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

[Jeff Davis]

I did a lot of reading on IQ at one time (long ago) and came across the Flynn Effect, when you posted, it just reminded me of this and I posted it - it's pretty hard to pin down what is actually going on there, I don't think it means people are getting smarter and smarter in some absolute sense . . . IQ is not equal to intelligence I don't think and it's also not fixed. Galton posited the idea of "g" as general intelligence and claimed that it corresponded to speed of reflex, I think this was later refined with EEGs and that came up again in The Bell Curve with all it's controversies over race and IQ.

Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book): Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray: 9780684824291: Amazon.com: Books

I personally think that the Flynn Effect is more so an indicator of educational familiarity, and most importantly, it's accessibility to the general public. I personally see little to no evidence whatsoever that human beings are getting more intelligent. Not at least the ones where I am from.

 

[Constance]

To me it's more logical to think that it suggests exactly the opposite ( that consciousness is dependent on brain function ).

You're referring to the phenomenon of brain activity being suddenly revived to a high level of activity in longterm coma patients when the technicians are about to turn off life support? What makes it more 'logical' to interpret this phenomenon as caused by the brain, when preceding the sudden reawakening of brain activity the brain has long been in what is called a 'vegetative state'? It appears that consciousness operating outside the vegetative brain becomes aware of the intention of another consciousness (the technician), as Tyger has pointed out, and reawakens the inactive brain for some purpose for a matter of several minutes. What could that purpose be? Perhaps to reintegrate itself (i.e., largely disembodied consciousness) with the memory stores still entangled in the brain in preparation for the actual departure of the 'self' or personality from embodiment -- i.e., to preserve the history of the self or spirit in its transition to a different zone or plane of existence. This would correspond with the frequent report of instantaneous life review reported by some NDEers recognizing or believing that they are about to die (in an accident, for example), and in other NDEs the life review experienced as flashing through one's consciousness soon after the conveyance through the tunnel.

After all, the evidence leading to the suggestion ( either way ) is intimately connected to brain function.

I don't think anyone would argue with that statement as applied to consciously lived episodes of embodied life (by contrast with dream states, mystical states, etc.). In ordinary active (waking) consciousness and in thoughtful reflection and application to demanding tasks, the brain facilitates embodied and mental activity, and these states are built out of interaction with things and ideas about the actual encountered world.

For that matter, virtually all the evidence suggests that human consciousness requires a functioning brain.

These days there is considerable evidence to the contrary in NDE research (also some similar reports of 'interlife' or 'intermissional' experience between past lives in regression therapy and a handful of such cases reported by Stevenson in some cases of apparent 'reincarnation' (as qualified in a definition above).

Perhaps for some people ( like yourself ) some evidence also somehow suggests brain function isn't required, and I'm willing to consider that possibility, but what concerns me is why believers only acknowledge the least supported of the two possibilities and often do whatever they can to dismiss or handwave evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint.

People who have had evidence of contact from a discarnate consciousness, and those who research these kinds of events, naturally want to pursue investigations of the separability of consciousness from embodied brain function despite standard skeptical attitudes. And they are well aware that the consensus reality in our time prohibits taking those experiences seriously. In most cases these people have had to be persuaded to take a nonmaterialist viewpoint toward their own and others' reported experiences. In short, this is a serious inquiry (in personal terms for experiencers and in philosophical/scientific terms for the researchers of these experiences). If you follow the histories of psychic, psi, and consciousness research over the last 140 years, you will recognize both the high degree of skepticism long maintained by the researchers and its eventual overcoming for many, perhaps most, of them based in the accumulation of veridical evidence.

 

[Randall]

You're referring to the phenomenon of brain activity being suddenly revived to a high level of activity in longterm coma patients when the technicians are about to turn off life support? What makes it more 'logical' to interpret this phenomenon as caused by the brain, when preceding the sudden reawakening of brain activity the brain has long been in what is called a 'vegetative state'?

It's logical to interpret the increased activity of the brain being caused by the brain because it's the activity of the brain that's being measured. This would seem to be a "no brainer" ( har har har ).

These days there is considerable evidence to the contrary in NDE research (also some similar reports of 'interlife' or 'intermissional' experience between past lives in regression therapy and a handful of such cases reported by Stevenson in some cases of apparent 'reincarnation' (as qualified in a definition above).

