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

[Zephyr]

Elaborate laboratories evolved as a result of inquiry, and I dare say that many of the experiments produced bizarre results, not all of which were beneficial. I still can't believe people put on sunglasses to witness the detonations of bombs on testing grounds without the slightest regard for deadly radiation.

From what I've read about Newton's experiments -- a bit eccentric comes to mind.

I don't believe in one path to discovery anymore than one path to "enlightenment" ultimately leading to paradise.

I like what Jung said about not believing anything. We either know or do not know.

Works for me.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Randall]

What is "mystical New Age gibberish"? Never heard of it - sounds seriously dismissive.

Mystical New Age gibberish is gibberish composed by New Agers. Below are three examples from the Encarta World English Dictionary that help define it in a general sense:

------------------------

mys·ti·cal adjective
1. RELIGION with divine meaning: with a divine meaning beyond human understanding
2. RELIGION of mysticism: relating to or involving mysticism or mystics
3. PARANORMAL with supernatural significance: with supernatural or spiritual significance or power
4. mysterious: mysterious or difficult to understand

New Age adjective
of modern movement emphasizing spirituality: relating to a cultural movement dating from the 1980s that emphasizes spiritual consciousness, and often involves belief in reincarnation and astrology and the practice of meditation, vegetarianism, and holistic medicine

gib·ber·ish noun
nonsense: spoken or written language perceived as incomprehensible, and probably not worth comprehending

------------------------

In contrast to New Age gibberish is a form of dialogue and objective analysis called critical thinking: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861

Dismissiveness is refusing to engage in critical thinking and believing you are right and other people are wrong simply because they don't believe the same thing you do, especially in the face of conflicting evidence to your position or point of view.

 

[Randall]

I don't believe in one path to discovery anymore than one path to "enlightenment" ultimately leading to paradise.

Nor should you. But does that mean all paths are equally good choices? Clearly not. Some paths are better or worse depending on what we want to accomplish.

I like what Jung said about not believing anything. We either know or do not know.

Works for me.

I can dig that, but what about those people who believe things without knowing?

 

[Zephyr]

Nor should you. But does that mean all paths are equally good choices? Clearly not. Some paths are better or worse depending on what we want to accomplish.

I can dig that, but what about those people who believe things without knowing?

Many people, many directions and purposes, none of which we can control. Maybe we learn by contrast as much as by consensus in the end.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Tyger]

Mystical New Age gibberish is gibberish composed by New Agers. Below are three examples from the Encarta World English Dictionary that help define it in a general sense:

------------------------

mys·ti·cal adjective
1. RELIGION with divine meaning: with a divine meaning beyond human understanding
2. RELIGION of mysticism: relating to or involving mysticism or mystics
3. PARANORMAL with supernatural significance: with supernatural or spiritual significance or power
4. mysterious: mysterious or difficult to understand

New Age adjective
of modern movement emphasizing spirituality: relating to a cultural movement dating from the 1980s that emphasizes spiritual consciousness, and often involves belief in reincarnation and astrology and the practice of meditation, vegetarianism, and holistic medicine

gib·ber·ish noun
nonsense: spoken or written language perceived as incomprehensible, and probably not worth comprehending

"Mystical" definition(s) I agree with - as far as the ones listed go.

"New Age" is curious - as I recall that term in general parlance long before the 1980's. That it's being called a 'movement' in the sense of a directed or self-directed group with shared goals I do find questionable. I think this 'definition' might be a debate amongst social historians.

"Gibberish" is of course a purely subjective description from the perspective of an observer who is not initiated into the given language. Even the gibberish between two year olds is comprehensible to the two year olds (before the grammar structure of the parents supervenes).

Frankly, a scientist - or none that I know working in the social history camp - would ever state that anything is "not worth comprehending". (Even physicists). The scientific attitude usually approaches everything as an open question and discounts nothing. There may be perspectives that are set aside as a question is formulated and a narrow avenue of research is pursued - but the best scientific thinking keeps all the outliers - however outrageous - on the table.

