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

[Polterwurst]

But is it not also true that a few "strange remarks" hardly qualifies as equivalency of personhood? is it not also true that the two children you heard making these remarks also have their own experiences, memories, bodies, likes, dislikes, and personalities that are unique only to them?

Absolutely true, to both questions. As I said, I don't expect you or anyone else to believe me. Strange remarks and behaviour do not make a reincarnated human. But fact is that they exist, and fact is that sometimes a deceased person can be found who fits the remarks and descriptions. There is no doubt about it. Look it up. In a small minority of Stevenson's cases the kids do name the deceased, places they lived in, their relatives etc.Small minority, but more than just anecdotes. These cases have been documented.

And please don't think I won't accept these kids as their own persons. I see what you are getting at and I do share your worries. These kids are not the fricking living dead, they are actual people, living here and now. And it's probably best to let nature run it's course and let them forget the things they upset their parents with (which happens to almost all of them at the age of 6 to 8 years). In no case did I try to force them to "ponder the mystery", and neither did Stevenson and his people. As I said, no regression hypnosis, no interrogation, no long-term surveillance, the kids said what they wanted to say and when they stopped talking about these things, the case was closed for the researchers.

In both "my cases" and in many of the cases described by Stevenson, the parents (or other relatives) actually did not encourage the kid to speak about this stuff. Quite the opposite, as soon as they make these remarks, more often than not, they are told to hush up and not to let anybody overhear what they say abot having been to heaven or living with another family and so on. In my experience, no-one forces them to talk more about it and confuse their actual existence with some half-baked fantasy / memory.

But does that mean we should just forget about the whole fricking genuine phenomenon and act as if it's not there? Hell, no. I don't think so.Correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that that's what you are advocating here? I frankly can't understand how any scientific thinking person could just want to ignore a genuine phenomenon.

On your other case, I don't know what made you think some dear person you once knew actually "came back". What evidence do you have of that, and what makes you think that "there seems to have been a decision by the deceased after death ... "? I would think you should need something objective and definitive to base such a belief on. By this I don't mean that you need some sort of material evidence, but is there anything about your experience that you can say would be definitive if it were presumed to be a true event, but considered from an objective point of view?

I'm afraid it's nothing but subjective stuff, behaviours, remarks, nothing that you would count as solid proof, so that would be a waste of time. While these incidents were eventually very convincing to me personally, they wouldn't mean anything to you. And often, these incidents were of a quite personal and, frankly, embarrassing nature, so I can't tell you more than I typed in my first post in the "born again" thread.

All I can say is that when that little girl put her hand on my chest and said "I am forever here, here with you", she didn't sound or act as I would expect any child to speak or act. Not playful, trying out words etc. She was whispering very intensely, much as you would expect from a grown-up person who has something very important to say which is not intended for everyone's ears. It was the strangest thing I've ever experienced with any child, or with anybody at all. Both kids are (or were, my cousin is over 20 now) very special in that way, they seem to know about the meaning of life and death, like I've never seen from any other child.

However assuming your experience is true, what really seems to have happened is that you associated isolated aspects of your experience with a cultural belief ( reincarnation ) in a way that seemed to match, then assumed from that circumstance, that reincarnation is true.

Actually, at the time when my cousin (the first "case") showed this behaviour, I thought that reincarnation was pure crap, which was essentially what I thought about anything that seemed remotely religious. It took me 20 years of evidence, reading Stevenson's books (and dismissing many of the other reincarnation authors, because - believe it or not - I suspected them to be religiously motivated, using questionable techniques like regression hypnosis and / or rushing to conclusions) and finally the second case to come around to regarding reincarnation as a remote possibility. The way you describe it, it seems that I was rushing to a conclusion in no time, induced by my own wishful thinking. That's just a crude misrepresentation. I actually did look for other explanations and actively tried to avoid showing the kids I expected them to behave in a certain way. I had endless sleepless nights thinking it through and trying to come to a "rational" conclusion.

I 've never been religious, quite the opposite, and I still am not religious at all. But I think that it might be a mistake (which I made myself) to look for the roots of the idea in religious beliefs. As I said in the other thread, I speculate that the idea of reincarnation might be older than the religions which have made it an item in their inventory. It might stem from the observation of the described children's behaviour from our earliest ancestors on. Different theories might have evolved, what this behaviour could mean, leading to a proto-belief in reincarnation, presumably very strong in Asia, especially India (I think the first written mention of reincarnation was in Indian religious texts, some centuries BC), which was eventually "adopted" by Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Other religions, like Christianity, looked at the evidence too, but dismissed it. Just a theory, of course.