Hardly "evidence to the contrary". Virtually all the evidence you cite comes from living people with living brains in the form of memories, and memories have also been well established by neuroscience to be stored in a particular region of the brain. Memories have also been shown to be inaccurate, or created in a context that doesn't reflect objective reality ( e.g. dream states ). Also, I am not aware of any substantial and verifiable evidence that NDEs or OOBEs represent a real-time perceptual experience of objective reality.

People who have had evidence of contact from a discarnate consciousness, and those who research these kinds of events, naturally want to pursue investigations of the separability of consciousness from embodied brain function despite standard skeptical attitudes. And they are well aware that the consensus reality in our time prohibits taking those experiences seriously. In most cases these people have had to be persuaded to take a nonmaterialist viewpoint toward their own and others' reported experiences. In short, this is a serious inquiry (in personal terms for experiencers and in philosophical/scientific terms for the researchers of these experiences). If you follow the histories of psychic, psi, and consciousness research over the last 140 years, you will recognize both the high degree of skepticism long maintained by the researchers and its eventual overcoming for many, perhaps most, of them based in the accumulation of veridical evidence.

Setting all the politics aside, it remains true that claims based on personal subjective experiences are sufficient for the experiencer to draw the conclusion that they did indeed have an experience, but such experiences may not be sufficient for the experiencer to be certain about all the details of such experiences, including their exact nature ( e.g. it was due to a discarnate consciousness ). Why? Because people can be fooled and misled by natural and/or engineered means, and by others or even themselves, into believing things that are not true. For example, it is the job of the illusionist to exploit human biases, preconceptions, and weaknesses in perception in order to create the illusion of reality.

But even if no illusionist is involved, our own biases and beliefs coupled with the right circumstances can lead people to jump to unsupported conclusions. For example, I've chatted with many people who claim to have experienced what they personally interpret to be a miracle, but every situation I was able to get further details on amounted to nothing more than the mundane. For example, there were several who felt that because they were not killed in a motor vehicle accident that they were involved in, that God or an angle or some mystical force had intervened to save them. However they could offer no information to substantiate that belief. There were no observations of God, or angels, or anything mystical, and what's more, if these entities or forces were truly existent, then why didn't they simply prevent the accidents in the first place rather than allow them to happen? It's often nonsense, yet people fool themselves into believing what they want to believe.

So although I don't doubt that people have had experiences that have led them to jump to their preferred conclusions about NDEs and OOBEs, those conclusions are not actually supported by the evidence. Instead, those conclusions are based on assumptions that appear to correspond to culture based programming and/or personal wants, needs, or desires. In other words, those who want to believe in life after death and have an experience that they can fit into that paradigm will have that paradigm reinforced by the experience, and they will tend to be dismissive of logic counter to their preferred beliefs.

 

[smcder]

The King found his Jester to be a more so suited mirror due to all the vanity that filled his own. You are right, as you were via the Flynn Effect, (which I found amusing due to the acedemic arguments that have ensued since - Genetics vs, Academics) and external perspective is often incredibly helpful.

I think external perspective is essential - when we close ourselves off, when I have closed myself off, from external perspective, from criticism to focus only on asserting my own position or even when I simply haven't listened to others, raised my voice to talk over them . . . I learned nothing and neither, I now realized, did the other person!

 

[smcder]

You're referring to the phenomenon of brain activity being suddenly revived to a high level of activity in longterm coma patients when the technicians are about to turn off life support? What makes it more 'logical' to interpret this phenomenon as caused by the brain, when preceding the sudden reawakening of brain activity the brain has long been in what is called a 'vegetative state'? It appears that consciousness operating outside the vegetative brain becomes aware of the intention of another consciousness (the technician), as Tyger has pointed out, and reawakens the inactive brain for some purpose for a matter of several minutes. What could that purpose be? Perhaps to reintegrate itself (i.e., largely disembodied consciousness) with the memory stores still entangled in the brain in preparation for the actual departure of the 'self' or personality from embodiment -- i.e., to preserve the history of the self or spirit in its transition to a different zone or plane of existence. This would correspond with the frequent report of instantaneous life review reported by some NDEers recognizing or believing that they are about to die (in an accident, for example), and in other NDEs the life review experienced as flashing through one's consciousness soon after the conveyance through the tunnel.