This would apply to ufos, for example. Many scientists dismiss such as gibberish. But the best scientific approach keeps the possibility on the table.

In contrast to New Age gibberish is a form of dialogue and objective analysis called critical thinking: Learn the Elements and Standards

The phrase "New Age gibberish" is clearly meant in a derogatory sense. I would say first strive to understand what is being said before making such sweeping statements. "New Age' seems to be used by a lot of [political and religious] conservatives to dismiss liberal stances, especially on social welfare (in my experience). "New Age" seems to be a phrase discounting the hippie-counterculture that emerged in the 1960's and as a phrase seems to be a holdover from those "cultural wars" - still being fought along political lines.

Dismissiveness is refusing to engage in critical thinking and believing you are right and other people are wrong simply because they don't believe the same thing you do, especially in the face of conflicting evidence to your position or point of view.

A perfect description of those who dismiss out-of-hand all things mystical and what they consider "New Age" because they do not understand the perspectives of the spiritual world view (and it's terminology) - and so call it 'gibberish'.

 

[Tyger]

Nor should you. But does that mean all paths are equally good choices? Clearly not. Some paths are better or worse depending on what we want to accomplish.

I can dig that, but what about those people who believe things without knowing?

This would apply to most subscribers to science - because most do not have first-hand knowledge (knowing) of the underlying science. Most of us - and I include myself - are "believers without knowing". I trust a lot when it comes to science - I have faith in the science, in fact.

Unless we accept the validity of thought-experiments - and even if we do, there are suppositions in material science at the outset. Just the way it is.

It is the mystical and spiritual that requires knowing - and personal, individual validation. This realm is far more rigorous than material science - and it's terms far more exacting. In fact spiritual terms have sustained their meanings over millennia suggesting a pretty coherent conceptual life underlying the terms.

 

[Randall]

Many people, many directions and purposes, none of which we can control. Maybe we learn by contrast as much as by consensus in the end.

I don't subscribe to consensus/contrast based learning. For me, learning is about finding the truth based on reason and evidence, not the popular vote.

 

[Randall]

"Mystical" definition(s) I agree with - as far as the ones listed go.
"New Age" is curious - as I recall that term in general parlance long before the 1980's. That it's being called a 'movement' in the sense of a directed or self-directed group with shared goals I do find questionable. I think this 'definition' might be a debate amongst social historians.

There are other similar and more or less complex definitions and descriptions out there as well, but the Encarta version gets the idea across well enough to get the general picture.

"Gibberish" is of course a purely subjective description from the perspective of an observer who is not initiated into the given language. Even the gibberish between two year olds is comprehensible to the two year olds (before the grammar structure of the parents supervenes).

If you understood the contrast between gibberish and critical thinking, you wouldn't say that identifying gibberish is a purely subjective task. Far from it.

Frankly, a scientist - or none that I know working in the social history camp - would ever state that anything is "not worth comprehending". (Even physicists). The scientific attitude usually approaches everything as an open question and discounts nothing. There may be perspectives that are set aside as a question is formulated and a narrow avenue of research is pursued - but the best scientific thinking keeps all the outliers - however outrageous - on the table.

Actually there is a lot of gibberish that scientists would think is worth seriously comprehending. The most obvious form is called technobabble, and is used frequently in science fiction to describe some nonexistent technology that is nothing more than a plot device. Star Trek for example is famous for its technobabble. Visit this page for examples: Technobabble Generator

This would apply to ufos, for example. Many scientists dismiss such as gibberish. But the best scientific approach keeps the possibility on the table.

There have been many examples of gibberish in ufology, particularly of the technobabble variety. The challenge for the responsible ufologist is to weed it out.