 

[Nathaniel]

I found this interesting.

It focuses more on the 'inbetween lives' state of being which is both prevalent and consistent within the hypnotherapy/regression subject (as proven by the works of Michael Newton and Brian Weiss) and cannot be so easily dismissed as 'genetic memory'.

Intuitions of Our Immortality: Visions of Life Before Conception - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society

http://www.bu.edu/cdl/files/2014/01/EmmonsKelemen_prelife_withsuppmat.pdf

 

[smcder]

aye he turned up green as grass, left quite a good debater, with alot of lessons learned about bear-pit debating.

so you see, its not all true what they say about canadians.

smcder, randal throws in the disclaimers like 'assuming' and 'seems' to cover his azz, he got a babtism by fire over in randi's gutter forum, he simply covers his azz without even realising, because over there he would have it 'quoted' back to him over and over, and his words mis-represented over and over.

It's a very different culture here as best I can tell. Conversation happens here sometimes, not just debate or argument. Some nitpicking of course - but nits do need to be picked now and again and some folks seem to get in a mood and go on the attack, but I also see a lot of fair-mindedness and people even coming back to say look I didn't mean it to sound like that or you were right (ok, maybe that is occasional but I've seen it happen!)

. . . so, more like sparring practice where folks have a general spirit of trying to improve one another but more importantly to learn about the subject at hand. Not at all like being in the JREF bear-pit.

One thing is that instead of focusing on every word, looking for mis-statements or logical errors (the enemies weakness) like in the JREF (especially if you didn't toe the party line) there is a little more of a focus on the subject matter here, so people can look at the material itself and not just the words of the person to get the meaning, this opens up the conversation, whereas a strict analysis only of someone's statements will always find errors and close the conversation down - but this is an atomistic view of language that removes context (think Wittgenstein's Tractatus - he later had to admit there was more to context than parsing the sentence at hand) - it's just a mistake to think you can get all the meaning there is in a statement by literally pulling it apart into its components without knowing what it is that the statement is about . . . otherwise it all just devolves into endless arguments about definition!

 

[smcder]

. . .
I 've never been religious, quite the opposite, and I still am not religious at all. But I think that it might be a mistake (which I made myself) to look for the roots of the idea in religious beliefs. As I said in the other thread, I speculate that the idea of reincarnation might be older than the religions which have made it an item in their inventory. It might stem from the observation of the described children's behaviour from our earliest ancestors on. Different theories might have evolved, what this behaviour could mean, leading to a proto-belief in reincarnation, presumably very strong in Asia, especially India (I think the first written mention of reincarnation was in Indian religious texts, some centuries BC), which was eventually "adopted" by Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Other religions, like Christianity, looked at the evidence too, but dismissed it. Just a theory, of course.

Other religions, like Christianity, looked at the evidence too, but dismissed it. Just a theory, of course.

If I remember, the reincarnation debate in Christianity is centered around Origen who was a Platonist . . . here it is:

The critics of Origen attacked him on individual points, and thus did not create a systematic theology to oppose him. Nonetheless, one can glean from their writings five major points that Christianity has raised against reincarnation:

(1) It seems to minimize Christian salvation.
(2) It is in conflict with the resurrection of the body.
(3) It creates an unnatural separation between body and soul.
(4) It is built on a much too speculative use of Christian scriptures.
(5) There is no recollection of previous lives.

Here is an overview of Origen's doctrine of reincarnation which is instructive as an early definition of reincarnation:

Christian Reincarnation: The Long Forgotten Doctrine

Since the soul's tenancy of any given body is but one of many episodes in its journey from God and back again, the doctrine of reincarnation is implicit. As for the resurrection of the body, Origen created a tempest of controversy by insisting that the physical body wastes away and returns to dust, while the resurrection takes on a spiritual or transformed body. This is of course handy for the reincarnationist, for it means that the resurrected body either can be the summation and climax of all the physical bodies that came before or indeed may bear no resemblance at all to the many physical bodies.

OT: Christian theology is really very sophisticated and subtle, Christian Platonism and other aspects could be argued to have kept rationalism and philosophy alive in the West at certain times . . . (see also A Canticle for Liebowitz) so it's interesting to me that Buddhism made evangelical in-roads into America in the 70s and that continues to this day even as Christianity, in the popular mind, has becoming skewed toward a fundamentalism that is only a little over a hundred years old.

