• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

Alternative explanations - why bother ?

S

Steven

New Member
Hello all. I've been reading the posts in this forum with great interest.

I don't have children, yet I've been reading about reincarnation, "children's past lives" and all other kinds of paranormal stuff since I was twelve. I remember stumbling upon some Stevenson books when I was fourteen - and I've found them fairly objective. Since then I've read more, also "skeptics-books", studied Economics and Computer-science. (for those who asked about my background: currently I'm working at the university (in Germany) and I'm studying psychology.).

Why have I opened this thread? Because I think that most (if not even all) described memories *could* have other origins than a past life. Thus, in my opinion reincarnation is very well possible but it is not "necessary" in order to explain unexpected behaviour. There have been psychological and parapsychological approaches to explain the "memories" phenomena (I've written some basic alternatives in the "angry at her parents"-thread).


Why bother with alternative theories when reincarnation fits nicely ?

The past-life theory is very soothing. A child can show (more or less) alarming signs (talking about other parents, drawing strange scenes, etc) and a "past-life-memory" solves this problem in a simple and convenient way.

Because the reason for this strange behaviour lies in the past - there is nothing more a parent could do than to realize what it was and deal with it...

Sounds easy.

But is it? What if it isn't?

The past-life theory is just that - a theory. And as every theory it has its zealous followers as well as fervent skeptics. And as always it is a bad idea to be one of them - blind enthusiasm or stubborn rejection does often more harm than good.

The point is that one should view it from a "safe distance", keep as much an open mind as possible and just *consider* other possibilities without to "jump in head-first" into it. Perhaps one of the alternative explanations will lead to a better understanding of oneself (or a child).
 
Remaining at a safe distance sounds nice, in theory. But even in "dispassionate" science supporting evidence for any new theory is found only by scientists who are passionately enough attached to their pet theory to spend the time searching for evidence. And when a theory is shot down it is by a scientist who is passionate about his opposition to the theory.

I've known and worked with a lot of scientists. They are very careful not to let their passion show in their published articles, but in the privacy of their offices and laboratories the good scientists believe passionately in what they are doing.

Sitting on the sidelines are the "judges"; the peer reviewers and those who remain unconvinced either way. They are the ones who will remain aloof and not take sides (in theory, at least) until all the votes are in. They will watch the battles and keep score, and when one theory emerges above the competitors they will throw their vote in that direction.

But down in the trenches where the real work is done sides are drawn, enemies identified, and positions taken with a great deal of passion.

Eugene Wegener died exhausted and heartbroken because his lifetime spent passionately fighting for support for his continental drift theory met with such passionate opposition that he was ridiculed and disgraced. Now, 50 years later, his theory is accepted as self evident by every reputable geologist in the world. We don't accept continental drift because of any high-minded dispassionate, disinterested debate among half-vulcans with computers instead of brains. The theory exists because of a passionate struggle to bring it to light over the opposition of passionately angry old-school geologists who fought against it tooth and nail. It was a battle of blood, sweat and tears, not sterile graphs and cold equations.

I believe passionately in the possiblility of reincarnation. There are many (PSICOP for example) who believe passionately that reincarnation is completely impossible. And there are the people who will avoid taking sides till they see who will win the battle.

There's nothing wrong with taking a stand and working toward finding supporting evidence for that stand. Dr. Stevenson may well remain publically neutral about the issue, but ask yourself this. Would he devote his entire professional life to searching for evidence of something he didn't passionately believe in? I think not.

As for alternative theories, Dr. Steveson enumerated them and elaborated on their applicability in numerous cases in the concluding chapter of 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. All of the alternative explanations require that something extrordinary, quite outside of traditional mainstream physics, is taking place. But of all those alternative theories it seems quite clear that reincarnation is both the simplest and the best fitting alternative. Granted that doesn't make reincarnation true, but it does make it more likely than the alternatives.

That's the best that science can ever do. We support the simplest and best fitting theory for a given handful of facts. That's why we have the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution and quantum theory and a couple of competing theories of gravity, and no universally accepted unified field theory. Science isn't about facts. It never can be. It's about using Occam's razor to prune out theories that are too convoluted and searching for ways to distiquish between competing theories. As far as I'm concerned the evidence seems to lend a great deal more support to the reincarnation theory than to the rather convoluted and far-fetched alternatives.

As always, your milage may vary.
 
Well said. Science needs pioneers, it always did. It needs revolutionists who'd devote their lives (or at least a few years) to examine/prove what they believe is true.

Occam's razor is a fine tool but it can cut both sides :) Some cases can only be explained with extraordinary alternatives, yes...but is reincarnation itself a simple and "ordinary" theory ? Does a concept which involves wandering souls, continous learning" spanning over numerous lifetimes but without the necesary memory of mistakes"), or even a universal and multicultural judicial system (aka karma) sound less far fetched than "common" subconsiousness, telepathy or even "unusual" psychological explanations?

I guess that finally depends on personal preferences or beliefs.


Let me recall a once well known case. I've read about it some time ago and don't remember the exact names/dates. A middle-aged woman did have strange memories including fire, indeed she's had an aversion against it. She has heard about reincarnation and has decided to try hypnotic regression, "just for fun".

And that's how a very promising case has started. She "remembered" being accused of witchcraft,having a process in the year 1453 and finally being burnt at the stake.

Her description of the process was very detailed and realistic. She even recalled exact dialogs, arguments...the name of the judge, what clothes he wore, etc. Such explicit details were unusual in hypnotic regression and have given enough substantial data to initiate a thorough investigation.

The investigators were lucky: it has turned out that the church of the mentioned town did have archived protocols of that time, even of that very process. All details have been proven to be *exactly* true - apart from a single one: the year of the process was 1435 and not 1453. But that seemed to be a small inconsistency considering the incredible amount of correct data.