The phrase "New Age gibberish" is clearly meant in a derogatory sense. I would say first strive to understand what is being said before making such sweeping statements. "New Age' seems to be used by a lot of [political and religious] conservatives to dismiss liberal stances, especially on social welfare (in my experience). "New Age" seems to be a phrase discounting the hipper-counterculture that emerged in the 1960's and as a phrase seems to be a holdover from those "cultural wars" - still being fought along political lines.

The word "gibberish" is an entirely neutral word that describes a particular linguistic situation. For example it isn't the slightest bit derogatory to call the versions that are used purely for entertainment gibberish. Even when someone innocently mistakes gibberish for something that is real, and we say to them, "Oh that just gibberish, don't take it seriously", it's not being used in a derogatory manner. Rather it's meant to inform that person about the nature of what they are hearing. Like a number of other words, it also might be used in a manner that is intended to be derogatory ( negatively critical ). However if that criticism is well founded, it also might be well deserved. The degree to which it is well deserved depends on whether or not the purveyor of the gibberish is claiming that the gibberish is true and the degree to which they can back their claims using critical thinking.

A perfect description of those who dismiss out-of-hand all things mystical and what they consider "New Age" because they do not understand the perspectives of the spiritual world view (and it's terminology) - and so call it 'gibberish'.

When critical thinking is applied to the concepts of New Age language and it is discovered that parts of it simply don't stand up to critical analysis, that is not being dismissive. It is being analytical, and if the purveyor or the gibberish cannot provide valid counterpoint or a coherent model of their "perspective" through the use of well defined words that impart specific meaning, then the label of gibberish is well deserved.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I am fascinated by the dea of reincarnation, as ufology knows - we've batted it around back and forth many times. While I remain skeptical regarding the idea of reincarnation, I do find the idea to be something that works for me in possible models to deal with issues of identity and the notion that there might be a finite amount of identities the exist in some realm that manifest themselves as various human lived lived on earth. I know it makes little sense in terms of a scientific mind/body/identity discussion but I'm open to entertaining the possibility nevertheless.

Here's the key scientist that's been at the centre of the debate for decades:
Scientific Proof of Reincarnation: Dr. Ian Stevenson

Evidence for Reincarnation |

Here's Ben Radford's brief skeptical dismissal of reincarnation: The Reality of Reincarnation | LiveScience

Thank you! You have no idea. I have been trying my best to remember this man's name for some time. Bruce Duensing was very impressed by this gentleman and suggested last year that I should get busy checking into him. I started to and it must have slipped my mind. Not a tough thing to do!

My personal pet theory is that the Akashic Record is actually the sum total of the informational universe. Possibly, this same body of information includes every human existent possibility throughout temporal humanities existence. If as the physical cognizant mind sleeps to restore itself, the informational mind, or individuated consciousness, may rejoin this informational construct due to natural attraction. (positive/negative)

In cases where significant injury occurs and the person involved is in a coma, or unconscious for some time while recovering, this may possibly provide some direction in which case the same patient awakes to find themselves only able to speak and think in a language that they themselves have never learned within the scope of their lives. In such a case, all memories are intact, but when the cognizant mind attempts to express itself, it is forced to use a misrepresentation of previously available information. In this sense, the Akashic Record would be like humanities OS. In the case of the confused language, think of it as a cross platform download aberration.

 

[Randall]

My personal pet theory is that the Akashic Record is actually the sum total of the informational universe. Possibly, this same body of information includes every human existent possibility throughout temporal humanities existence. If as the physical cognizant mind sleeps to restore itself, the informational mind, or individuated consciousness, may rejoin this informational construct due to natural attraction. (positive/negative)

Why not dump the mystical jargon? For example if I understand you correctly, you're saying that from a cosmological perspective, the computational model facilitates the possibility that the evolution of a universe can be stored to memory. I'm not sure what the rest of what you're saying means, but the whole thing is dangerously close to that mystical New Age gibberish we've been discussing.