But I digress . . . ;-)

 

[Randall]

Absolutely true, to both questions ...

Right, and of course we've been over all this already. But for those out there who aren't familiar with our past discussions:

If the subjects of these studies are presumed to be people who "lived before" then the inference is that they are not their own persons, but someone else who "lived before", which is pure nonsense. At best, an objective mind would have to admit, that the main thing leading people to make their assumptions about reincarnation, is that the subject ( the person in question ) somehow acquired information that seems to correspond to something a deceased person might have known. However that is far from sufficient to substantiate all the mysticism and beliefs surrounding reincarnation, especially the idea that they are someone who lived before.

But does that mean we should just forget about the whole fricking genuine phenomenon and act as if it's not there? Hell, no. I don't think so.Correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that that's what you are advocating here? I frankly can't understand how any scientific thinking person could just want to ignore a genuine phenomenon.

Certainly we shouldn't, "... forget about the whole fricking genuine phenomenon ...", but neither should we make a bunch of incoherent assumptions about what that "phenomenon" is. The actual "phenomenon" isn't reincarnation. In fact reincarnation is such a poorly formed hypothesis that it should indeed be discarded altogether. The actual phenomenon is the circumstance in which the subject in question demonstrates that he or she has acquired information in some unexplained manner that seems to correspond to something a deceased person might have known. If we start with that and refrain from leaping to unsupported conclusions based on mystical beliefs, then perhaps some real progress might be made.

The way you describe it, it seems that I was rushing to a conclusion in no time, induced by my own wishful thinking. That's just a crude misrepresentation. I actually did look for other explanations and actively tried to avoid showing the kids I expected them to behave in a certain way. I had endless sleepless nights thinking it through and trying to come to a "rational" conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. Our past discussions have left me with the impression that your present viewpoint is far from being, a "rushed conclusion induced by your wishful thinking". At the same time, you are also aware that my conclusions aren't rushed either. I've considered much of the same evidence you have, plus had personal experiences of my own, and there still remains no sufficient reason to change the position outlined above. What would it take? Let's start with sufficient evidence to prove non-locality of consciousness is real.

If OOBEs can be proven, then let's apply the same principle to reincarnation. For example, have a specific message or image displayed where only a discarnate consciousness can see it when they float up out of their body at death. Then seal it in some database and open it only in the event that someone claims to be the deceased person and can accurately relay the message. If it turns out that they can accurately relay the message without any ambiguity, that would be hard to ignore.

I 've never been religious, quite the opposite, and I still am not religious at all. But I think that it might be a mistake (which I made myself) to look for the roots of the idea in religious beliefs. As I said in the other thread, I speculate that the idea of reincarnation might be older than the religions which have made it an item in their inventory. It might stem from the observation of the described children's behaviour from our earliest ancestors on. Different theories might have evolved, what this behaviour could mean, leading to a proto-belief in reincarnation, presumably very strong in Asia, especially India (I think the first written mention of reincarnation was in Indian religious texts, some centuries BC), which was eventually "adopted" by Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Other religions, like Christianity, looked at the evidence too, but dismissed it. Just a theory, of course.

Like you say, at least you have looked at the evidence and are still making an effort to be open to critical analysis, regardless of your personal feelings. I don't completely discount the idea that given the right circumstances, that some form of continuity of consciousness may be possible. But it doesn't involve "spirits" or "souls" or religious mysticism.

 

[smcder]

The actual phenomenon is the circumstance in which the subject in question demonstrates that he or she has acquired information in some unexplained manner that seems to correspond to something a deceased person might have known.

@Constance - what is the definition Ian Stevenson used in his research? I'm just getting started on this site:

The Division of Perceptual Studies — School of Medicine at the University of Virginia

Also, isn't the above definition problematic as to cases of significant responsive xenoglossia in terms of knowledge-how versus acquiring information a deceased person might have known?

You write:

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).

 

[smcder]

Right, and of course we've been over all this already. But for those out there who aren't familiar with our past discussions:

If the subjects of these studies are presumed to be people who "lived before" then the inference is that they are not their own persons, but someone else who "lived before", which is pure nonsense. At best, an objective mind would have to admit, that the main thing leading people to make their assumptions about reincarnation, is that the subject ( the person in question ) somehow acquired information that seems to correspond to something a deceased person might have known. However that is far from sufficient to substantiate all the mysticism and beliefs surrounding reincarnation, especially the idea that they are someone who lived before.

Certainly we shouldn't, "... forget about the whole fricking genuine phenomenon ...", but neither should we make a bunch of incoherent assumptions about what that "phenomenon" is. The actual "phenomenon" isn't reincarnation. In fact reincarnation is such a poorly formed hypothesis that it should indeed be discarded altogether. The actual phenomenon is the circumstance in which the subject in question demonstrates that he or she has acquired information in some unexplained manner that seems to correspond to something a deceased person might have known. If we start with that and refrain from leaping to unsupported conclusions based on mystical beliefs, then perhaps some real progress might be made.

Don't get me wrong. Our past discussions have left me with the impression that your present viewpoint is far from being, a "rushed conclusion induced by your wishful thinking". At the same time, you are also aware that my conclusions aren't rushed either. I've considered much of the same evidence you have, plus had personal experiences of my own, and there still remains no sufficient reason to change the position outlined above. What would it take? Let's start with sufficient evidence to prove non-locality of consciousness is real.

If OOBEs can be proven, then let's apply the same principle to reincarnation. For example, have a specific message or image displayed where only a discarnate consciousness can see it when they float up out of their body at death. Then seal it in some database and open it only in the event that someone claims to be the deceased person and can accurately relay the message. If it turns out that they can accurately relay the message without any ambiguity, that would be hard to ignore.

Like you say, at least you have looked at the evidence and are still making an effort to be open to critical analysis, regardless of your personal feelings. I don't completely discount the idea that given the right circumstances, that some form of continuity of consciousness may be possible. But it doesn't involve "spirits" or "souls" or religious mysticism.

If OOBEs can be proven, then let's apply the same principle to reincarnation. For example, have a specific message or image displayed where only a discarnate consciousness can see it when they float up out of their body at death. Then seal it in some database and open it only in the event that someone claims to be the deceased person and can accurately relay the message. If it turns out that they can accurately relay the message without any ambiguity, that would be hard to ignore.

Where would you place a message where only a discarnate consciousness can see it? Problematic??

 

[Randall]

If OOBEs can be proven, then let's apply the same principle to reincarnation. For example, have a specific message or image displayed where only a discarnate consciousness can see it when they float up out of their body at death. Then seal it in some database and open it only in the event that someone claims to be the deceased person and can accurately relay the message. If it turns out that they can accurately relay the message without any ambiguity, that would be hard to ignore.

Where would you place a message where only a discarnate consciousness can see it? Problematic??

There are already experiments going on that use a variation of this proposal. The message or image is placed up above the eye level of the patient where it cannot be seen by them. To make such an image or message more secure so as to remove the possibility of crosstalk between the experimenters and the subject, the screen with the message could be placed above and out of direct viewing range of all those in the room, for example facing upward on a stand that is above the viewing angle of everyone in the room. The process would be automated so that all that is needed is for someone to start it.

The random message would then appear after a countdown ( to ensure it's working ) and remain visible until the program was done, at which time it would be automatically stored to an encrypted file, for which the only key to open it corresponds exactly to part of the random message. The file itself would also have to be removed from networks and stored in a secure location to prevent access by hackers. That way the likelihood of someone other than the subject being able to open it would be very small.

 

[Soupie]

Article relevant to the discussion:

Intuitions of Our Immortality: Visions of Life Before Conception - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society

The results suggest that, despite belief among most scientists that the mind is a product of the brain, we possess an intuitive sense of self that is distinct from our bodies. Very early on, it seems we develop a feeling that we existed before our bodies came into being. From there, it’s an easy leap to believe we will continue to exist after our bodies fall away.

Where to begin? Intuition ≠ Objective Reality. Also, if you ask kids a question they don't know the answer to, they'll take their best stab at it. And seeing as kids don't understand the concepts of conception nor brain development, the answer "I always existed" probably sounds about right. (My 4 yo daughter seems to believe she existed in God's eye before she was in her mum's tummy.)

As a militant agnostic, I'm still open to the idea of non-local consciousness, but this poll of children certainly doesn't prove anything.

What this poll does prove is something I find equally fascinating and of course related: Why do humans (myself included) experience our minds/self as being distinct from the body? I personally think this phenomena is related to the executive functioning system of the brain. I think it's this system which gives us the "I," and is the holy grail of Google and AI engineers.