And what's more - due to the fragile nature of the archives they were not open to the public/tourists... so in what other way could she have obtained these informations than from a previous life ?

The case seemed to be the final proof of reincarnation...naturally the investigators were anxious to make it water-tight and digged deeper. It has turned out that the woman has participated in an excursion to the town when she was 12. She has visited the musuem which is adjacent to the church; the musuem did have a special exhibition at that time concerning witch-processes and a special brochure has been printed which did include some excerpts from the archives. The brochure has contained extensive information but there has been made a small printing error: the year has been mistakenly printed as 1453 instead of 1435....

The woman has obviously read the brochure and forgotten all about it. But subconsciously it has stuck - every single detail. And some event in her puberty might have started the slow emerging of "memories" and finally the "creation" of a whole past-life. Keep in mind that this wasn't a deliberate fraud, it was a psychological reaction to an "unprocessed" event/situation in her life.


A simple psychological explanation...but ask yourself: what would have happened without that printing error? or if the investigators weren't that thorough ?

Only very "extraordinary" alternatives would have been necessary to explain this and the reincarnation theory would have been backed up by a "suggestive" case.

So it is not unexpected that many scientists have shifted their attention to children's past lives, where "catching up" some details which could evolve into a past-life-story is less probable (albeit still possible) than with adults. But even if a simple psychological explanation is improbable, how about other explanations? Keep in mind that the idea of "subconsciousness" isn't really old. Alternative theories which may seem extraordinary now can gain more evidence in the future.


And that's why I advise caution and a neutral position. "Leading questions" or an "enthusiastic" approach might lead to a solution (assuming the correctness of the reincarnation theory) but it might also deepen a "fantasy", a "created alternative personality" (or whatever else) without to resolve its true cause.


The mentioned woman might have had doubts about her "memories" but the hypnotic regressions could have reassured her that they are true. This could affect her further life...and she'd never try to analyze what has led to this.
 
Hello Steven,

You present some very interesting perspectives; -balance -research - always a good thing. ;) Your example was that of an adult undergoing hypnosis. What about a child who remembers names, specific situations, and spontaneously? What about unexplained trauma..feelings and emotions expressed when there are no other explanations?

Telepathy is a very valid reason -but - specifically - when a child expresses deep trauma, anxiety, and fear - with specific names and situations do you believe that telepathy - (picking up information and details) can lead to this type of physical expression (shaking, tears, expressed inner fear that cannot be play acted out?)?

I completely understand your position, and I honor it. In fact I have seen a few parents come through here - where the child has separation anxiety - and a past life is suspected. Only to work through the problem -and discover that the root/cause is coming from the parents own fears. Parents can indeed act as triggers.

But when specifics are named -details of deaths etc......to me -it isn't a theory -it's a living experience that is real for both the child and the parent.

We can speculate all we want, and even experience past life memories of our own. But the bottom-line -is that for those that do remember; being another sex, another race and skin color, those who remember horrible abuse and terrible deaths -when none has been experienced in this life -- it isn't a theory - it's a living energy within the subtle body, a life experience that is still a part of them.

I look forward to your thoughts regarding thoughts, feelings and emotions - in relation to past lives.



------------------
Deborah

"I have no more words. Let the soul speak with the silent articulation of a face." ---Rumi
 
Many cases have problems such as that which make them questionable. However it is not necessary that every claimed case of reincarnation be true. It is only necessary that one case be true. The recent scandal at Bell Labs certainly does not invalidate the whole science of physics. Nor does one flawed case, or even 1000 flawed cases, invalidate the theory of reincarnation.

Does a concept which involves wandering souls, continous learning" spanning over numerous lifetimes but without the necesary memory of mistakes"), or even a universal and multicultural judicial system (aka karma) sound less far fetched than "common" subconsiousness, telepathy or even "unusual" psychological explanations?
Click to expand...

I accept the reality of reincarnation. I don't necessarily accept that reincarnation is about "learning", and I have serious doubts about "karma". These are all excess baggage and the trappings of assorted human religious and philosophical traditions and not necessarily part of the core phenominon.

These add-ons find no support whatsoever in the work of Dr. Stevenson, for example. In fact Dr. stevenson's work, and the work of all regressionists who use past-life therapy to overcome past-life trauma all imply that it is the victim who suffers in the next life and not the perpetrator as "karma" teaches.

Stripped of all the ancilary nonsense what I believe about reincarnation is that "consciousness" is elemental in the same sense that space-time and mass-energy are elemental. Consciousness can influence the physical aspects of the universe most efficiently by working through a host physical body with a well developed brain. I tend to think of the brain as a "consciousness amplifier" rather than the source of consciousness. When that body and brain wears out the consciousness (which does not arise from matter or energy and is not lost when the host is lost) binds to another host.

As for all the rest I can only say I doubt the reality of karma, the evidence contradicts it. We may learn while we are in physical form, but we could be here to enjoy ourselves too. Or "physical reality" could be a very advanced kind of "virtual reality video game" where we advanced beings come to forget how boring our perfect existence is and play at being humans. Or we may be here because that's the way the process works, and there is no purpose at all.

We might forget past lives because we choose to forget for the sake of "playing the game", or we might forget because memory could largely be a function of the biological brain. Maybe there is no "higher purpose" to forgetting past lives. Maybe we forget because the way the process works we don't have the mechanism for remembering.

But none of the side issues, "wandering souls", "ascended masters", "spirit guides" and angels, "karma", "spiritual growth", "learning", or even the existence of the "soul" itself, not one of these is in any way necessary for the core concept of reincarnation to be true.

And one final note: Those who are interested in reincarnation might fall into any one of a number of (overlapping) classifications. There are those who haven't decided and are looking for evidence of reincarnation. There are those who seek to prove the existence of reincarnation. There are those who are willing to assume the truth of reincarnation in order to explore its consequences. There are those who assume reincarnation and its consequences and seek to work theraputically with people whose problems might be past-life related. And there are those who get sucked into complex convoluted theories about reincarnation that have little likelyhood of being true. And I'm sure there are a dozen more categories.

In other words, not everyone who is interested in reincarnation is seeking to prove the reality of the phenominon. Some are content to assume, for the moment, that it is true and build from that assumption. The reality of an atom ultimately rests on some pretty deep questions in quantum physics. But the average chemist is not interested in proving the reality of atoms, but in assuming their reality and working from there. This is also a legitimate approach.

To expect everyone to work from the same initial starting point, and to be working toward the same goal is unrealistic.

[This message has been edited by fiziwig (edited 11-12-2002).]
 
I agree with Steven that people should keep an open mind and always consider alternate theories/ explanations. I have a question however, springing from Steven's statement that: "I think that most (if not even all) described memories *could* have other origins than a past life."

Being familiar with Dr. Stevenson's works, Steven should be aware of many cases in which reincarnation would appear to be the most logical (or at least the simplest, if you prefer) explanation to anyone who doesn't simply deny the possibility of reincarnation outright because their mind is closed to the subject.

I'm not going to be able to even give the tip of the iceberg regarding Stevenson's research here, but very briefly:

There are numerous cases in which a child, barely old enough to talk, describes in elaborate, minute detail the life of an obscure person in a remote village, unknown to anyone who has had any contact with the child. The child gives the full name of the deceased person, the name of the village etc. When taken to the village, the child knows its way around, can go, unled, to the home of the deceased person and can spontaneously recognize and name persons known to the deceased,even when skeptics testing the child are deliberately trying to mislead him or her. The child does not merely relate facts about the deceased person but insists that it is the deceased person, exhibits the same behavior as the deceased person and insists on behaving toward the deceased's acquaintances as the deceased would.

Further, there are many cases in which the child has extremely unusually shaped and located scars, birthmarks physical deformities etc. that correspond with the wounds of the deceased person. Sometimes the birthmark corresponds with a mark deliberately made on the deceased's body for experimental purposes.

There are numerous cases in which the child remembers dying, remembers the period after dying, and remembers selecting it's new parents. And there are even cases in which the deceased person, before dying, says that they will come back as a particular woman's child, and then that woman's child is born with physical marks and characteristics corresponding to the deceased person, remembers the deceased person's life in detail, and claims to be the deceased person, even when the deceased person was never discussed in front of the child.

Also I recall, from other reading, cases in which persons claiming previous lives have described elaborate details (drawn maps etc.) , which contradict known facts, of historic places, but are subsequently proven correct by later archaeological discoveries.

My question is: What is the alternative theory(ies) that explains all of these cases better than reincarnation?
 
A theory which could offer another explanation - not better or worse - just
another viewpoint on the same facts would be a newer variant of the collective subconsciousness theory.(or "common subconsciousness" sorry if I'm using the wrong word, my english is far from perfect).
This is rather para-psychological terrain and quite speculative.
The theory itself is very powerful - it could explain many current para-psychological "problems".

It claims that extra-sensory subliminal communication can exist between human beings.
Basically everyone is capable of it, though some may have a specific sensitivity for it, especially children. The form of this communication may vary. It can resemble a "monologue" or a "dialogue" between persons, where the "distinction" between them is clear. It can also be "direct" - when one side receives thoughts/feelings/emotions and perceives them as if they'd originated from
her-/himself. The layer in which this takes place is subconscious (at least
with one of the sides)-including subjective "filtering" through one's own fears/yearnings.
I'll give some short examples to make it clearer.


A simple example for a conscious-subconscious contact can be found in one of Moody's OBEs descriptions (he wouldn't interpret it in this way):
When in trance he decided to "visit" his friend. He's seen him returning home with his family. Everything seemed "normal" apart from a strange object that his friend was
carrying - a mechanical but somehow gruesome and vaguely terrifying object. Moody has "perceived" many details regarding this event which enabled him later to ask his friend about that specific afternoon. The object turned out to be a regular typewriter that the friend has brought home to complete some assignment (keep in mind that this happened in the 60's - no laptops or notebooks). The deadline drew nearer and he still had plenty of work to do...the typewriter became a "symbol" of his struggle/hard work/fear to fail.

So...Moody was in a trance-like relaxed state, eyes closed - and yet he has "seen" his friend, albeit in a strange way - how is that possible?
Without to realize it he has gained information from his friend's
subconsciousness. Everything he's seen - he's seen "through" his friend.
Not through his eyes but through his subconscious mind - that's why he didn't
"see" a typewriter but a "terrifying object" instead.

Such "visions" are naturally "fuzzy" and have a strong surreal touch, and they become increasingly inaccurate with a perceived growing distance to the "connected" person. Basically what Moody saw was an interpolation (in the mathematical sense, I guess there is a better word to describe that) from his friend's mind seen through a "filter" of his subconscious fears/wishes.
The same applies to "self-perception" during an OBE: people looking into a mirror during their OBE usually see a more "younger", "beautiful" version of themselves - and that's not because that's how their "astral body" looks like but because that's how they'd like to see themselves.

This first type of communication seems to require some prior personal "physical" acquaintance. But it may very well be that a photo of a person or some often used personal object might suffice to establish a link (psychics working for the police, voodoo priests, etc).


A simple example of "direct" subconscious-subconscious communication:
A man in his twenties lives in his own apartment with his family, his parents live a few blocks away. On one night he has an unusually vivid dream - he finds himself
walking on a main street of the town he's living in. He's afraid, he feels fire bursting at his sides - he runs away, the fire following him along the road...he is
woken up by vigorous banging on the door. It is his mother; she tells him that she had run to his house thinking that her house was going to burst into flames. She had awoken to find her lights on. When she tried to turn them of, they just came back on. She panicked and ran out of the house. She told him that she had expected the whole street to burst into flames and the flames follow her up the street...
Yet again the man doesn't "see" the "real" street as it actually is, but he sees it through the subjective, subliminal "fears" of his mother. But this time he doesn't know that it is his mother's vision - he perceives it as though he'd live through it himself - he does *feel* the terror, the
fear of bursting, following or even engulfing fire.


This second type of communication takes often place between members of family
or generally people with strong emotional bindings. Cases often called as "remote
awareness" often happen spontaneously - even fully awake - when the loved-ones experience trauma or death. It might be possible that "especially" sensitive adults as well as young children may establish contact with personally unknown people. These "contacts" usually take place when the "receiver" is in an altered state of consciousness, for example: dreams, shortly
before/after sleep, daydreaming, deep relaxation, tiredness.

How does that correlate to past-life-memories?
Let us assume for a moment that the second type of communication is possible.
Sensitive children may then receive (in some special situations, e.g. going to bed, etc)
subliminal impressions/emotions from other people. Even for an adult it'd be difficult to differentiate between one's own emotions and the received ones - for a child this difference probably wouldn't exist. Someone's strong fears (beatings, death, fire, etc) would be perceived by the child as its own emotions and fears.
And as I've said before - the human mind and specifically memory is a very tricky business. Such "received" traumas may become stored in long-term memory and emerge later on as past-life-memories. Stories about "choosing" parents or what happened before
the birth may be the subconscious' mind's desperate trial to bring some order into the contradictory visions/emotions. That's not play-acting or faking - it is what the child sincerely *believes* is true. Just like the woman from the first given example was genuinely convinced that she's been a witch - even if it turned out to be a "trick" that her mind played on her.
I do realize that this theory isn't as soothing and comforting as reincarnation or even the "usual" psychological explanations. The prospect of a potential external influence on the child's psyche is frightening - even if the child's subconscious mind theoretically protects it against serious damage and the special sensitivity usually diminishes with age.

As to scars, birthmarks, etc - there is an explanation as well. There are documented cases of people who were able to "produce" scars or even bleeding wounds on their body during hypnosis. This doesn't mean that it can happen only under hypnosis - other situations would be possible too...it merely
shows the immense abilities of the mind to influence the body. Skeptics of the holy origins of stigmata usually point that out.

As to the explicit details (maps, etc) - the first example (witch process) shows a simple and widely accepted explanation...

And once that interpersonal extra-sensory communication is taken into account then
every case becomes explainable.


[This message has been edited by Steven (edited 11-14-2002).]
 
If these memories are all the result of the child receiving subliminal impressions from other people, wouldn't it be more likely that the child would "remember" memories from lots of different people, ans some of them would still be alive? If they are just remembering the memory of a single person who lived far away and died before they were born, wouldn't a past life be a much more likely explanation?

just something to think about
 
Also, if these memories came from that type of unconscious connection then how is this explained:

The child remembers the house he supposedly died in and describes it accurately. When the research team visits the house they find it does not match the description, but did match the description at the time the previous personality died. Perhaps a new addition was put on the house, or a new color of paint, or a big tree in the yard was removed.

In each case, what the child remembers is everything up the previous death, and nothing after that. Why would the child not have access to the minds of those who know what the house looks like now?

All in all these alternatives, while possible, begin to look more and more like the epicycles that the ancient astronomers used to explain the motion of the planets on the crystal sphere of the heavens. Just more complications to explain something that is basically very simple.

I'll stick with the most straightforward, simple and consistent theory for now. And that is the theory of reincarnation.
 
Hi Steven, I read some of your posts with interest and have a few questions.

"Stories about "choosing" parents or what happened before the birth may be the subconscious' mind's desperate trial to bring some order into the contradictory visions/emotions."

Why is the mind desperate? What is the purpose of these visions/emotions?

"That's not play-acting or faking - it is what the child sincerely *believes* is true."

Is there some reason why a child would "sincerely believe" something to be true that you say is not true? Are we naturally inclined to believe in untruth?

Kris
 
Thank you Steven for your message. Your English is excellent by the way.

I don't believe the alternative theory as set forth fully explains all of the cases and I'll try to explain why below:

First, regarding the term "direct" communication, although the communication described by Steven is direct in the sense that the receiving persons feel that they are experiencing the information directly themselves, it must not be direct in another sense because, in the cases at issue, the children are receiving information from a person who died before the child was born.

You may hypothesize that the information is stored in some collective unconscious and later retrieved, but in that case it is not direct. Fiziwig brings up a good point in asking why, if the child is getting the information from the collective unconscious, is the child unaware of changes that occurred after the deceased person's death. And I would add, why is the child's only information gathered from the collective unconscious those facts related to ONE deceased individual's death?

This is similar to the vague claims, made by some, that the children are merely psychic. To paraphrase Dr. Stevenson, if the children are psychic, why do they demonstrate absolutely no psychic ability other than the ability to know, in great detail, the particulars about one deceased individual's life?

To try to illustrate how far short the direct communication theory falls in explaining the "reincarnation" cases, take Steven's example of the man who experiences the fire that his mother fears. In order for that example to truly fit the cases that Dr. Stevenson documented, instead of experiencing a single random isolated incident of his mother, the man would have to, at the very least, have psychically experienced and learned a substantial amount of detail and experiences of his mother's, to the extent that he thereafter believed himself to be his mother and took on her physical characteristics, behavior, personality etc.

Stated another way, if these children are obtaining knowledge, sufficient to make them believe they are another person, through direct communication, why are they always claiming to be dead people (often obscure) rather than living people that they know? Isn't it much easier, or at least as likely, to communicate with living people that you've met than with dead people you've never heard of?

With regard to the "documented cases of people who were able to ‘produce' scars or even bleeding wounds on their body during hypnosis": Once again, to illustrate how far this falls short of explaining the documented cases, one would have to hypnotize a fetus to be born with severe birth defects consistent with the wounds of a deceased person - the same deceased person whose life the fetus, after birth, remembers in great detail.

You may theorize that the birth defects in the fetus are caused by the mother. However, since the mothers in many of these cases do not know the deceased person, the mothers would have to be very oddly selectively psychic and yet have no conscious knowledge of the information psychically acquired (although the fetus when born does have knowledge of the information).


Let's continue to propose and consider alternative theories, but let's hold them to the same strict standard and scrutiny to which the theory of reincarnation is held.

There may be an alternative theory not yet advanced that explains everything, but what I've experienced so far in my reading is that the alternative theories either:
A) become so contrived and convoluted as to seem much more far-fetched than reincarnation, or:
B) become practically indistinguishable from reincarnation. That is, what is the practical difference between one person experiencing the sights sounds, smells, feelings (emotional and "physical") and acquiring the memories, personality and consciousnness of another person via ESP, as opposed to by the transference of a soul to another body?

With regard to Steven's comment:
"I do realize that this theory isn't as soothing and comforting as reincarnation or even the "usual" psychological explanations." This brings up a point which I will address in a new topic, to be called something like "Reincarnation - Wishful Thinking?"
 
rg203, fiziwig, anonyx : the examples I've given were about real-time "transmissions" of currently (at that time) happening emotions/visions to a receiver...but it is not said that subconsciously stored "impressions" couldn't be transmitted as well.
To keep the story short I'll reuse my first witch-example. Let's assume that the woman has vivid dreams of herself as a witch - including all *real* details and situations inspired by the museum-brochure. Let's further assume that someone receives these emotions and visions - in the first- or third-person view. After all dreams are supposed to be predestined for this form of communication. They'd appear just as real as if they'd happen in the real world. And all the details would correspond correctly to the XV century and not the present. And apart from that - the woman had an unbelievably wide range of possible "lifes" to create from all the details that she daily digested - and yet she has chosen to cling to the one small source...Why should it be different with children with esp?

Who can tell how these mechanisms really work? The human mind is still an enigma - perhaps a child can establish only few but strong "subliminal links" with other people...the perception may very well be selective. The "quality" of such communications can be barely estimated, let alone their "quantity".

One could even take this speculation even a step further - by eliminating the "active" participation of the deceased. A stored direct or indirect impression/emotion from a relative might be re-transmitted by the living. I guess that'd be a bit far fetched, yet keep in mind that the above mentioned woman was able to produce a whole past-life from a small brochure. Most subconsciously generated details were irrelevant - what counted were the few "real" ones.
Why shouldn't this be possible with stored and for some psychological reason re-transmitted short "life-snapshots" or visions ?
Anyway, I guess that direct real-time communication with the living that's mistaken for past-memories should be more common.

The result is a coherent concept based on extra-sensory communication between (only?) living people as well as the immense capabilities of the subconscious mind.

anonyx, regarding to your "scars-comment": the mother doesn't have to be psychic in order to "produce" such marks. A very strong subconscious influence by the dying person may suffice...and it isn't surprising that the new-born child is sensitive enough and not yet "blocked" by reasonable thiking to emerge with the signals it may subconsiously receive now from its mother.
From the standpoint of a "simple" theory this speculation may seem like clinging to increasingly improbable assumptions. But there is by far too little definite knowledge about the human brain and its mechanisms to judge or quantify the probability of a certain ability or phenomenon. What now seems strange may be obvious later. And finally a provocative quote from H.L. Mecken: "Every difficult and complex problem does have a solution which is neat, simple and wrong".
-----------------

Kris: truth is a very subjective concept; one could say that we believe/know what we allow ourselves to believe/know. The subconscious mind may choose to alter or distort the perceived "truth" in order to make a life bearable/healthy/sane. It may even supply further details which would "back-up" the new truth, which would make it appear more plausible. This form of "altering" of the perceived reality isn't "conscious lying to oneself" - it is a psychological mechanism which enables us to live in a normal way. The memory can be very treacherous and the subconscious mind can have an unbelievable power. It will do anything it can (and it can do a lot!) to keep one's own psyche healthy. An extreme example would be a creation of an alternative personality (with different name and characteristics) after very traumatic events. Let's assume that a child can receive extra-sensory subliminal visions/emotions - it will then naturally assume them to be its own feelings. It may be confused at the beginning - the child can use a present tense (did that just happen?) and sometimes the past tense - when the perceived impressions got stored in long-term-memories. A child living a joyful and peaceful life with its parents suddenly sees and feels (for example) the terror of a war or some other unexpected situation - how is it supposed to cope with these often contradictory feelings or emotions without to go insane? The protective subconsciousness will struggle to offer a plausible explanation, a way or to make some sense of it all. Hence the "desperate trials". And what it finds will become the "acceptable truth" as the child sees it. Not because it is a nice explanation, but because it is the *only* way that all of this could happen - it *is* the way it happened. Since the child receives the emotions/visions of an adult (and it does know that it isn't one yet) and believes that they belong to himself/herself then it is logical to assume the "adult" has died before the birth of the new "child". So some impressions from the "living" may be mistaken by the child for that of the "dead". ----------------------------

An additional thought concerning the "frightening" possibility of incoming external emotions/visions has come to my mind - perhaps some old-fashioned traditions of teaching children prayers before they go to sleep aren't such a "silly" idea after all? I remember hearing an old Brazilian child-prayer which was about four guardian angels standing sentinel at the four corners of the bed - protecting the child against bad dreams and generally anything evil. That was so cute! The child was happy, it believed to be protected - which it then really became through the power of suggestion. Sounds far fetched? Not really - let me recall a standard sentence spoken during some hypnosis sessions which has to be repeated several times: "Whatever I shall see or perceive - it will not harm me, nor will it disturb my life. I will not remember any events which could make me suffer or harm me in any way" (or something to that meaning) - this is supposed to work. Managers are sometimes taught to repeat "I will be successful, this day will bring me nearer to my goals, etc" at the morning hours, which gives them the necessary belief and self-confidence to really become more successful - a self-fulfilling prophecy. So the real point about bed-time-prayers for children isn't about some abstract religious convictions but about strengthening their perception of security, which might in fact help. Some old traditions inherit a deep-rooted "folk-wisdom" which shouldn't be discredited as useless "superstition". Well, just a thought.

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

[This message has been edited by Steven (edited 11-18-2002).]
 
Steven:

Here is where I differ with you.

"Thus, in my opinion reincarnation is very well possible but it is not "necessary" in order to explain unexpected behaviour."

Very true. Reincarnation is not necessary to explain any behviour. No one invented reincarnation to explain people's behaviour. It is just that some people have memories of what they claim are their past lives.

"The point is that one should view it from a 'safe distance'."

Again this is possible for those who do not have such memories and most don't have such memories. But don't tell that to those who have memories. That would be rude. It is hard to run away from our own memories and create 'safe distance'.

Let's look at this idea of 'collective subconscious' and communication with it. If a person really picks up his 'past life memory' from collective subconcious what makes it 'feel' like past life memory. Are you saying that this collective unconscious has some vested interest in tricking some people into thinking they have past life memories. Is there any existencial reason for this trickery?

"truth is a very subjective concept"

Not so. Religious truth is subjective. And it is really not truth at all. I believe in objective truth.

Kris
 
"But don't tell that to those who have memories. That would be rude. It is hard to run away from our own memories and create 'safe distance'"

Hmm. Kris - I'm sorry if something in my posts made you feel offended. I'm not denying reincarnation nor am I trying to convince anyone that the new variant of "collective subconsciousness" is *the* way to interpret these phenomena. I'm pointing to alternative explanations - and they are just that - *alaternative explanations*. Just considering them might shed a new light for some people having what they believe *might* be past-life-memories but also *might* be something else.

My first example (a well documented case) has shown that what the woman believed was a past-life-memory turned out to be a "memory" created by her own subconscious mind. Realizing that she might have tried to analyze *what* has triggered this psychological reaction and thus reach a better "understanding" of herself.

This single example doesn't say anything about reincarnation in general - it is basically impossible to prove that this theory is valid or not. But it does show the immense possibilities of the human mind - even without the speculative "collective subconscious".

Kris - you've asked why this "trickery" exists. The answer: as I've said before - our subconscious mind tries hard to keep our *conscious* mind in proper shape. It is the normal way to deal with overwhelming problems/emotions/unexpected visions/etc. Needless to say - the *conscious* mind isn't fully aware of this process or it wouldn't be called subconscious ;-). Or in other words: the "trickery" is done by one's subconscious self to save one's peace of mind. If you have doubts about that mechanism - any psychoanalyst will confirm that.

And as to the "collective subconsciousness" variant - it shouldn't be seen as something external, which has to be "tapped into". There is no "central" place where everything is stored. I'd rather say that every human being is a more or less seperate entity which is capable of communicating with others - hence the possibility to gain personally unknown information.

One more thing - the "safe distance" doesn't refer to the memories themselves but to their interpretation.

[This message has been edited by Steven (edited 11-22-2002).]
 
Steven, I want to make a couple of points. First I was talking not about subconscious tricking us but about the what you call collective subconsciousness tricking us. Besides, I don't give psychoanalysts last word on anything.

Also, parents are best qualified to deal with their own children's memories when such are expressed. However, many adults, as seen in this forum, also have past life memories. They need to be exposed to these ideas brought forward by you and this discussion is better suited for the adult past life section.

Since I don't have have any past life memories, I don't know how I would react to these explanations if I had past life memories. I don't find anything you say offensive in your explanations, except to say that they are not as appealing to me as reincarnation.

Kris
 
When I was 1 1/2 - 2 years old I told my mother, who didn't even really believe in reincarnation at the time a very detailed account of my past life, even down to where the grave was, etc. If that doesn't prove reincarnation, I don't know what does.
 
Steven,
The way you worded the topic you threw down a gauntlet.

I agree with some people having confused past life memories. In fact I would really doubt anything my brother came up with. He doen'st see reality well in this life, why would he last time.

But personally, I, through my own research regarding my own experiences, feel that I have validation.

My family did not accept reincarnation as a possibility. So it wasn't like I had access to anything written about the concept until I was in my late teens. Reincarnation was not as open a subject back in those dark ages of my childhood.

Could I have picked it up through family genetics....well my grandmother's parents were born in Germany in 1874, but no one in my family or my neighborhood or school ever dealt with Nazi Germany in this lifetime.

As far as the life previous and Gettysburg, my family had never been there until I was 16 and insisted my mother take me there. I had not read anything about Gettysburg, and it wasn't a big movie topic at the time. It just happened to be a battlefield nearby. I was fascinated, I showed her the fields and points of interest like I was a tour guide. Although i would not get out of the car at Little Round Top.