I don't think anyone would argue with that statement as applied to consciously lived episodes of embodied life (by contrast with dream states, mystical states, etc.). In ordinary active (waking) consciousness and in thoughtful reflection and application to demanding tasks, the brain facilitates embodied and mental activity, and these states are built out of interaction with things and ideas about the actual encountered world.

These days there is considerable evidence to the contrary in NDE research (also some similar reports of 'interlife' or 'intermissional' experience between past lives in regression therapy and a handful of such cases reported by Stevenson in some cases of apparent 'reincarnation' (as qualified in a definition above).


People who have had evidence of contact from a discarnate consciousness, and those who research these kinds of events, naturally want to pursue investigations of the separability of consciousness from embodied brain function despite standard skeptical attitudes. And they are well aware that the consensus reality in our time prohibits taking those experiences seriously. In most cases these people have had to be persuaded to take a nonmaterialist viewpoint toward their own and others' reported experiences. In short, this is a serious inquiry (in personal terms for experiencers and in philosophical/scientific terms for the researchers of these experiences). If you follow the histories of psychic, psi, and consciousness research over the last 140 years, you will recognize both the high degree of skepticism long maintained by the researchers and its eventual overcoming for many, perhaps most, of them based in the accumulation of veridical evidence.

237. Dr. Patricia Churchland Sandbagged by Near-Death Experience Questions | Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point

Dr. Patricia Churchland has come up in previous conversations in terms of eliminative materialism.

"Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. Descartes famously challenged much of what we take for granted, but he insisted that, for the most part, we can be confident about the content of our own minds. Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted."
(Eliminative Materialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


This link has audio and a full transcript.


Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with University of California, San Diego philosophy professor Dr. Patricia Churchland. During the interview Dr. Churchland seems flustered over questions about near-death experience science.


Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, but I think we also have problems with the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain thing? I interviewed Christof Koch from Cal Tech last year and he’s the guy who I sent people down this direction that we can no longer claim that consciousness is a product of the brain and we have to move towards this middle position where as he says, consciousness is ontologically distinct, but never really defining how consciousness begins, how consciousness ends, or exactly what the relationship is with the brain.

I think a lot of people are more comfortable with Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins’ okay, consciousness is an illusion than they are with this middle ground. I don’t really know how that answers the big questions of what the nature of consciousness is other than just to repeat that consciousness is something that the brain does. That doesn’t tell us much. How does it begin? When does it end? What’s necessary and sufficient to cause consciousness? These are all questions that are unanswered by what you’re saying.


. . .


Alex Tsakiris: I’m just saying these are basic. When does consciousness begin? When does it end? What is necessary and sufficient to create consciousness? If we can’t answer those then what do we really have? What can we really say about consciousness?

Dr. Patricia Churchland: Well, I guess we can’t say anything.

 

[smcder]

There are some good comments following the transcript - one mentions:

Hector Durville experiments about the exteriorization of sensibility and Karlis Osis experiments about extracorporeal experiences.

Have you heard of these names?

 

[Constance]

Steve, I've heard of Karlis Osis and have read about some of his work, mailing with OBEs as I recall. Have not heard of Durville. 'Exterorization of sensibility' sounds very interesting. I'll read the interview and comments you linked to. Thanks.

 

[smcder]

Steve, I've heard of Karlis Osis and have read about some of his work, mailing with OBEs as I recall. Have not heard of Durville. 'Exterorization of sensibility' sounds very interesting. I'll read the interview and comments you linked to. Thanks.

You are welcome. Thank you for the link to Realistic monism - I got an account to download the PDF - looks promising, I'm tackling it now, trying to sort what is meant by experience as a necessarily occurrent (essentially non-dispositional) phenomenon

. . .

In denying that experience can be physical, Dennett and his kind find themselves at one with many religious believers. This seems at first ironic, but the two camps are deeply united by the fact that both have unshakable faith in something that lacks any warrant in experience. That said, the religious believers are in infinitely better shape, epistemologically, than the Dennettians.


Gotta love the chutzpah! ;-)

will keep reading

 

[Constance]

Here is an overview of Karlis Osis's research career:

Life After Death?

 

[Constance]

There are some good comments following the transcript.

