Children who claim to remember past life

by frankiespeakin 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Narkissos

    I have basically the same problem with this discussion as in a debate about the existence of God. The main issue is not the data (in this case, what children may say, under which circumstances) but its interpretation and the mental constructs this interpretation resorts to and aims at.

    I love the way you put this.

    Frankie

    I think we can agree that no-one's proved this, but there is interesting anecdotal evidence. Like there was with acupuncture - but then that got proved to any reasonable level of scientific satisfaction. It took thousands of years, but then it's not something that has always or universally been practised. Homoeopathic medicine is still to satisfy a reasonable level of proof, but all the signs are it will.

    Whether this thing you're discussing will follow acupuncture in to provability remains to be seen but there's at least one major logical problem - it's unlikely this is a new thing (if it is real). Why then hasn't it been satisfactorily documented on numerous occasions. It's also unlikely to be a geographically limited phenomenon. And pretty unlikely to be a cultural or religiously unique thing (if it is real) - unless there are many god and each set of believers have a different afterlife (or as Pratchett amusingly speculates, people get the afterlife they expect). If it is real, it's rather unlikely to STILL defy a reasonable standard of proof as it is probably been happening a VERY long time (if not as long as since humans were humans) wherever humans were in all cultures no matter what they believed.

    It's like mind powers; unless they are an emergent characteristic not universally expressed in the population that hasn't had sufficient time to spread through the population or is not a trait that increases fitness (as measured by numbers of descendent's), mind powers have been around long enough all over the place to make lack of proof suspicious.

    I have to admit I would LOVE mind powers to be true, as I would love reincarnation to be true. My fiancé has clear recollections of having met me in a previous life. I have a memory of a few seconds that seems to be real (not a dream memory, too many details) but would have been impossible for me to experience as it would have been hundreds of years ago. I can 'heal' my fiancé by 'laying on hands' on small injuries or hurts, at least to the extent of reducing or preventing swelling and reducing the level of pain experienced. I've done it to another person once - but I was doing it to see if I could make her feel better not because I think I have special power. Although that would be cool.

    Despite all this the fat lady still has to sing. Bad science (even if well intentioned) is one explanation for people finding this credible when they read seemingly impressive accounts. I wonder if Randi has looked at claims like this. There's classic examples of paranormal investigators getting great results, but the methodology will turn out to be flawed. They miss things, or fail to exclude un-paranormal explanations or 'contamination' of result. Memories aren't necessarily real, and fabricated (as in unconsciously fabricating a memory) memories often follow archetypes. Little girls saying they chose mummies tummy could have seen this idea on TV or heard it in a story - I've heard actually it on TV before as a sweet explanation given to a little child of how they got in mummies tummy ('you were in heaven and came down to be born and chose me to be your mummy').

    And 'healing'; well we already know how powerful psychosomatic factors are in healing - even to the extent of injuries healing faster and pain lessening. My fiancé believes in me; the friend I did it to before is, shall we say, a little suggestible. If you think you're gonna feel better, you often do.

    I've tried to OOBE, but would need to set a camera up at the target and have someone DO something at the target to be able to determine if what I 'see' when I try to OOBE is real. I can fly over places I know and see details and people and cars moving below, starting from where I am, and eventually my concentration will go and I lose the thread; but my imagination is easily good enough to make it all up. I can play entire Beatles albums in my head - why isn't it equally possible to recreate a simulacrum in your head of places you know well and imagine flying over them.

    I have an emotional involvement that makes me want such things to be real, but I'll not change my standards of proof because of that. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

    All very interesting; rest assured 'if the fat lady sings' I'll be delighted. Until then I am sceptical saffron and curious orange.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    INQ,

    I'm making this a seperate topic so we won't waste time with it here.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    I'm making this a seperate topic so we won't waste time with it here.

    You're making another topic about this? You've already made 2 threads. Why not stay here and discuss what Inq has to say in THIS thread? Whether or not you like what Inq has said has nothing to do with the relevance of his/her info to THIS thread. It is relevant.