Wishful thinking normally comes next when discussing reincarnation. Believe me, I would have never chosen to be a Union officer who did NOTHING! during the war. It took me years to find the info after I had remembered the name and dates. He was boring! I also would not have chosen to be a Nazi medical practitioner.

Collective subconcious....oooy! Okay, to believe that we can be programmed by either living or dead seems to be as difficult to whole heartedly accept as any reincarnation theory.

I realize that you were merely opening up a conversation related to options... I think you opened a can of worms!

catseye
Brilliance is rarely seen when the light is on, it is sorely missed when it is extinguished. Science rarely recognizes something until the proponent is long dead.
 
I don't know how any alternative explanation would work with my chain of events- how could a little girl who ONLY watched Disney untill she was five know about guns and everything that happened in 1968? Sure my parents might mention somthing, but not enough so a *three* year old could piece an entire story together...
There will always be theories that seem to explain it all, but they'll never explain absolutely everything..

------------------
*Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?*
 
I've been offline for a while. I see this topic is getting long (but still interesting). I'll try to keep this short.

Steven, regarding your comment:

"the mother doesn't have to be psychic in order to "produce" such marks."

Please note what I said. I said that IF you "theorize that the birth defects in the fetus are caused by the mother," then the mother would have to be "oddly selectively psychic." If she is causing very specific birth defects, scars, birthmarks etc. in the fetus which correspond with physical attributes of a dead person of whom she has no knowledge, then she would have to somehow know, consciously or subconsciously, which defects to cause. She would have to have knowledge of information not acquired by the five senses.

You said:

"A very strong subconscious influence by the dying person may suffice...and it isn't surprising that the new-born child is sensitive enough and not yet "blocked" by reasonable thiking to emerge with the signals it may subconsiously receive now from its mother."

So, in your theory, you have, on one end,

A) The dead person having "A very strong subconscious influence" on something or other.

And, on the other end you have

C) the fetus being physically affected by signals subconsciously received from the mother.

But you do not have

B) the mother receiving any data/information/impressions psychically from the dead person.

So, if the mother is not psychic, I can only conclude that you are theorizing that a dead person (presumably before dying) somehow influences, in the future, the body of the mother (with no participation of her mind) to manifest specific physical attributes in her unborn child. I'm not saying that's impossible, I'm just not sure that that's the theory.

Maybe it would be helpful to take some of the Stevenson cases most suggestive of reincarnation and apply alternative theories specifically to them.

Incidentally, I like the Mencken quote ("Every difficult and complex problem does have a solution which is neat, simple and wrong"), but I don't believe that a solution that is relatively simple is necessarily wrong just because it is simple. For example, right after reading it, I happened to go back to your witch example, which you said had a "simple psychological explanation." In other words, I would not say (to borrow and twist a saying from the skeptics) that if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must not be a duck because that would be too simple.

Please let us know if you can track down that witch case because it would interesting to know the exact facts.

I appreciate your creating the topic and all the time you've taken to respond to comments without, as far as I've seen, being offended or offensive.
 
I have a little anecdotal thing to toss in here. One of many!

I have colleague in this reincarnation thing who initially became interested in the subject to prove to me reincarnation is all hogwash.

My friend was regressed to an American Civil War General, Gouvenor K Warren. His comments after the regression were to the effect it must have been nonsense because he had yellow sand on his boots like John Wayne in the cavalry movies of the forties.

A year or two go buy and my friend has repeated business with the Chairman of the House Way's and Means Committee that keeps him in Washington over several weekends. He was of sufficient influence to secure a pass to the National Archives where he arranged for both of us to get prints of a number of Brady photographs directly from the original glass plate negatives.

Warren was the Hero of Little and Big Roundtop at Gettysburg. He was Joshua Chamberlains Commanding General.

My friend had never been to Gettysburg and decided to drive up while staying over in DC. He visited Big Round top in February. He looked down and noticed his shoes and trousers were covered with the same yellow sand that he observed in the regression.

My friend is an attorney. He has several Masters Degrees in addition to Law including one in Jacobean Literature from one of the colleges at Oxford.

His life ties into mine and others who have also been independently regressed.

I have come to the conclusion that anecdotal personal experiences will never prove anything to anyone except possibly the subject of the anecdotal experience. Essentially, mainstream science wants the concept of reincarnation relegated to the looney fringes.

Of course we need only prove one reincarnation as fiziwig points out. Somewhere in the material explored in this thread lies that one actual case. I doubt it will ever be acknowleged by mainstream science.

Anyway, I can add other corroborative past life experiences of individuals that all come together independently during the American Civil War.
 
I forgot to add something very jocular about the poor person that formed an intense personal experience, as a past life, from a brochure.

I read case law every day. But even more worrisome are the Administrative Law holdings and/or "Private Letter Rulings". These PLR's give a lot of detail about the seeker of State Wisdom's factual situation. My god, I could create a thousand past lives a year, just from what I read professionally.

That is nothing compared to my favorite source of fun reading, cases involving the Mafia and the Chicago "Outfit" in general. My Dad and his friends were professional bookmakers and "carpet joint" operators for Meyer Lansky.

In jest then, why would I not internally invent a past life as say Michael "Hinky Dink" Kenna, Alderman of Chicago's First Ward Levee in my Grandfathers day. ( 1870- 1947) My Grandfather was, shall we say, the factotum of the operators of the famed Chicago whore house operated by the Everly Sisters. A fancy joint! You could run up a bill of $1,000 a night in 1905. The Johns were named Armour, Swift, McCormick and a host of other Robber Baron surnames. He was a Wobbly Organizer to boot. Wobbly's are the Marxist " Industrial Workers of the World". Only a Swede could keep those two contradictions straight. But then, he left it all to marry my 20 year old Grandmother in 1909 who he met at a Scandanavian Fraternity of America affair. She lived to age 98.