Yes, those comments are worth reading and instructive concerning the differences between emergentism and eliminative materialism. The interview is instructive concerning Patricia Churchland's inability to interact rationally in discussion and irresponsibility in her research concerning Pim von Lommel's extraordinary book on NDEs and the lack of medical explanations for them.

 

[Constance]

. . . our own biases and beliefs coupled with the right circumstances can lead people to jump to unsupported conclusions. .

My impression is that that can also be said of your conclusions, Randall. Have you read the article by Christof Koch linked recently by Steve?

 

[smcder]

My impression is that that can also be said of your conclusions, Randall. Have you read the article by Christof Koch linked recently by Steve?

this one - Constance?

160. Dr. Christof Koch on Human Consciousness and Near-Death Experience Research | Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point

. . . or maybe another reference? I did a search on Koch in the forum and this was all I found. I do think Alex has a point on meaningless on Koch's point of view and maybe that's a big part of what drives all this . . . maybe in his essay Trying to Nail My Colors to the Mast he does a better job (and it's interesting that Alex seems to allude that there is more in that essay than Koch admits in the interview) but it's very hard to claim any kind of meaning from the worldview he professes and his response didn't make a lot of sense to me (I wonder if that was supposed to be Wittgenstein?)

Dr. Koch: Oh no, they’re not equal. I didn’t say they’re equal. I didn’t mean to imply they’re equal. They’re just different conceptions of the universe. There’s a very famous young Lichtenstein, the meaning of the universe cannot be found in the universe if there is such a meaning, right? So to me it’s a meaning called universe. To many others it is and to others it isn’t so that’s the metaphysics and it’s a question of personal belief.

 

[Randall]

My impression is that that can also be said of your conclusions ...

You would have to substantiate your "impression" with coherent examples. The only two I've acknowledged so far is my conclusion that despite the lack of definitive evidence, based on my own personal experiences, and the unsubstantiated stories of others, that there is something out of the ordinary going on with respect to some psychic phenomena, and on the issue of UFOs, although I fully admit that there is no verifiable scientifically valid material evidence available to the public at large that to substantiate claims of alien visitation, I still believe it is taking place. However at least I recognize and admit that my personal experiences and the beliefs based on them are insufficient evidence for most other people.

Randall. Have you read the article by Christof Koch linked recently by Steve?

If you have some specific point about some specific article it would be helpful if you would provide a relevant link and a quote. In the meantime, I don't know if I've read the article you are referring to. However I've read articles that mention Koch and may be relevant ( like this one ), and will address the points that seem most salient:

Panpsychism is nothing new, nor is it substantiated by the evidence. Although I also once thought sufficient complexity and processing power combined with sensory feedback systems, was probably all that would be required for consciousness to emerge, I no longer think we can be so sure of that. Rather, I am now of the view that it's the manner of complexity that is the single most important factor, and by that, I mean that the system needs to be organized in a specific way that makes it possible for consciousness emerge. IMO it's short sighted to assume that raw processing alone is at the heart of consciousness.

The analogy I usually refer to is that of magnetism. If the kind of thinking panpsychism uses were applied to that of magnetism, then magnetism should arise out of any "sufficiently complex" collection of electricity, wire, and iron. However that is simply not the case. You can have a million batteries, pieces of wire, and bits of iron, strewn about a stadium sized container and no magnetic field will emerge. However if you have just one continuous foot of copper wire, one 4 inch iron nail, and one charged battery, arranged in the right way, then presto! You get the mystery of magnetism.

Similarly, I support the theory that in the same way that magnetism can only arise ( emerge ) from a specific configuration of wire, iron, and electricity ( a coil of wire in an electrical circuit wrapped around an iron core ), consciousness can only arise ( emerge ) from a specific configuration of materials that are capable of producing it, and our brains are one model that appears to work. Perhaps there are other models that will also work, but I've yet to see a single example of something without a brain, or for that matter even with a brain such as a linear computer processor, exhibit behavior that can be tested in a manner that makes it reasonable to believe it possesses consciousness.

 

[Polterwurst]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about some documentary film or other? I'm beginning to think it should be renamed "The Great Spiritualist vs. Materialist Debate". Or something.

 

[smcder]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about some documentary film or other? I'm beginning to think it should be renamed "The Great Spiritualist vs. Materialist Debate". Or something.