 

[smcder]

There are already experiments going on that use a variation of this proposal. The message or image is placed up above the eye level of the patient where it cannot be seen by them. To make such an image or message more secure so as to remove the possibility of crosstalk between the experimenters and the subject, the screen with the message could be placed above and out of direct viewing range of all those in the room, for example facing upward on a stand that is above the viewing angle of everyone in the room. The process would be automated so that all that is needed is for someone to start it.

The random message would then appear after a countdown ( to ensure it's working ) and remain visible until the program was done, at which time it would be automatically stored to an encrypted file, for which the only key to open it corresponds exactly to part of the random message. The file itself would also have to be removed from networks and stored in a secure location to prevent access by hackers. That way the likelihood of someone other than the subject being able to open it would be very small.

But how does that control specifically for a discarnate consciousness vs. other exotic possibilities?

 

[smcder]

. . .

As a militant agnostic, I'm still open to the idea of non-local consciousness, but this poll of children certainly doesn't prove anything.

What this poll does prove is something I find equally fascinating and of course related: Why do humans (myself included) experience our minds/self as being distinct from the body? I personally think this phenomena is related to the executive functioning system of the brain. I think it's this system which gives us the "I," and is the holy grail of Google and AI engineers.

I've never heard of a militant agnostic . . . are you sure? ;-)

What this poll does prove is something I find equally fascinating and of course related: Why do humans (myself included) experience our minds/self as being distinct from the body? I personally think this phenomena is related to the executive functioning system of the brain. I think it's this system which gives us the "I," and is the holy grail of Google and AI engineers.


Not all do . . . @Constance may be able to answer this from a phenomenology standpoint. The perception of where in the body the self is located is culturally moderated, see the concept of hara in Japan, for example. Hard physical effort has a way of situating you squarely in the body as does pain.

 

[Soupie]

I've never heard of a militant agnostic . . . are you sure? ;-)

I doubt therefore I am. Or: I want to believe (but I can't).

Not all do . . . @Constance may be able to answer this from a phenomenology standpoint. The perception of where in the body the self is located is culturally moderated, see the concept of hara in Japan, for example. Hard physical effort has a way of situating you squarely in the body as does pain.

I'd love to read about this experience.

Re: pain: On the other hand, it's also at these times that the body truly feels like a "meat suit" that we'd love to shed.

 

[smcder]

I doubt therefore I am. Or: I want to believe (but I can't).


I'd love to read about this experience.

Re: pain: On the other hand, it's also at these times that the body truly feels like a "meat suit" that we'd love to shed.

I'd love to read about this experience.

That's kind of a funny phrase when you think about it . . . why not try to experience it yourself? Where are you? do you think of yourself? Is it always the same idea or same location? Sometimes I'm aware of my thoughts in a way that I can locate them say above my head, I picture them being there somehow but I don't necessarily identify these thoughts with myself. Some forms of meditation focus on this - identifying that you are not your thoughts, you are not your emotions, you are not your sense impressions, etc . . . the diamond drill . . . the intent is to break down the idea that the self is a single, unchanging thing. Other forms identify the self with the observing part.

In the West we generally locate ourselves as somewhere just behind the eyes (this is also incidentally the third eye or sixth chakra) the hara is a point just below the navel, a couple of inches (second chakra) - it's traditionally where the Asian locates their sense of self as best I can understand it, the chest or solar plexus is another area for some cultures. All of these do correlate with the chakras and if that puts you off - these correspond to the physical body, to plexuses of arteries, veins and nerves. When you do a chakra meditation and bring your attention to these areas, you can raise a strong physical sensation.

The hara is also located at the center of gravity. (for most people! ;-)

Re: pain: On the other hand, it's also at these times that the body truly feels like a "meat suit" that we'd love to shed.

I do find that interesting, because I've never had that experience (the best I can recall) of wanting to be rid of the body . . . I wanted the pain to end of course but not the sense of wanting to leave the body.

 

[Soupie]

Re-reading my statement did give me quite a chuckle. Apparently when Carl Jung was a child he had an experience near his home in which he was sitting on a favorite large stone and wondered: Why am I inside my body instead of inside this stone?

I've probably horribly mangled that story. Regardless, I'm considering now at this moment that my fascination with the paranatural may indeed stem from this strong sense I've always had that my "self" was distinct from my body.