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    Also I have looked into the face of animals and I swear felt a human response. I can't explain this, it is just what it looked like and felt.

    I wanted to say as far as children and memory -from my own experience, I found out one thing I would have sworn was my own memory was a story my parents had told me that I incorpororated into my memory.


    edited b/c there is not a lot on the net about this subject and if somone googles this, I do not want my dream to come up for their enjoyment. but i left relvant stuff.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Frankie,

    Here the central, yet unquestioned and unexplained concept, instead of "God," is "individual". Presumably "human individual". What is an individual? How can it be said to be different from, or the same as, another? What is new and original to a given individual, what is old and inherited? The only "thing" which appears to be new and original is not really some-"thing" but a particular combination of existing "things" (matter and genes and language and mind structures... and stories). Just as all faces in the world are different combinations of the same elements. And that -- which is no-"thing" -- we call "I".
    Yes I agree the Individual is just a mental contruct just as space and time. Every thing is an illusion of the mind anyway (colors, solids etc...).

    Could you explain me, then, what you exactly mean by reincarnation? Reincarnation of what?

    Assuming that a study establishes a relationship between a biological individual and a real human experience which is not his/her own (pertaining to another time and/or place), why should it be explained through the mythical pattern of reincarnation rather than another, e.g. intersubjective communication (although perhaps not verbal)?

    Reincarnation is quite an intuitive pattern. Once when I was talking with my daughter about the cycle of death and birth, and naturally comparing it to the cycle of seasons, she said "So when someone dies a baby is born to replace him or her?" Although she did not say "s/he is born as a new baby?" (which reincarnation would imply), she was spontaneously individualising the cycle. I told her that it was not necessarily so, as more or less babies could be born than people had died. This was to be thought of as a collective process: just as the new leaves of spring are not the fallen leaves of autumn, yet there is a renewal of the tree, of the forest, etc. It's a question of focus.

    I think reincarnation, just as many other religious beliefs, is the product of our egocentrical perspective tainting our interpretation of phenomenological observation... We cringe from considering the biological individual around which our view of reality is naturally centered (through an obvious yet persistent subjective optical illusion) as a temporary construct.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Wed,

    Also I have looked inot the face of animals and I swear felt a human response. I can't explain this, it is just what it looked like and felt.

    I have experienced this repeatedly, even trees. I know that everything is connected and perhaps at a much more subtle level not with human grammmer we can communicate, intuitively.

  • Inquisitor
    Inquisitor
    I'm making this a seperate topic so we won't waste time with it here.

    Dear Frankie, How does debating the credibility of your 2 year-old's testimony to his "past life" a waste of time in a thread that is entitled, "Children who claim to remember past life"? Would you rather hear from people who have kids that told them unusual things? Sorry I have no kids. And I kept most of my thoughts to myself when I was one. Thanks for speaking up for common sense, Robdar. Appreciate it. INQ

  • kid-A
    kid-A

    Frankie,

    Two points. First, it seems you very much want to believe this to be true. I have to ask, why? What purpose would the transference of souls serve to humanity and what good would it possibly do? If you believe that the purpose is to allow us to learn from the mistakes of "past lives" then surely, after millions of years of humans having existed on this planet, we would have reached the apex of learning by this point? Yet in reality, what do we see? Humanity perpetuating the errors of the past, individually and collectively, again and again and again, ad infinitum

    Second, a human life is simply a summed collection of experiences from which "memories of our perceptions" of those particular experiences guide our future actions. Thus, the only thing that could be transferred via reincarnation would be these encoded memories. What is a memory? It is a biochemical "trace" encoded in a network of neurons in the brain. Memories are neither perfect, permanent nor immune from distortion. Indeed, memories of our own life experiences become hopelessly distorted over the years. Even highly vivid memories can be subject to reinterpretation in our own minds. Knowing this to be the case, how do you suppose these imperfect traces (which in fact, define the very essence of who we are as an individual) be accurately transferred to another biological entity when the memory itself may not even accurately reflect what happened to the subject? Would the soul of an Alzheimers victim be reincarnated and if so, what would the recipient being receive, besides a blank disk?

