paste) citing the same old predictably and politically special interest driven one sided "myth" information that you just posted a relative short time prior. It's a serious short cut for what could be an insightful and sincere post from Randall on the matter, and not just one more cut n paste agenda bolstering propaganda video that you yourself do nothing to substantiate. Maybe you have on this forum in the past Sir, and that is in fact my loss for missing as much, however, I still cannot be expected to know beyond what I witness.

4) Your unwillingness to engage critical points of interest that seriously detract from an opposing perspective. Points that I have raised here on this forum routinely, only to have you offhandedly declare them mystical new age nonsense .

May I please remind you of a clear and important aspect of critical thought please?

Defining Critical Thinking

A well cultivated critical thinker:

• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and
  precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to
  interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,
  recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Honestly Randall, I do apologize for both my inherent, and expressed inadequacies as a human being. Lets be done with this nonconstructive aspect of an otherwise GREAT forum relationship.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Thread branch here:

Natural and &quot;Fortean Natural&quot; | The Paracast Community Forums

On my way!

 

[Randall]

"Sod Trout" is an old slang term for the dead. "Sewing for Sod Trout" is slang phrase for burying the dead. Johnny Carson ...

Thanks for that clarification. I have a set of DVDs with old Johnny Carson shows. I'll have to look out for that next time I pop one in the DVD player.

1) Your repeated, habitual even, use of the term "mysticism" instead of "theoretical science" when referring to aspects of TQP. That's insulting to those deeply engaged in these scientific considerations, and further, credibly, legitimately, recognized, as some of the greatest thinkers of the past 100 years, plain and simple. It's also JUST NOT TRUE.

There is a distinct difference between mysticism and theoretical science and I've illustrated that numerous times now, the last time in the What The Bleep Debunked video. If you don't agree with how I'm using the terms then use specific examples and explain your interpretation of them in coherent language.

2) "woo woo", this isn't a derogatory adjective designed to elicit an emotional response eh? Better try a little harder for the sake of diplomacy. Even check directly for yourself into the vast and real number of empirically reviewed credible papers in the fields of TQP that have been published over the last 100 years. Yep, sounds like the people excitedly interested in as much should be regarded as woo woo first and foremost eh? Nothing condescending there, whatsoever.

Quantum woo woo is a perfectly fitting term for a variety of New Age Mystical claims based on misappropriated scientific terminology and/or scientific sounding, but otherwise unscientific lingo. If you have a hard time dealing with that, then as I said before, the best way to handle it is to address the issues, provide valid counterpoint, and feel the satisfaction that doing so brings.

3) Your completely predictable condescending video links (cut n paste) citing the same old predictably and politically special interest driven one sided "myth" information that you just posted a relative short time prior. It's a serious short cut for what could be an insightful and sincere post from Randall on the matter, and not just one more cut n paste agenda bolstering propaganda video that you yourself do nothing to substantiate. Maybe you have on this forum in the past Sir, and that is in fact my loss for missing as much, however, I still cannot be expected to know beyond what I witness.

The above does not address the issues or provide valid counterpoint. It amounts to no more than complaining about my response to your claims. If you don't agree with the content or the points they make, then address the content and points and explain in a coherent fashion why they are in error.

4) Your unwillingness to engage critical points of interest that seriously detract from an opposing perspective. Points that I have raised here on this forum routinely, only to have you offhandedly declare them mystical new age nonsense .

I've not offhandedly declared your points as mystical new age nonsense. Offhandedly would mean I haven't seriously considered the evidence in favor of your claims or requested clarification in order to determine their validity. I have done both repeatedly. It is you who have refused to engage in that process, choosing instead to either ignore or complain. So take a look at yourself next time before blaming me.

May I please remind you of a clear and important aspect of critical thought please?

Defining Critical Thinking

A well cultivated critical thinker:

• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and
  precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to
  interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,
  recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

I presume the red text is another accusation. The part you seem to be missing there is the very first word, the word "thinks". The fact is that I do think open-mindedly. You seem to be confusing thinking with simply accepting. I'd also remind you about this part from the list you posted: "gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards." This doesn't mean comparing your reasons to unsubstantiated claims and beliefs that you prefer to believe. It means taking a hard look at the objective evidence and the logical soundness of the premises upon which theories and claims are based.