On a daily occurrence I experience myself observing myself - my thoughts, feelings, and actions. They say authors are detached observers of society; I'm a detached observer of myself detachedly observing society.

Yes, I often wonder what it would be like to shed the meat suit and roam freely through the seething foam of particles which make up our universe. Perhaps not coincidentally I am extremely introverted (but not shy or socially anxious), existential, and consume ideas/concepts like nutriments.

 

[Soupie]

The False Memory Archive: Did that really happen? - Features - Health & Families - The Independent

"I have a strong memory of being a boy in a car driving along a country road in Suffolk," recalls a man who I will call Adam. "Rounding a corner near home, we swerved, narrowly avoiding a milk float. The milk float ended up on its side, covering the road in milk. I can still picture the road, a large oak tree and the milk sloshing about, despite the fact that the boy in the car was my father. I have never lived in Suffolk." ...

"The finding was both clear and groundbreaking – you can plant entirely false memories in a person's mind. Perhaps not surprisingly, scientists from around the world wanted to test just how far you could go. "You were attacked by a vicious animal. You nearly drowned as a child and had to be rescued by a lifeguard. You witnessed demonic possession. Your hand was caught in a mousetrap and you had to go to hospital. These are just some of the things planted in the minds of adults and, in the last case, children. In every case, significant numbers of people weren't just susceptible to the actual memory, but they gave confident, detailed and often emotional accounts about these experiences that never happened," says Loftus."

This article is relevant to several topics here on the forums, but might get the most consideration in this thread. The entire article is as fascinating as it is scary. The bottom line: People's recollection of even simple events cannot be trusted.

 

[Randall]

But how does that control specifically for a discarnate consciousness vs. other exotic possibilities?

I'm not sure what "exotic" possibilities you might be referring to, but I don't think we can rule out every other possibility in the universe. I just think it would be substantial evidence that might allow for some progress. The reason that I believe it would be substantial, is that in conjunction with other verifiable, but less definitive evidence, such as times, locations, and numerous details about the deceased person's life, what other explanation could there be apart from an elaborate hoax, either by the claimant, or by some clandestine third party?

 

[smcder]

Re-reading my statement did give me quite a chuckle. Apparently when Carl Jung was a child he had an experience near his home in which he was sitting on a favorite large stone and wondered: Why am I inside my body instead of inside this stone?

I've probably horribly mangled that story. Regardless, I'm considering now at this moment that my fascination with the paranatural may indeed stem from this strong sense I've always had that my "self" was distinct from my body.

On a daily occurrence I experience myself observing myself - my thoughts, feelings, and actions. They say authors are detached observers of society; I'm a detached observer of myself detachedly observing society.

Yes, I often wonder what it would be like to shed the meat suit and roam freely through the seething foam of particles which make up our universe.

Perhaps not coincidentally I am extremely introverted (but not shy or socially anxious), existential, and consume ideas/concepts like nutriments.

I'll have to look up that story about Jung . . . I've read about some meditation exercises that let you place your sense of self outside the body, I take this not in the OOBE sense but in the same way you locate your sense of self in a part of the body (or in your case, as distinct from the body) - so you learn to put that sense of self somewhere else - this takes separating where/how you detect sensations from the body and the sense of self. Maybe this exercise would be easier for you? Is there a "where" that you feel you are observing from? Or just a sense of detachment? Is this sense a visual one - an image of being outside the body or tacticle or . . . ? I'm just curious.

I'm introverted as well - I don't like crowds and I always have a sense of picking up on other's energies and this normally leads to discomfort. On the other hand public speaking doesn't bother me in the least. You could put me in front of a large audience and then tell me my topic and it wouldn't bother me. Which is not to say I would do a good job!

 

[smcder]

I'm not sure what "exotic" possibilities you might be referring to, but I don't think we can rule out every other possibility in the universe. I just think it would be substantial evidence that might allow for some progress. The reason that I believe it would be substantial, is that in conjunction with other verifiable, but less definitive evidence, such as times, locations, and numerous details about the deceased person's life, what other explanation could there be apart from an elaborate hoax, either by the claimant, or by some clandestine third party?

I'm not sure what "exotic" possibilities you might be referring to, but I don't think we can rule out every other possibility in the universe.


Right, once you break the paradigm to permit something outside of it - in this case discarnate consciousness, what rationale do you have to not permit any other possibility that is outside of the paradigm?