In cases where significant injury occurs and the person involved is in a coma, or unconscious for some time while recovering, this may possibly provide some direction in which case the same patient awakes to find themselves only able to speak and think in a language that they themselves have never learned within the scope of their lives. In such a case, all memories are intact, but when the cognizant mind attempts to express itself, it is forced to use a misrepresentation of previously available information. In this sense, the Akashic Record would be like humanities OS. In the case of the confused language, think of it as a cross platform download aberration.

I seriously doubt that there is any verifiable evidence to back up claims of "confused language" involving cases where the subject suddenly manifests the ability to speak in a language they had never learned. Please provide references for this claim.

 

[Tyger]

Why not dump the mystical jargon?

One could as easily say - why not drop the scientific jargon?

Because you do not understand the 'jargon' of the mystical does not mean it is invalid. All this comes dangerously close to someone presenting as a martinet. A personal lack of understanding does not make something 'gibberish' or 'jargon' - just something one personally doesn't understand (yet).

For example if I understand you correctly, you're saying that from a cosmological perspective, the computational model facilitates the possibility that the evolution of a universe can be stored to memory.

It is true, some are more at ease with techie language - and seeing the universe as a machine. That preferences, however, should not rule the debate. Rather than a machine, others see the universe, even experience the universe, as a place of living, spiritual realities (one way of putting it). The debate is actually epistemological and cosmological - it's not really a science debate.

I'm not sure what the rest of what you're saying means, but the whole thing is dangerously close to that mystical New Age gibberish we've been discussing.

So why not try? If I can wrap my mind around quantum mechanics, another should be able to do the same with 'mystical' conceptual language - that has been around for centuries upon centuries and is clearly describing something universally experienced. Yet as a critical thinker, summarily dismissing the concepts indicates a surprising lack of curiosity imo.

I seriously doubt that there is any verifiable evidence to back up claims of "confused language" involving cases where the subject suddenly manifests the ability to speak in a language they had never learned. Please provide references for this claim.

In expressing this, one is 'dangerously close' to innumerable scientists who routinely 'seriously doubt' many things - like the 4-minute mile, for example - that then gets proven to be the case. (1954 - Bannister - I think was the name - ran the mile in 3:59).

Fact is, such cases are known to happen - especially in unusual amnesia cases. Heard one discussed on NPR not too long back. What startles me with all this is that we are on a site that believes in UFOs and discusses them as fact. Go figure.

 

[boomerang]

I view the process of individuated self, as opposed to the incorporation of information which may have been acquired firsthand or otherwise, as being rooted in a real time process in which our internal "virtual reality generators" must constantly interact with whatever reality is is modeling while linking this interactive process with a specialized neurological mechanism defining personal boundaries. I don't see how someone can reincarnate as someone deceased anymore than we can become another living person while at the same time retaining our sense of self.

Of course, this is personal opinion only and dangerously close to the psychobabble we are discussing on another thread !

 

[mike]

Lots more info and discussion on the Simulated reality argument here

Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

 

[mike]

Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One

 

[Randall]

One could as easily say - why not drop the scientific jargon?

One could. But that would be avoiding the question wouldn't it? Nevertheless I'll provide a simple answer. Scientific jargon shouldn't be dropped because it's based on logic and critical thinking rather than myth and superstition. Therefore it carries weight in our search for truth. Meanwhile mystical jargon tends to lead believers deeper into a maze of delusion.

Because you do not understand the 'jargon' of the mystical does not mean it is invalid. All this comes dangerously close to someone presenting as a martinet. A personal lack of understanding does not make something 'gibberish' or 'jargon' - just something one personally doesn't understand (yet).

It seems to be a common misperception of those who believe New Age gibberish that those who are critical of it lack some "understanding", when in actual fact the only understanding that's required is the understanding that without substantial evidence or logical coherency, New Age gibberish amounts to nothing more than nonsense and belief in it is unfounded.

It is true, some are more at ease with techie language - and seeing the universe as a machine. That preferences, however, should not rule the debate. Rather than a machine, others see the universe, even experience the universe, as a place of living, spiritual realities (one way of putting it). The debate is actually epistemological and cosmological - it's not really a science debate.

So why not try? If I can wrap my mind around quantum mechanics, another should be able to do the same with 'mystical' conceptual language - that has been around for centuries upon centuries and is clearly describing something universally experienced. Yet as a critical thinker, summarily dismissing the concepts indicates a surprising lack of curiosity imo.

I've seen no evidence that you can wrap your head around quantum mechanics, I suspect it's probably aligned with the same false notions purveyors of Quantum Mysticism promote. As for being able to wrap one's head around mystical jargon, it's like trying to wrap one's head around technobabble. It requires suspension of disbelief and faith based on unsubstantiated claims, often steeped in mythology. Sure, I can suspend my critical thinking to enjoy a good sci-fi movie, but at least I know it's fiction. You don't seem to be making that distinction.

In expressing this, one is 'dangerously close' to innumerable scientists who routinely 'seriously doubt' many things - like the 4-minute mile, for example - that then gets proven to be the case. (1954 - Bannister - I think was the name - ran the mile in 3:59).

There's nothing vaguely similar between the two classes of doubt. One is based on measurable empirical evidence while the other is based on mysticism.

Fact is, such cases are known to happen - especially in unusual amnesia cases. Heard one discussed on NPR not too long back.

Until someone provides a verifiable case study backed by solid research, xenoglossy remains an urban myth. Where are the case studies?

What startles me with all this is that we are on a site that believes in UFOs and discusses them as fact. Go figure.

Not everyone that comes to the Paracast believes alien visitation is real, but aside from that, equating the two subjects is illogical. Mysticism and the supernatural are an entirely different class of phenomena than alien craft. It's like a cargo cult member equating aircraft to animal spirits. One is made out of aluminum, glass and other materials, the other is based entirely on unverifiable subjective belief. I think you could benefit from sharpening your ability to discern the difference between these types of things. It will help you get closer to whatever truth you may be seeking ( assuming that is one of your goals as a student ).

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Lots more info and discussion on the Simulated reality argument here

Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

It would certainly explain why there's so many repeating numbers, formulas, etc in nature. It's like when a programmer is building a game and uses the same tile of graphics or functions.

When we go to the movies we can "get lost" into it with just our senses of sight and sound. What if the movie / simulation you're in affected all your senses entirely? Maybe our bodies are just complex mostly water 3-D glasses.

 

[Tyger]

One could. But that would be avoiding the question wouldn't it? Nevertheless I'll provide a simple answer. Scientific jargon shouldn't be dropped because it's based on logic and critical thinking rather than myth and superstition. Therefore it carries weight in our search for truth. Meanwhile mystical jargon tends to lead believers deeper into a maze of delusion.

In this one sentence you reveal your level of understanding.

Your arguments are relevant (and valid) to a particular set of (narrow) parameters. You appear to be having the same argument over and over again with the same 'mythical' person or persons. (I am not that person).

It seems to be a common misperception of those who believe New Age gibberish that those who are critical of it lack some "understanding", when in actual fact the only understanding that's required is the understanding that without substantial evidence or logical coherency, New Age gibberish amounts to nothing more than nonsense and belief in it is unfounded.

Here again you reveal the extent of your assumptions - and the nature of the tape-loop conversation you are having with yourself. Though you may believe you are having a conversation, you are not. Simply repeating your mantras - and hoping by sheer force of will, through endless repetition, and dismissal (sans logic) to 'convince' - is not communication.

If you notice I long ago stopped 'arguing' in the debate - because that's not what this conversation is about.

I've seen no evidence that you can wrap your head around quantum mechanics, I suspect it's probably aligned with the same false notions purveyors of Quantum Mysticism promote. As for being able to wrap one's head around mystical jargon, it's like trying to wrap one's head around technobabble. It requires suspension of disbelief and faith based on unsubstantiated claims, often steeped in mythology. Sure, I can suspend my critical thinking to enjoy a good sci-fi movie, but at least I know it's fiction. You don't seem to be making that distinction.

You hope - or that becomes your assumption - that is required for you to maintain your 'logical' argument. (Reaching for the ad hominem......)

Again, I know any number of people who completely understand 'mystical' language and yet do not subscribe to it. You might be surprised to discover what I subscribe to and don't subscribe to - but that's not what this conversation is about - discovery and honest debate. (You're too busy jousting with pov's you find on YouTube videos it seems. Too many dog-whistles in the conversation for one person to make sense of it all). Something else is afoot and one either has the time for it or not. Most people make the obvious choice and walk away from zealots.

There's nothing vaguely similar between the two classes of doubt. One is based on measurable empirical evidence while the other is based on mysticism.

Again, this is your hope - stemming from how you understand or fail to understand.

Not everyone that comes to the Paracast believes alien visitation is real, but aside from that, equating the two subjects is illogical. Mysticism and the supernatural are an entirely different class of phenomena than alien craft. It's like a cargo cult member equating aircraft to animal spirits. One is made out of aluminum, glass and other materials, the other is based entirely on unverifiable subjective belief. I think you could benefit from sharpening your ability to discern the difference between these types of things. It will help you get closer to whatever truth you may be seeking ( assuming that is one of your goals as a student ).

You sound like Mr Spock. There is nothing 'illogical' about it. Your logic is flawed - syllogisms can do that.

Last bolded sentence - maybe. Might also help for you to be a bit more discerning and less certain that you know it all. First lesson of science - assume nothing, least of all one's 'knowledge'. More scientific experiments go awry because the experimenter cannot see the obvious result because looking for the 'expected' result. Same with people - assuming you know what someone is about puts you down several pegs in the reality game.

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Tyger, throw in the towel homie. No one here can match his stamina for semantics.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Why not dump the mystical jargon? For example if I understand you correctly, you're saying that from a cosmological perspective, the computational model facilitates the possibility that the evolution of a universe can be stored to memory. I'm not sure what the rest of what you're saying means, but the whole thing is dangerously close to that mystical New Age gibberish we've been discussing.

I seriously doubt that there is any verifiable evidence to back up claims of "confused language" involving cases where the subject suddenly manifests the ability to speak in a language they had never learned. Please provide references for this claim.

Ufology,
Here, in your response to me, what I sense is someone who's tired and not really filled with curiosity in the least. "mystical jargon"? You mean like "alien craft", or "interstellar travel"? Many, many, many, highly credible scientists will tell you straight out to your face that these terms are NO LESS "mystical, myth inducing, jargon" than what you are claiming to reference in your response. That's just weak.

Here is your link, I bet I find five more in the next two hours. Why not have just googled the matter before placing your foot down your throat? For pete's sake my man, read the Anommolist on a daily basis, you'll find DOZENS of cognizant quirkiness from around the planet and their information is typical 100% legit. I can think of at least half a dozen cases where confused cognitive abilities took place after a patient awake post injury or surgery. This is nothing new! Why would you doubt me in such a condescending fashion? Do you not know this is an insult?

The man with no memory: Navy vet wakes up, speaks only Swedish - CNN.com

 

[Randall]

In this one sentence you reveal your level of understanding.
Your arguments are relevant (and valid) to a particular set of (narrow) parameters ...

Science and/or critical thinking can be applied to virtually any issue or phenomenon, and by doing so our understanding about them becomes clearer. The only exceptions ( although it could still be argued otherwise ) might be purely subjective emotional phenomena for which understanding requires direct firsthand experience. The only "narrow parameter" about them are that their goal is to move us closer to understanding the truth. However in our search for truth, that is perfectly acceptable and important. Sure, we can abandon our search for truth and step into the realm of fiction, myth and superstition, or bask in the wondrous experience of the moment. These things also provide enjoyment in life. Provided we're clear on the differences between these modes of operation, we can reap the benefits of both.