Honestly Randall, I do apologize for both my inherent, and expressed inadequacies as a human being.

No need to get passive aggressive. Nowhere have I claimed that you're an inadequate human being. I honestly don't know what your motives here are. I offered to start over clean here at step one of the critical thinking process, and once again you've glossing past it as if it weren't even there, only to continue with what you say you'd rather not engage in. Why do that? Is it just something you overlooked?

Lets be done with this nonconstructive aspect of an otherwise GREAT forum relationship.

You want to take a breather from this discussion? Sure. Why not. It might do us some good to let the air clear a bit. Consider the discussion tabled ( whew ) .

 

[Constance]

I have to admit that among those who are popular in the field of reincarnation studies ( or whatever it's called ), Stevenson has made more of an effort to find meaningful evidence than most. However there still remains a propensity to interpret unexplained facets as evidence for the concept of reincarnation ( dead Alice = living Bob ). So long as that concept remains in place in any way shape or form, the whole field ( if you can call it a field ) is working from a false premise. Therefore any claims of scientific study go right out the window, and the whole thing is relegated to pseudoscience. That doesn't mean that there may not be something truly mysterious going on. It just means that it's not being studied with appropriate objectivity.

I'm just beginning to read this thread as a whole, so my reply may come at a point at which you've been disabused of certain misunderstandings. Re the italicized statement above and the underscored phrase "a false premise," it seems that you have not read much of Stevenson's research. He and his successor in that research program at the University of Virginia, as well as their colleagues around the world, pursue not a 'premise' or 'presupposition' but a hypothesis that the accumulating evidence suggests the possibility of re-incarnation of the mind/consciousness/soul of one individual in another embodied lifetime.
You are too quick to dismiss the careful research undertaken by these researchers as 'pseudoscience'. Increasing numbers of scientists do not do so.

On the evidence of physical characteristics like birthmarks, the subjects may have lineage that dates back to a common ancestor with such a birthmark, the branch of which split and went two separate ways, giving rise to similar birthmarks in seemingly unrelated families. . . .

You've apparently missed the significance of Stevenson's birthmark research -- that children who remember past lives often remember violent deaths and that they present 'birthmarks' {which are not ordinary birthmarks but anomalous configurations of tissue of some other type) at the sites of the fatal wounds suffered by the earlier individual}. Another kind of 'objective evidence' of re-incarnation is presented in cases of significant responsive xenoglossia, esp the case of Sharada. Anomalous language capability is one type among other kinds of behaviors that turn up in individuals who remember previous lives demonstrating 'knowledge-how' rather than 'knowledge-that' (the former being skills learned 'in the body' as opposed to knowledge that might represent only information heard and remembered).

Given the significance of the possibility that consciousnesses might survive death and might sometimes return to take up another embodied lifetime, I see re-incarnation research as deserving of our species' attention. If ultimately persuasive enough and propagated widely enough, this information could inspire transformations in thinking that could reform the way we live here on this planet.

It IS like trying to prove that the feelings we have for another person are real. They are intangible, escaping the calipers and beakers we seek to quantify everything with. That is how they are similar. Making a blanket statement to support your opinion that "past lives can be completely ruled out by sheer logic" is like me saying "I can scientifically prove that orange is better than blue" - yeah, I could write you a few walls of text and justifications, but it would be just that. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not possible. ET's are allegedly visiting our planet, but our scientists say that it's not possible to travel the distances proposed.

Are out of body experiences all lies and made up stories? And NDE's? Are people like Dr Michael Newton just complete frauds? (psychologist who shut down his practice after stumbling onto past lives during a hypnotherapy session, then spent 30 years on it before writing a couple books on his findings) Was the retirement pay for being a doctor so bad that he had to make up enough fake case stories to fill a few books? It is possible I suppose, look at all the shit Whitley Strieber farts out of his lie-hole. Books are a bad example though - you can find a plethora of books to support either side of the argument. It's all just a matter of opinion in the end and which set of books you accept as symptoms of proof.



If you are of the opinion that we are nothing more than our physical parts, then yes, I can see why it would sound silly to think that Alice would be Bob. The molecules that comprised Alice's body are rotting in the ground and being used by other living organisms now. The crux is whether or not you believe that we are a consciousness occupying a body or we are just a body and nothing else. If the latter is the case, we're pretty much at a standstill here and there's no point to continue.

Rather than re-write the sentiment, I'll paste what I said on this topic elsewhere: "If you lose a limb, your main body is still "you". You can lose or replace just about any part of the body and still live, still be "you". Heart, kidneys, limbs, even portions of your brain can get blown out and you'll still be "alive". So what physical piece of your body is "you"? I don't think you can live without a brain stem, so does that mean that you are simply a brain stem with a big mostly-water meatbag of organs and skin attached to it? Probably not. Rather, I ask myself, who/what is the thing that is observing all this from behind my eyeballs? What is the voice talking in my head when I read a book? Who is it that is listening to that voice?"

Why do most people accept the fact that a consciousness (your consciousness) can inhabit a body once, but doing so multiple times is impossible? I think it makes perfect sense that we are generally blocked from seeing everything from our past lives. What if you were aware that 4 lives ago the consciousness that is now your brother killed you in an argument? Think of all the beef you generate just 1 time around. Who knows if it's true, but we're all just supposedly actors on a stage, filling different roles to learn different lessons. Karma isn't a penal code - it's the way an individual gets another chance to do the correct thing. I guess by having shittiness, you get an appreciation for awesomeness. Like the disclaimer said though, who knows if it's true.

This line of thought combined with my own experiences have formed my opinions on the matter. I could be wrong. You could be wrong too. Guess we'll know when we get there Hopefully "there" will have a nice little pub we can get a pint or two at to discuss.

Have you ever tried a few regressions with a good practitioner? I used to be a straight up staunch Dawkins-esque atheist. Then I had some weird experiences and started exploring, experimenting - trying the things I was hearing about. When I do, I suspend my disbelief temporarily (there's all the time in the world afterwards to critique it, no need to be scared), follow the instructions with corresponding intention, surrender, and go with the flow. If it's crap, you can see it's crap afterwards. I suggest ya try it before ya knock it. To me you sound like someone saying how Arizona is a terrible place to visit that has never been there Get out of your over-thinking over-analyzing brain a little - you're too smart for your own good sometimes mate

Great post. The take-home line: "Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not possible."

 

[Constance]

We're not going to make any progress with an IS versus "isn't" versus IS versus "isn't " loop. What needs to be considered is why we should believe it's one way or another and then compare the reasons to see which makes the most sense based on the evidence and critical analysis.

You don't have enough evidence or 'reasons' to decide today whether reincarnation in the sense Stevenson and Tyger and others are/were pursuing it should be investigated further or ruled out. Indeed, most of your posits of what is possible depend on a materialist, objectivist paradigm that is being questioned by many scientists today. Moreover, you take it as an article of faith that a system of 'logic' developed historically on limited premises and limiting presuppositions is by some miracle valid for all time. Why do you believe you have decide now about the possible truth value of evidence of re-incarnation? Read the scope and details of the research first, in this field and some others (quantum mechanics, information, entanglement). This time we live in is no time in which to rely on presuppositional thinking.

The only thing that would be left to tie you to your old self would be a set of memories. But are memories alone sufficient to claim you are actually still the same person?

You misunderstand what reincarnation research proposes -- {a question; a hypothesis; a possibility; an increasing probability given the 2,000 veridically supported cases currently accumulated in the U of Virginia reincarnation research files and other research archives elsewhere} -- and you've failed to grasp the ancient systems of thought that Tyger has summarized for you which provide a wholly different concept of the human being than that which materialist science of the last few hundred years has proposed. To repeat what these researchers have said one more time, the life of the re-incarnated individual is a new life that carries with it veridical memories of a past life. Claiming that you can dismiss that possibility on the basis of a temporally, historically evolved 'logic' and a scientific paradigm now being severely challenged is not good enough at this point. To dismiss the evidence for re-incarnation of some memories and aspects of the personality of a formerly existing human being, you'd need to provide another explanation that can account for the nature of the research Stevenson and others have presented.

This brings us to the second reason, the concept of equivalency.
The concept of past lives is hinged on the idea that a person living in the now is the same person as one who lived before ( e.g. Cameron is the Boy Who Lived Before ) or any number of other examples. Making such claims implicitly implies equivalency of persons in order to be true.

That idea is foreign to reincarnation research. Where did you get it?

Have I ever tried a few regressions with a good practitioner? No. But even if I were to do that and have some incredible experience where I was able to recall some verifiable information about the life of a deceased person, it wouldn't justify saying I was actually that deceased person in a past life. It would only justify saying that through some unexplained process I was able to obtain information related to some deceased person.

How much have you read about regression therapy? There are at least two major reasons to see it as involving the re-living of past lifetime experiences. The first is the intense emotional involvement in and response to the relived experiences. (Regressions are not like hearing some television reporter describing a traffic accident.) The second and more significant is that regression therapy over many decades now has proved to be efficacious in relieving a wide range of disabling physical and mental pain in patients driven to pursue regression because nothing else has worked. This is how Brian Weiss came to be involved in regression therapy with his first patient through the insistence of his colleagues that nothing they'd been able to do had helped. I think if you acquainted yourself with the history of such therapy (which predates Weiss and Newton, etc.) you would recognize that there's something significant going on in reincarnation research and be less likely to want to dismiss it out of hand.

I would still be the same unique individual I am now who has never lived before and once I am gone will never live again.

How do you know that? Again, read the accounts of patients who have benefitted from it before you judge. Re: being a 'unique individual' once and for all as you seem to believe, I think all of us have been many unique individuals as we've changed with life experiences and learning and spiritual growth, still possessing a core self that has changed yet remained integrated, and potentially discovering a more encompassing individual Spirit that has endured many lives with us.

 

[Constance]

Mike quoted the following on pg. 3 of the thread:

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

Just wondering, "scenes" as seen from whose point of view?

 

[Tyger]

Mike quote the following on pg. 3 of the thread:

Just wondering, "scenes" as seen from whose point of view?

Bingo!

 

[Constance]

Tyger wrote: "Science at it's best is thrilling - and I adore the chase for the fact and the new idea - but science is not the 'shining city on the hill'. It has been too long away and distant from it's philosophical roots imo."

Indeed, Tyger. Cut them off at the ground, tried to forget them. But they cropped up again like a network of rhizomes with complexity, systems theory, quantum information and entanglement, and -- finally -- being forced to face up to consciousness. No turning back now.

 

[Randall]

You don't have enough evidence or 'reasons' to decide today whether reincarnation in the sense Stevenson and Tyger and others are/were pursuing it should be investigated further or ruled out.

Perhaps your view of, "... the sense Stevenson and Tyger and others are/were pursuing it ..." is not the same as mine, or there is some other worldview impinging on your interpretation of my commentary. If you have some specific concept or idea that we can discuss, then let's do that instead.

Indeed, most of your posits of what is possible depend on a materialist, objectivist paradigm that is being questioned by many scientists today. Moreover, you take it as an article of faith that a system of 'logic' developed historically on limited premises and limiting presuppositions is by some miracle valid for all time. Why do you believe you have decide now about the possible truth value of evidence of re-incarnation? Read the scope and details of the research first, in this field and some others (quantum mechanics, information, entanglement). This time we live in is no time in which to rely on presuppositional thinking.

Logic ≠ Faith, and I don't use "presuppositional thinking". I rely on critical thinking and evidence.

You misunderstand what reincarnation research proposes ...

You presume I misunderstand when the issue is not one of "understanding" but of context. I frame my responses to address the issues at hand, as they are laid out in their immediacy. So for you to take those responses and apply them to another context, and then say I misunderstand, is not a reasonable or fair assessment of my commentary.

... To repeat what these researchers have said one more time, the life of the re-incarnated individual is a new life that carries with it veridical memories of a past life. Claiming that you can dismiss that possibility on the basis of a temporally, historically evolved 'logic' and a scientific paradigm now being severely challenged is not good enough at this point. To dismiss the evidence for re-incarnation of some memories and aspects of the personality of a formerly existing human being, you'd need to provide another explanation that can account for the nature of the research Stevenson and others have presented.

There is evidence that suggests that some people have somehow obtained memories that seemingly correspond some of the time to those of some other deceased person. The mystery therefore is not how there is a "Boy Who Lived Before" ( the title of this thread ), which implies, that some dead person "x" has become some living person "y". The mystery is how living person "y" obtained memories that seem to correspond to those dead person "x" may have had.

That idea is foreign to reincarnation research. Where did you get it?

You are adding a new context to a previous comment, and in doing so implying that I've addressed an issue that I haven't. My comment wasn't restricted to the issue you tacked on ( reincarnation research ) in particular, but to the idea of reincarnation in its general sense, which includes ideas like we can be the same people now as someone else who has lived before, and is once again promoted in the video upon which this thread is based ... e.g. The Boy Who Lived Before.

How much have you read about regression therapy?

I've read enough about regression therapy to know that it may furnish clues, but is not reliable, and that in the area of ufology ( my main area of study ), no hypnotic regression I'm aware of ( and I've read through many examples ) has produced anything verifiable that is beyond the range of human knowledge, and can therefore be shown to be of some otherworldly origin.

There are at least two major reasons to see it as involving the re-living of past lifetime experiences. The first is the intense emotional involvement in and response to the relived experiences. (Regressions are not like hearing some television reporter describing a traffic accident.) The second and more significant is that regression therapy over many decades now has proved to be efficacious in relieving a wide range of disabling physical and mental pain in patients driven to pursue regression because nothing else has worked. This is how Brian Weiss came to be involved in regression therapy with his first patient through the insistence of his colleagues that nothing they'd been able to do had helped. I think if you acquainted yourself with the history of such therapy (which predates Weiss and Newton, etc.) you would recognize that there's something significant going on in reincarnation research and be less likely to want to dismiss it out of hand.

I don't, "dismiss it ( hypnotic regression ) out of hand". When I encounter such stories, I look for evidence that the information obtained from it corresponds to some objective reality, and then consider the various ways we might account for it.

How do you know that?

Let's review what I actually said, to quote below:

"Have I ever tried a few regressions with a good practitioner? No. But even if I were to do that and have some incredible experience where I was able to recall some verifiable information about the life of a deceased person, it wouldn't justify saying I was actually that deceased person in a past life. It would only justify saying that through some unexplained process I was able to obtain information related to some deceased person. I would still be the same unique individual I am now who has never lived before and once I am gone will never live again. And so are you my friend. Be proud of it. Own it, and make something out of it. The sooner you do this and leave behind this "past life" nonsense, the closer you'll be to figuring out the real truth behind the phenomena."​

The part you wanted a specific answer to is in bold above. Now to answer in general, independent identities, entities, things ( whatever the case ) are by definition independent, and therefore cannot each be one in the same. Therefore it follows from this truth that you or I or anyone else cannot be anyone other than who we are. The logic of this excludes everyone else from being who we are. Anyone else would be an impostor. At best, even a perfect clone of you with identical DNA would not be the same "you". Only you can justifiably be said to be you. Logically that excludes some other person ( dead or alive, in the past or in the future ) from being you.

Again, read the accounts of patients who have benefitted from it before you judge.

You have a habit of presuming that I'm uninformed and prejudicial. I wish you would stop with that, and stick to the evidence and the reasoning.

Re: being a 'unique individual' once and for all as you seem to believe, I think all of us have been many unique individuals as we've changed with life experiences and learning and spiritual growth, still possessing a core self that has changed yet remained integrated, and potentially discovering a more encompassing individual Spirit that has endured many lives with us.

Your last comment above is a good point to reflect on, and contrary to what you seem to think, I've already done a lot of that on this specific issue. What you're dealing with above is the concept of identity. When you say, "we have been many unique individuals", you are using the concepts of "experience" and "growth" in to justify saying that as people experience and grow they don't retain their same identity as unique individuals. However this is not the case. Regardless of how much person "x" grows and learns and experiences whatever they will, it will not make them into person "y". It will only make them into person "x" plus or minus various experiences and whatever other changes take place. They can never literally become someone else.

 

[Constance]

Randall, our exchange on this topic is just going around in circles at this point, so I'll just repeat my main point once more:

To repeat what these researchers have said one more time, the life of the re-incarnated individual is a new life that carries with it veridical memories of a past life. Claiming that you can dismiss that possibility on the basis of a temporally, historically evolved 'logic' and a scientific paradigm now being severely challenged is not good enough at this point. To dismiss the evidence for re-incarnation of some memories and aspects of the personality of a formerly existing human being, you'd need to provide another explanation that can account for the nature of the research Stevenson and others have presented.

This is asking no more than what Marcello Truzzi requires of responsible skeptics in his essay at Bernard Haisch's ufoskeptic.org website.

UFO Skeptic