Truly humans are screwed up beyond any concept of reason if they can conjure up an entire past life from a brochure. I dare say, nothing could be proven about past lives from any remembrance.

I certainly have an exciting forbear history. Why would I not conjure a life from Edwardian Chicago instead of the untrelated life I remember?

Sometimes it takes humor to get at a proposition. Those dreary lifeless scientists, UGH! They need a good lesson in Sin! They need the "Sunshine" therapy as shown in Eddie Murphy's "Harlem Nights".

OK, just inventing from stories, I choose Arnold Rothstein! He reputedly fixed the 1919 World Series. Not true, he just used the insider knowlege. But the guy I really would have liked to have been was Wyatt Earp!

Alas, I was none of these mensch!
 
In the witch case, maybe the woman really was the witch in her past life, which was why she was afraid of fire. When she was 12 and visited the museum, perhaps it jogged her memory, and subconsciously confused the date from the brochure with her memory to fill in the details. Since most people were illiterate in the middle ages, how many of them actually knew what date it was? If she hadn't known it in her past life, her memory might have picked it up from the brochure. Just a thought.
 
This thread is four years old, and many of the people who posted are no longer active. But I think it's still an excellent discussion about what reincarnation is, and isn't, I thought I'd revive it again. Since I have no doubts that reincarnation is a way of life, I find the need of some people to find alternate theories interesting. But no matter how much we kick this topic around won't change the fact that Reincarnation Happens.

John
 
tiltjlp said:
This thread is four years old, and many of the people who posted are no longer active. But I think it's still an excellent discussion about what reincarnation is, and isn't, I thought I'd revive it again. Since I have no doubts that reincarnation is a way of life, I find the need of some people to find alternate theories interesting. But no matter how much we kick this topic around won't change the fact that Reincarnation Happens.
Click to expand...

A good thread from the archives, John. Some great stuff from Fiziwig :) And I'm wondering if Jerry Johnson's grandfather knew my great-grandfather. He used to run a few 'sporting houses' in Chicago during the height of Mob rule.

The problem with 'alternative theories' is that they are based on an assumption that reincarnation doesn't happen, they are the 'rational explanations' for irrational happenings. They are the 'bargaining' phase of this big sea change in human understanding.

"Reincarnation Happens" :thumbsup: ...I'm thinking coffee mugs, t-shirts, mousepads, etc. :D

Phoenix
 
Hi guys,

"Reincarnation Happens":thumbsup: ...I'm thinking coffee mugs, t-shirts, mousepads, etc. :D

Loved it!!! :D I think I'll start providing them... :) :cool

Yes, amidst all we imagine and believe, I think all we can say for sure is that "Reincarnation Happens"!!! :thumbsup:
 
Charles Stuart said:
Hi guys,

"Reincarnation Happens":thumbsup: ...I'm thinking coffee mugs, t-shirts, mousepads, etc. :D

Loved it!!! :D I think I'll start providing them... :) :cool
Click to expand...

Just for you-know-whats and giggles, I created a "reincarnation happens" graphic and set up a cafepress store so I can have a coffee cup and a t-shirt. They let you set up a store, even if all you want to do is buy your own stuff. Guess what everyone's getting from me for the midwinter gift-giving festival?

Maybe that's one of our problems, we don't have any marketing of the concept going on. Where's the merchandising? Where are the reincarnation action figures-a new life, a new playset? And where is our "got milk" ad campaign?

Charles Stuart said:
Yes, amidst all we imagine and believe, I think all we can say for sure is that "Reincarnation Happens"!!! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

And that's the big problem with "alternative explanations". They start out with "reincarnation doesn't happen" and then they offer a reasonably plausible explanation-although sometimes those explanations sound a lot more far out than reincarnation.

What's wrong with saying, Reincarnation happens, let's try and figure out how this really works? If we could actually document the process, and not just keep trying to convince people with case histories, perhaps people will stop looking at reincarnation as some sort of weird eastern religious belief and see it as a natural process.

And when we analyze and document any other natural process, we start with the assumption that something is happening (we may be wrong in our assumption, but we still start with some sort of assumption), and then craft a theory that may or may not be proven about how we think that process works.

The problem with science and spirituality is that both operate on different levels of "reality" with very different "rules". Science is all about the physical world, and measuring it empirically. Spirituality is all about the non-physical world, and we have not developed methods and instruments to measure something that cannot be measured with the senses, but only the perceptions.

In a world where time has no meaning, what good is a stopwatch?

Perhaps we've been looking at it from the wrong direction. We don't need to come up with a new way for science to be able to deal with non-physical world concepts so they can prove things like reincarnation to their satisfaction, but a new science that is based in the non-physical world, and based on the "rules" of that world, not this physical one.

Phoenix
 
Phoenix said:
Perhaps we've been looking at it from the wrong direction. We don't need to come up with a new way for science to be able to deal with non-physical world concepts so they can prove things like reincarnation to their satisfaction, but a new science that is based in the non-physical world, and based on the "rules" of that world, not this physical one.

Phoenix
Click to expand...

Some excellent points Phoenix. So let's start compiling our list of rules. It should be easy since I came up with our first rule.

1 - Reincarnation Happens
2 - ?

John

PS: I do expect a free coffee mug for the use of my catch phrase.
 
tiltjlp said:
Some excellent points Phoenix. So let's start compiling our list of rules. It should be easy since I came up with our first rule.

1 - Reincarnation Happens
2 - ?
Click to expand...

2. lather, rinse, repeat

tiltjlp said:
PS: I do expect a free coffee mug for the use of my catch phrase.
Click to expand...

PM me your mailing address and I'll ship your 'licensing fee' to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top