Oops! I see the Strawson article was linked elsewhere, I'm making additional comments to it on the Consciousness and the Paranormal thread.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about some documentary film or other? I'm beginning to think it should be renamed "The Great Spiritualist vs. Materialist Debate". Or something.

It's a very fascinating thread that I have been reading through from time to time. It seems largely centered on what we choose to align our faith, and our doubts with. There is such a wealth of investment that we make in either. I have been turned on to some very inspiring thinking in this thread.

As a personal assessment of my own beliefs as topically relevant here, I am certain that information exists prior to cognitive recognition, and even so entirely apart from the physical human condition. This to me seems obvious.

What do you think Polterwurst? Do you believe in the validity of reincarnation?

 

[Polterwurst]

Do you believe in the validity of reincarnation?

I think I have reason to believe in it. I have heard two kids making strange remarks when they were between 3 and 6 years old and one had a strange woundlike birthmark. If you haven't read it already, here's a more detailed description.

The second case involved a very dear person who seems to have "come back" on purpose near me. I'm not saying this lightly and I know how it sounds, but I actually find it hard to explain it otherwise. And I've always looked for alternatives and watched out not to make the child believe I expected it to behave in a certain way.

It's of course nothing but speculation, but there seems to have been a decision by the deceased after death and that's what's been turning my worldview upside down and causing many sleepless nights these last years.

So yeah, I guess I do believe in reincarnation. But I don't expect anyone to believe me. If someone hasn't had any experience like that, I can understand why he or she is not willing to entertain the thought, especially if he or she has been brought up in "western materialist society".

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think I have reason to believe in it. I have heard two kids making strange remarks when they were between 3 and 6 years old and one had a strange woundlike birthmark. If you haven't read it already, here's a more detailed description.

The second case involved a very dear person who seems to have "come back" on purpose near me. I'm not saying this lightly and I know how it sounds, but I actually find it hard to explain it otherwise. And I've always looked for alternatives and watched out not to make the child believe I expected it to behave in a certain way.

It's of course nothing but speculation, but there seems to have been a decision by the deceased after death and that's what's been turning my worldview upside down and causing many sleepless nights these last years.

So yeah, I guess I do believe in reincarnation. But I don't expect anyone to believe me. If someone hasn't had any experience like that, I can understand why he or she is not willing to entertain the thought, especially if he or she has been brought up in "western materialist society".

Oh man, did I ever enjoy that! I so respect your beliefs and views on the matter and you conveyed them in a way that really is intriguing to me.

There is no question that there are cases such as the one that this thread centers on that make it seem to me as though reincarnation is a reality. An undeniable reality. But really, what does that mean? And most importantly, what does that mean in the natural scheme of things?

To me, it is an absolute inspiration to run long and hard with the "non-local nature of existence" ball. The physical container or cocoon that temporally embodies the signified transitioning information that our willful experiences consist of is composite in nature, and yet is consisting of two separate states of existence nonetheless. Two significantly different existent aptitudes occupying the same precise location and space make for a singularly perceived temporal cohesion due to the temporal memory based synchronicity of process that such an existence dictates. We live in a universe wherein the physicality of observable measurement is constantly catching up with us. Light is fast, but nothing compared to the speed of information which can only be perceived as already having arrived at it's destination. Light illuminates the observable for us physically in reverse, whereas information is both the carrier and the architect of reality wherein light is born of our cognitive necessity for it.

If you want proof of the separate nature of information, apart from the human condition, and yet ultimately integral to it, one must look no further than the gifted child who sits down after hearing a musical piece once and plays it flawlessly from start to finish without any prior training. This is the real nature of being an intuitive sentient free willed critter. I think reincarnation occurs when the same signature key fits more than one unique ignition. Shit happens.Edit: You know what I mean, something extraordinary happens. Someone is born informationally twice.

 

[Constance]

I'm looking for Koch's essay Trying to Nail My Colors to the Mast but can't find it through google. Does anyone know how to access it?

 

[Constance]

I'm looking for Koch's essay Trying to Nail My Colors to the Mast but can't find it through google. Does anyone know how to access it?

Steve and All, the Koch article I thought someone else linked was actually linked by me in the thread I began with the title Is Consciousness a State of Matter (or something like that). Here's the link to what seems to be Koch's latest thinking:

Is Consciousness Universal? - Scientific American