. . . what other explanation could there be apart from an elaborate hoax, either by the claimant, or by some clandestine third party?

Again, once the paradigm is broken . . . you have a lot of options. Really, you have every option. Otherwise you are saying reality is just as we have thought it was except for consciousness can be discarnate . . . but that would have all sorts of implications for the paradigm, wouldn't it?

The problem seems to be that the above protocol uses paradigm rules to look for something that is outside the paradigm.

. . . what other explanation could there be apart from an elaborate hoax, either by the claimant, or by some clandestine third party?

If the experiment succeeded, folks would first look for error, then deception and then finally explanations that fell within the paradigm or that extended it (for example new properties of light or the ability of the body to somehow pick up and interpret electrical signals from the device . . . some physical explanation) all of these have to be controlled for .. . the next thing to go might be time.

Dean Radin did experiments in which showing the outcome of the experiment to the subjects affected the outcome and theorized this was due to precognition. So the information has to be controlled for all time or you have no way to say the person floated up to the ceiling and "saw" it or whether they got the information from the future. You can't really claim any of these as less likely than discarnate consciousness - they are all outside the materialist paradigm upon which the experiment is structured.

Perhaps the subject remains in the body but has some way of physically detecting the photons emitted by the device that doesn't require a discarnate consciousness, this latter is closer to the materialist paradigm we know and would set folks to looking at new ways that light can be detected (or new properties of light itself) rather than confirming an OOBE. Or there is Hagelin's idea of shadow matter.

 

[smcder]

The False Memory Archive: Did that really happen? - Features - Health & Families - The Independent

"I have a strong memory of being a boy in a car driving along a country road in Suffolk," recalls a man who I will call Adam. "Rounding a corner near home, we swerved, narrowly avoiding a milk float. The milk float ended up on its side, covering the road in milk. I can still picture the road, a large oak tree and the milk sloshing about, despite the fact that the boy in the car was my father. I have never lived in Suffolk." ...

"The finding was both clear and groundbreaking – you can plant entirely false memories in a person's mind. Perhaps not surprisingly, scientists from around the world wanted to test just how far you could go. "You were attacked by a vicious animal. You nearly drowned as a child and had to be rescued by a lifeguard. You witnessed demonic possession. Your hand was caught in a mousetrap and you had to go to hospital. These are just some of the things planted in the minds of adults and, in the last case, children. In every case, significant numbers of people weren't just susceptible to the actual memory, but they gave confident, detailed and often emotional accounts about these experiences that never happened," says Loftus."

This article is relevant to several topics here on the forums, but might get the most consideration in this thread. The entire article is as fascinating as it is scary. The bottom line: People's recollection of even simple events cannot be trusted.

Thanks for the links - I'll try to have a look. I witnessed a car accident some years back and gave a statement to the police. The insurance company called me and asked me several questions about the accident I witnessed. I made a note of several of them and my answers and then drove back to the scene and sure enough, I missed almost every question - the main example I remember is that I said there were light poles on one side of the street and there weren't. Now, remembering this - I'm not even sure there were any light poles at all! (I'll have to go check . . .)

 

[Soupie]

I'll have to look up that story about Jung.

I'm 99.9% sure I read the account in this book: Memories, Dreams, Reflections: C.G. Jung, Aniela Jaffe, Clara Winston, Richard Winston: 9780679723950: Amazon.com: Books

Is there a "where" that you feel you are observing from? Or just a sense of detachment? Is this sense a visual one - an image of being outside the body or tacticle or . . . ? I'm just curious.

When I'm being mindful and in-the-moment, my "self" is in the typical, as you said, Western location of behind the eyes. I'll have to make a point of noting where my "detached self" might be located in space next time it surfaces, haha. This is going to sound terrifically odd, but I want to say it's located in the back left of my head/brain. So, that may seem like an oxymoron to say my "self" feels detached from my body/brain but is still located within it, but it is what it is. What usually happens is that I get consumed with an idea, and happen to notice that in the meantime my brain/body are doing other things, like feeling, talking, or even thinking!

I can't tell you how many times I've been mad, happy, excited, and/or sad about something and had to stop and recall what caused the emotion. (Maybe this is a common thing, I don't know.)

Just to clarify: I'm not suggesting my sense of self is not generated by my brain. On the other hand, I'm not suggesting it is. Here I'm just describing how I experience my sense of self.