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Nark,

    Could you explain me, then, what you exactly mean by reincarnation? Reincarnation of what?

    I mean it in the sense that it is commonly used. Reincarnation of the personality, what ever form or state that is. What exactly is reincarnated can only be explained in metaphysical terms whose meaning is vague in that we still don't know what we are. I beleive we are much more than we appear to be, just as quantum physic is revealing.

    Assuming that a study establishes a relationship between a biological individual and a real human experience which is not his/her own (pertaining to another time and/or place), why should it be explained through the mythical pattern of reincarnation rather than another, e.g. intersubjective communication (although perhaps not verbal)?

    As you know myths progress or change as our world view changes. This has been going on for much of our evolution. Reincarnation seems to be appropiate explanation, for what we are discussing. Of course reincarnation has many forms of teachings or theories. I'm more for what the Phds are saying from thier research.

    Reincarnation is quite an intuitive pattern. Once when I was talking with my daughter about the cycle of death and birth, and naturally comparing it to the cycle of seasons, she said "So when someone dies a baby is born to replace him or her?" Although she did not say "s/he is born as a new baby?" (which reincarnation would imply), she was spontaneously individualising the cycle. I told her that it was not necessarily so, as more or less babies could be born than people had died. This was to be thought of as a collective process: just as the new leaves of spring are not the fallen leaves of autumn, yet there is a renewal of the tree, of the forest, etc. It's a question of focus.

    According to the modern researchers, the dead go into 4 different levels or domains all highr than our earthly plain(Monroe research). The 4th level is the highest where new commers and those getting ready to leave the rebirth proscess are. So new ones are comming in and those who are at the end of the rebirtthing arte getting ready to leave to some vastly higher domain outside of our space time domain.

    I think reincarnation, just as many other religious beliefs, is the product of our egocentrical perspective tainting our interpretation of phenomenological observation... We cringe from considering the biological individual around which our view of reality is naturally centered (through an obvious yet persistent subjective optical illusion) as a temporary construct.

    I agree and many enlightened persons say everything is an illusion. But just as you can get run over by an illusion (bus, train etc..) and die so it is the same with reincarnation.

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208
    Usually the average is about 40 yrs earth time before a soul get reborn according to researchers,

    New nominee for dumbest comment ever!

    Don't give me that crap about the university of Virginia either! The only good thing about Virginia colleges is the engineering programs!

    This entire topic is just garbage! There is NO way to scientifically validate any of this crap! However we know with a little simple math that there are more humans alive NOW than have ever lived! So guess what there aren't enough bodies to go around for all the 'souls!'

    If there is a SOUL that is separate from the body then why does damage to the brain affect the intellect and personality? If the soul is separate then the SOUL should remain untouched by damage to the body!

    I did have horses, lots and lots of horses." Then she started naming off the names of these horses, names that we had never heard of before
    One story I do remember him telling us was that he use to be big and that he caught sharks .

    Well that settles it for me because no kid would make THAT up! As to names we got two chickens that we allowed the kids to name one is 'black chicken' one is 'chickapoopcapeepobooboo" (yes they actually say that EVERY TIME they call the damn chickens) That doesn't mean that your kid lived a past life it means they have an active imagination!

    I think the researchers are clever enough to have way of testing the info.

    Oh please unless they have a vested interest (like you) in the results!

    they or thier parents had no info about.
    Do these children live in a box? Do they have no one else that they converse with? Do they never overhear conversations with other humans?
    I don't think funded research by a university on such a contrvercial subject would want to be so sloppy

    Ok thats just a dumb thing to even say!

    This is idiotic it's like arguing with a scientologist... Or maybe a Jehovah's witless!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit