born again

[Randall]

Well I know we've had the conversation before, ufology, regarding non-localized consciousness, or better, a place outside our body personality, that is just a radio receiver for a core identity being broadcast from who knows where. Reincarnation is a fairly common historical way of thinking about identity as a combination of some core identity, Z, that is repeatedly coloured by different body personalities over lifetimes. In this way we all play out our bits of karma in the grand dance of experiencing reality as a phyical being: Bob, Alice, Jesus, Genevieve - they're all just different robes for the soul (spirit, core being, whatever).

Some NDE & reincarnation stories are highly compelling. They all point to a reality about life, death, consciousness and existence that is much more surreal than anything the athiest confirms as conviction; in fact it looks a lot more like, dare i say, religion. If we believe that UFO's are quite possibly something beyond our comprehension then IMHO we might want to be more considerate of life, death and identity as being something equally as mysterious. At least I find karma to be one more reason to be a moral person in a world where there are no real foundations for being good in the first place. After all where's the logic in goodness?

I take a lot of solace from the high percentage of NDErs who come back to not only report that being good matters, but that death is nothing to be feared; it's just a bridge to another place they say. Sure, it's not logical to think like this but then look at what gets said about people who report close encounters of any kind.

There are a lot of musings there, and I tend to resonate with the sentiments that they evoke, but if we really want to get the answers, we still need to ask the right questions rather than presume we already know, and with respect to reincarnation, that takes us back to, where we started. If we want to throw NDE's into the equation, the first thing to consider is that nobody has ever been able to come back from an NDE experience and tell us what the message bar up on top of the cabinet said, or anything else that is objectively verifiable. They're all reminiscent of OOBEs, which have also never proven to be actual remote sensory experiences. If these experiences had any validity then we'd have proven them out by now and James Randi would have been out his million dollars a long time ago. Here are some excerpts: Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

BTW, OOBEs and NDEs are not nearly the same as dealing with an external and elusive alien entity; not even in the same ballpark, and lending credibility to one doesn't in any way lend credibility to the other. Still, that doesn't mean that there isn't a loophole that would facilitate some kind of continuity of consciousness. In fact, I follow the progress science is making on it. But so far the evidence is either purely theoretical or circumstantial.

 

[boomerang]

The only personal experience I've had that might possibly be related to concepts of reincarnation is a story I have told here before. It essentially consists of being tasked virtually one-on-one with a co-worker years ago whom I felt "in my bones" I knew from somewhere or some-when. The affective component of this was overwhelming. This much is purely subjective. The part that was personally a bit eerie for me was an odd connection between a recurring and vivid daydream from years previously about a particular cabin at a particular place in Colorado. The daydream always terminated in the appearance of a shadowy female figure whose face I could never quite see. I had never told anyone about it.

The company was based in Colorado and this lady had lived there. (I had gotten the job in Austin purely by chance through an employment agency) She then began talking to everyone at work about having lived by herself in a cabin in the mountains. She even spontaneously showed up at work one day with pics of the place, eager to show me. It was not the cabin from my daydream. It was, however, located about 30 miles from it.

And to make things just a bit stranger, she claimed to have worked both at Los Alamos (complete with Lazar-like anecdotes about life on the mesa) and also somewhere in the Nevada desert, commuting from Las Vegas by bus. This person was a well-liked but enigmatic figure, even to friends she had known for years.

So-- This incident was hardly a smoking gun for anything remarkable, reincarnation or otherwise. But neither will anyone convince me it was pure coincidence. If pressed for an analysis of this and other such experiences, I would question the relationship between information and the physical universe. They seem to me both manifestations of the same thing. Much like matter and energy. What is consciousness but actualized information? Physics tells us it is conserved. Perhaps the informational boundary defining "self" and that of everything else is more permeable than we think it to be, much like Jung's concept of the collective unconscious, or the universe as information stored on the 2D surface of a black hole.

 

[Polterwurst]

Thanks, ufology, for taking the time to give your detailed opinion. Believe it or not, I'm with you on most of the points you mentioned. The reason why I might sound more like one of these people who desperately want to believe in reincarnation, is that in one of "my" cases there seems to have been a personal intent of the deceased to be reincarnated, which I can't just ignore.

Apparently the body plays a much more important role in our identity than believers in reincarnation care to admit..

Absolutely. Even if reincarnation should be real in the sense of my consciousness surviving to live in another body, I personally still won't be walking this earth again (alas, no Polterwurst after this one has kicked it), because a great deal of what I am is determined by my body, how my consciousness is influenced by it and by the reactions of others to it. That's also what I'm observing with my niece. The only thing that physically resembles the deceased is a certain melancholy look around the eyes. Other than that only her unusually sophisticated manners an a high pitched voice seem slightly similar. But I also wouldn't say their personalities are totally different (maybe that's still too early to say).

I don't think that people like Ian Stevenson or Jim Tucker have failed to ask themselves the questions you mentioned. Things like interspecies and intersexual reincarnation. It's probably just that they don't (didn't) dare to make their thoughts public because of the highly sensitive and controversial nature of these topics. Well, I think that their research (and others of course, I can't list them all) has brought us to a point where we probably should. Besides, I'm just an anonymous in a fringe-topic internet forum, so what the heck.

It's funny that you use the example of a woman's memories turning up in a man's consciousness in your logical demonstration. I think that's what's happening in these cases traditional psychologists, biologists etc. have quite a hard time to explain, when someone feels that he or she has been born "in the wrong body", specifically with the wrong sex. Sometimes that feeling turns up at a very young age, long before there should ever be any feeling of sexual identity at all because of the lack of the necessary hormones. I know that the boy in my first case did have that feeling (that's one of the things he said which I felt I couldn't put down in the first post on him) and he's still having problems with his sexual identity. I think, if these memories are strong enough, they might carry over the sexual identity of a "past life". I saw a documentary about very small children who wanted to live as their opposite sex (I'll try to google it EDIT: I can't find the original documentary I saw on transgender children, but here is another one.) which addresses that. Traditional science can't do much more than declare that they have mental issues, because they are too young for it to be just the wrong hormones being produced.

As for "interspecies reincarnation", I'm quite sure that might happen also, but again, I've come to the conclusion that there is some "core consciousness" that is able to decide where "to go next" after physical death. I guess in Asian beliefs, there is absolutely the possibilty of reincarnating in an animal (albeit mostly as a consequence of "bad karma" I think, which is a concept I'm still struggling with). Psychics and ND experiencers say that there is an afterlife not only for humans but also for animals (at least for pets, I don't know abot dinosaurs or ants). And, to get into something highly controversial again, have you ever heard of "furries"? People who have the strange desire to dress up and behave like (anthropomorphic) animals? I'm not joking here, because no one can really explain why they should behave that way, except for the default explanation, of course, that they are slightly mentally disturbed. Of course, the fact that there are no talking elephants makes this a very questionable theory, but maybe there is something to the idea that consciousness is holographic and that it might be more or less clear or capable of higher functions relative to the "size of the holographic shard", i.e. the evolutional level of the brain it "interacts with".

So, if I have been thinking about this stuff, I guess others also have done that, especially the scientists I mentioned above. But of course, there will be other "reincarnation believers" who are going to shy back from the more extreme consequences of thinking the whole thing through, and I don't blame them.

DISCLAIMER: as always, I'm not stating any of the above as facts. This is all pure and utter speculation and it is more than likely I'm partially or totally wrong with these theories. I know how sensitive and controversial this is and I'm not inclined to hurt any feelings or to put any more wild theories out there. This is just my personal speculation.

 

[Randall]

... DISCLAIMER: as always, I'm not stating any of the above as facts. This is all pure and utter speculation and it is more than likely I'm partially or totally wrong with these theories. I know how sensitive and controversial this is and I'm not inclined to hurt any feelings or to put any more wild theories out there. This is just my personal speculation.

You are obviously one of those who are seeking answers, and as a fellow traveler along this path, I respect that, and your disclaimer makes it clear that you are retaining an open mind. In contrast, I do maintain that much I what I have stated as counterpoint are facts based on logic and science. However this doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. I do believe that strange things happen. But even if we accept that such things are possible, we can never escape the fact that true immortality requires not only a continuity of consciousness, but of everything, including our physical selves. A few unexplained and disjointed memories or feelings simply do not qualify.

However this doesn't make these incidences of seeming memory transference less interesting. How exactly are these memories being implanted into someone else's memory banks? You've posed some theories. I'll step off the safe edge now and say that I believe in certain forms of telepathic communication, mostly at an unconscious level. I'll admit straight off that I don't have scientific evidence of that, but at the same time I think almost anyone who has children and lives in a long term relationship knows that there is a connection that goes beyond the ordinary. So it may be the case that when people have powerful thoughts and memories, that they are sending out mnemonic transmissions that can be picked up by other people on the right "wavelength", and children seem to be more susceptible. We know that brain waves are a fact and we know that the brain is both a transmitter and a receiver. So IMO, at least there is some logical foundation for this theory that includes verifiable circumstantial evidence.

Another part about this theory that fits the puzzle is that the mnemonic transmissions could come from living people who had interacted with the deceased person, or even from the imaginations of those who had heard stories about them. This would explain how the person with the memories knows certain obscure things that only certain people could have known. It would also explain why some of the cases that seem promising turn out to contain inaccurate information. It is also possible that if someone believed in reincarnation and made that fact known, and intentionally set about transmitting that message, that it would manifest itself as a memory that conveyed that "intent" as you put it. In this sense, there is some truth to the saying that we live on in people's memories. So far, I don't see any holes in this theory, and I offer it to you freely for your further consideration.

 

[Polterwurst]

However this doesn't mean I don't have an open mind.

I've been reading your highly considerate and intelligent posts in this forum with a growing sense of awe. I know that you don't fall for the debunking sceptic's error of not looking at the data. And if my replies sounded like I had thought so, I'm sorry. Actually, I was really excited that at last someone did take up the challenge for discussion. Getting to the truth and sticking to science as far as possible instead of wandering off into the no-man's land of esotericism and wild theories is what I always try to do myself.

I agree that strange things happen.But even if we accept that such things are possible, we can never escape the fact that true immortality requires not only a continuity of consciousness, but of everything, including our physical selves.

Well, I guess, that's why it's called survival of consciousness. The body is subject to entropy. Maybe science can extend it's durability, but eventually it's going to succomb to the "ravages of time".

A few unexplained and disjointed memories or feelings simply do not qualify.

How about a birthmark around a small boy's skull (who seemed to remember a man's death during brain surgery) that looked very much like surgery scars? The case was investigated by Ian Stevenson and he said, it was indeed a birthmark, not a scar. Or two birthmarks on a man from Turkey, a small one under the chin and a big one on the top of his skull. In this case, as a boy the subject had memories of the life and death of a bandit who eventually shot himself before the police got to him. There is actually a police drawing of the wounds which can be directly compared to the boy's birthmarks. That one has been investigated by Stevenson, too, and he pronounced the case geniune. And having read many of his books, I can tell you that Stevenson was a scientist through and through, not some esoteric with an academic degree. He had a body of more than 2.000 investigated cases, not included fraudulent and self-deceptive cases, which he was always aware of. And he certainly considered alternative explanations.

Another part about this theory that fits the puzzle is that the mnemonic transmissions could come from living people who had interacted with the deceased person, or even from the imaginations of those who had heard stories about them. This would explain how the person with the memories knows certain obscure things that only certain people could have known. It would also explain why some of the cases that seem promising turn out to contain inaccurate information. It is also possible that if someone believed in reincarnation and made that fact known, and intentionally set about transmitting that message, that it would manifest itself as a memory that conveyed that "intent" as you put it. In this sense, there is some truth to the saying that we live on in people's memories. So far, I don't see any holes in this theory, and I offer it to you freely for your further consideration.

Believe me, I have been thinking along these lines. I too think there is some form of telepathy going on between people who are close (maybe it's more like "remote feeling" or scanning the "consciousness field"). Before my niece came along, I had lots of theories, except the one that there was really some form of consciousness surviving and then moving on to a new body. That notion just seemed like some miraculous religious nonsense and wishful thinking to me. But after my sister had the dream about the deceased relative and her daughter then showing signs of having memories of my somewhat complicated relationship with that relative, I was like "what the heck is going on?" and I'm coming to believe that Burnt State may be right:

Bob, Alice, Jesus, Genevieve - they're all just different robes for the soul (spirit, core being, whatever).

 

[Randall]

... I'm coming to believe that Burnt State may be right:

Perhaps Burt Slate may be right, but if he is, it's not really clear about what exactly. The statement, "Bob, Alice, Jesus, Genevieve - they're all just different robes for the soul (spirit, core being, whatever)." is so nebulous that it invites the reader to interpret it in whatever way they want, and if the reader is prone to believing a certain paradigm, then chances are they will perceive it as supportive of their predisposed view. However, in order to have it make any real sense, we still need to pin down exactly what this "spirit, core being, whatever" is. We've already touched on that to some extent. More later if you want to get into that.

The video was quite interesting, but it's a leap to assume that the birthmarks ( if we can even be certain that's what they all are ) are directly linked to a separate and deceased person by any method other than biology or coincidence. Humans are by design all very similar to begin with, and if we start looking for certain aberrations that are similar to someone else's, chances are good that we're going to find them. Show me some identical fingerprints and I'll start granting it some significance ( I wonder if he's ever bothered to check for that ).

Apart from these physical coincidences, all the evidence is once again based on memory. However it is interesting how Stevenson takes these memories into some depth by tying them to behavior. He certainly deserves credit for the amount of work he's put into his studies. But it also throws up a red flag. How much unintentional leading might be going on with these subjects. Consider the following:

Memories are primary triggers for our own behavior, so it's not surprising that if someone is led to conclude that the memories they possess means they are actually someone else, that all the associative and instinctual reflexes that go along with those memories will manifest themselves in that context. On the other hand, if it were explained to these people that all the evidence suggests that what they are experiencing is nothing more than a memory transfer of some kind, and that they are still their own person with their own mind, who can decide how to treat those memories, then completely different reactions can be expected. For example the girl who thinks she's actually the wife of an older man would realize that she's not. She could then deal with the memories as one would deal with pictures in a photo album. This is much more sensible than letting the memories rule her emotions, making her jealous and so on. Real progress might be made in helping these people. Conversely, by making the unfounded leap to the conclusion that they actually are someone they're not, has the potential to be psychologically destructive.

This research parallels the kinds of things we see in Abduction cases. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Burnt State]

Perhaps Burt Slate may be right, but if he is, it's not really clear about what exactly. The statement, "Bob, Alice, Jesus, Genevieve - they're all just different robes for the soul (spirit, core being, whatever)." is so nebulous that it invites the reader to interpret it in whatever way they want, and if the reader is prone to believing a certain paradigm, then chances are they will perceive it as supportive of their predisposed view. However, in order to have it make any real sense, we still need to pin down exactly what this "spirit, core being, whatever" is. We've already touched on that to some extent. More later if you want to get into that.

What I was referring to is that a common theme in the NDE phenomenon that connects to the reincarnation speculation is that both report this notion that there is a core self not bound by body but that enters and re- renters body to live out the next lifetime of that core self. One lifetime you are Bob, then Alice, then Jesus etc. Each lifetime is about lessons learned, spiritual ascension - whatever floats your boat really. All human experience, especially the extreme moments, seem to get codified more by spirituality, as the sciences have yet to catch up with what this whole 'life' thing is all about. Spirituality is a pretty nebulous space and that's what the NDE folk come back with. In this way the skin is always changing but the self/spirit stays the same.

Memories are primary triggers for our own behavior, so it's not surprising that if someone is led to conclude that the memories they possess means they are actually someone else, that all the associative and instinctual reflexes that go along with those memories will manifest themselves in that context. On the other hand, if it were explained to these people that all the evidence suggests that what they are experiencing is nothing more than a memory transfer of some kind, and that they are still their own person with their own mind, who can decide how to treat those memories, then completely different reactions can be expected.

I'd like to better understand the mechanism you propose that would allow someone's mind to be receiving, inheriting or linking with. Where would such a transference come from? Who sends it and when - before death, after? How is it received and understood in the mind?

This research parallels the kinds of things we see in Abduction cases. Very interesting indeed.

How so - in the way that people have hallucinations about experiences like OOBE and NDE as previously explored? Is the abduction experience just a hallucination?

 

[Randall]

What I was referring to is that a common theme in the NDE phenomenon that connects to the reincarnation speculation is that both report this notion that there is a core self not bound by body but that enters and re- renters body to live out the next lifetime of that core self.

I understand that. The nebulous thing is this concept of the so-called "core self", "soul, spirit ... whatever" ( as you put it ). I already covered the logic of how it alone is grossly insufficient in delineating the totality of who we are, and there is no reasonable evidence that it is something that is capable of existing independent of a functioning brain. There is however plenty of evidence that indicates that it is the product of a functioning brain-body system, and that together, these things are what make us who we are. To use an analogy, we cannot rationalize that if we purchase a red Ferrari and then swap the body and controls out for those of a Lada, that we're still driving the same car ( assuming it would even function at all ).

One lifetime you are Bob, then Alice, then Jesus etc. Each lifetime is about lessons learned, spiritual ascension - whatever floats your boat really. All human experience, especially the extreme moments, seem to get codified more by spirituality, as the sciences have yet to catch up with what this whole 'life' thing is all about. Spirituality is a pretty nebulous space and that's what the NDE folk come back with. In this way the skin is always changing but the self/spirit stays the same.

Like you say, "spirituality" is a pretty nebulous place. The word serves more as a convenience term for new-agey types who like to immerse themselves in these nonsensical ideas and beliefs. It's pretty much identical to a religious belief. In a more rational light it is for all intent and purpose the same as using the word "personality". A brain dead person doesn't seem to have much personality, while a live one does. A person with a tender loving spirit can just as easily be said to have a tender loving personality. I can't think of any exceptions that aren't related to this idea, however by invoking the trappings of "spirituality" as opposed to psychology, it facilitates all the wishy washy notions we hear coming out of the new-age psychic community.

I'd like to better understand the mechanism you propose that would allow someone's mind to be receiving, inheriting or linking with. Where would such a transference come from? Who sends it and when - before death, after? How is it received and understood in the mind?

You're not the only one who would like to know, and I don't claim to have all the answers. I only admit that I believe the phenomena is real and am offering a more grounded theory to explain it.

The evidence suggests that the phenomenon is the result of living functioning brains and not some dead person. For example, the person who is exhibiting the traits has a functioning brain, and the person who recognizes the traits as significant also has a functioning brain. There are also people, often closely connected to the subject, who also have functioning brains that carry memories about the deceased person. These factors are well established by the literature surrounding the phenomenon. There is no substantial scientific evidence ( yet ) that brain the brain can transmit and receive memories, but there is scientific evidence that it can send and receive signals wirelessly, and this ability has been used in the R & D of direct mind control interfaces for computers.

Therefore perhaps some method of wireless communication taking place that allows for the transference of certain memory fragments. I realize these factors represent tenuous circumstantial evidence, but at least they're not based on anything supernatural. I would also add, that it is a common experience of many people to have a sixth sense about people they are closely connected to. So in addition to the objective scientifically verifiable circumstantial evidence, we also have a wealth of subjective personal experience. Together I believe this makes the theory worthy of more serious consideration than the typical leaps in logic to conclude that dead Alice = living Bob.

How so - in the way that people have hallucinations about experiences like OOBE and NDE as previously explored? Is the abduction experience just a hallucination?

What I was alluding to there is that during the investigation of these two types of cases ( Abductions & Reincarnations ), both are dealing with issues of memory and both kinds of research are what might be called "fringe". Skeptics would call it pseudoscience. Academics barely recognize it at all, with the exception of guys like John Mack. Both are also subject to some of the standard criticisms, e.g. leading the subject during interviews or regressions. Admittedly I don't have much experience in reincarnation case studies, but the same risks are still there and I wouldn't be surprised to find leading questions taking place during reincarnation interviews. If I'm not mistaken I think that some reincarnation researchers also use hypno-regression.

 

[Polterwurst]

The video was quite interesting, but it's a leap to assume that the birthmarks ( if we can even be certain that's what they all are ) are directly linked to a separate and deceased person by any method other than biology or coincidence. Humans are by design all very similar to begin with, and if we start looking for certain aberrations that are similar to someone else's, chances are good that we're going to find them. Show me some identical fingerprints and I'll start granting it some significance ( I wonder if he's ever bothered to check for that ).

I'll try to look that up. In the case of the criminal who shot himself it would certainly have been possible and made sense. Stevenson published an abbreviated summary of his main work, where he discusses around 200 of his more than 2000 cases, and I can tell you, that he was very thorough in his work, some would say tediously so. I doubt that he never considered fingerprints. One problem I see is that he would have had to ask an expert to compare the fingerprints, and as you can hear in the video I posted, with the neurologist he asked for a brainscan, who never answered his request, it's not as easy as one might think to get other scientists into this research. I don't think he ever managed to find someone with access to CT equipment who would have risked being associated with reincarnation research. The same might apply to a forensics expert.

As to the question if we can be sure they really are birthmarks, I can only take Stevenson's (and others) word for it. He was a doctor of medicine and psychology and if I remember correctly, his medical career began with research on birthmarks, so I would consider him an expert. Other than that I can only offer you what I saw on my newborn cousin's chest: a lump of red tissue that seemed to ooze downward from a straight line just under his left ribcage. My immediate impression was of blood oozing from a wound, only it wasn't blood but firm tissue that seemed to be one with the skin. The doctors had pronounced it a birthmark and said it would diminish over time, which it did. There had not been any injury. During a garden pool party at the boy's 18th birthday I could catch another glimpse. It now looked like a pencil-straight white scar, not very wide. No more red tissue. Exactly like I would imagine a well healed stab wound.

According to my googling the subject, about 2 to three percent of newborn babies have some form of birthmark or birth defect (at least here in Germany). Unfortunately, I couldn't get a good estimate on violent or accident deaths, but obviously that percantage should be considerably higher. Plus, most birthmarks may well stem from virus infections in utero or from absorbed placenta material (as has been proposed but never really proven AFAIK).

Together I believe this makes the theory worthy of more serious consideration than the typical leaps in logic to conclude that dead Alice = living Bob.

I guess that is an equation none of the serious researchers in these fields would subscribe to. It's like in ufology, you have the doe-eyed believers, you have people who are in it for religious and spiritual reasons, you have charlatans and kooks. And you have just a few scientifically minded researchers. But those are very reluctant to address the question what the missing factor(s) in that A = B equation might be, probably because that would mean to venture into the "nebulous realms of spirituality". Personally, I think there is at least a third factor, let's call it C for consciousness, that constitutes both Alice's and Bob's consciousness but is not identical with them as a whole (because of the beforementioned influence the physical body with it's capabilities and limits has on C).

Unfortunately, every scientific theory dealing with consciousness has the obvious limit that all it can rely on is what you might call "just some memories and feelings", because consciousness really consist only of rather immaterial "things" (like intent, thought, fear etc.). As of now, you still can't reduce a thought to mere biochemical/electrical processes in the brain even with the newest methods of fMRI, and I doubt that the new "mapping of the human brain" initiative will be able to do that. IMO it's going to lead to just more questions, just as the "Human Genome Project" did, where scientists had to admit that there are obviously much less genes involved in making a human than they had expected.

So I can only offer more immaterial evidence, for example like this:

Stevenson proposed that extreme phobias which cannot be explained by events in early childhood at least sometimes could be explained with "past life memories", especially by the way an alleged "past life person" died. For example, you have a small child who is terrified by airplanes or helicopters flying overhead, to the point of trying to hide under a table etc. and in conversing with the child (Stevenson never used regression hypnosis, I guess to not add just another controversial factor to his research) the child shows signs of remembering the life of a person who died during an air raid in a military conflict.

My cousin (the boy with the birthmark) has always been afraid of everything with sharp edges. As a child he refused to eat any meat, not so much because he felt for the animals who had been killed for it but because of the very act of cutting and slicing it. Once, he got so agitated over a fish being cut open that he nearly vomited.
And my niece is overly afraid of belly aches. "Once I had a really bad belly ache" is a sentence I've heard from her more than once. My sister-in-law (actually I should say my sister's sister-in-law, but I don't know how that degree is called in english) died of colon cancer. In case you wonder, I did ask my niece, when exactly she'd had that belly ache (I guess she has no other words for it, but her expression when talking about this is more of intense pain than just an ache), but she can't give a good answer to that, as if she doesn't quite remember. Of course, she might just be remembering something from her infancy. Belly pain should be something every child has had to experience, but she is the first one I hear complaining about that so often. And she hasn't had any serious problems like with her appendix or something.

So, nothing substantial again, but I can't just dismiss that either.

 

[Randall]

I doubt that he never considered fingerprints. One problem I see is that he would have had to ask an expert to compare the fingerprints, and as you can hear in the video I posted, with the neurologist he asked for a brainscan, who never answered his request, it's not as easy as one might think to get other scientists into this research.

Fingerprints are easy to do. Even a novice can figure it out without any high tech equipment. I know because I've done it with pencil shavings, tape, and a scanner. With someone's permission and a proper fingerprint kit, there would be nothing to it at all. The most crucial part would be the verifiable documentation of the sampling process ( proving the prints came from who they claim to have been taken ). This also raises the question of why only defects would manifest themselves, and not something as definitive as a simple finger print. Although it's fair to document these things, it's far too early to assign any meaning to them beyond coincidence.

I guess that is an equation none of the serious researchers in these fields would subscribe to. It's like in ufology, you have the doe-eyed believers, you have people who are in it for religious and spiritual reasons, you have charlatans and kooks. And you have just a few scientifically minded researchers. But those are very reluctant to address the question what the missing factor(s) in that A = B equation might be, probably because that would mean to venture into the "nebulous realms of spirituality".

The concept of reincarnation is dependent on the idea that after we die, we are reborn in another body, and this conveys the idea that "we" are only composed of some ethereal and undetectable thing usually referred to as a "spirit" or "soul". It implies some equivalency. It implies dead Alice = living Bob. I've also seen plenty of similar claims by people who subscribe to that belief. In fact the title of this thread is "born again" which implies exactly that idea. It's not a concept that can be excluded from the concept of reincarnation while maintaining one is a reincarnation researcher. However if there are researchers who are looking at the phenomenon as a memory phenomenon, then we're leaving the trappings associated with reincarnation and looking for more rational explanations, and we can stop pretending that our physical selves aren't an important part of who we are.

Personally, I think there is at least a third factor, let's call it C for consciousness, that constitutes both Alice's and Bob's consciousness but is not identical with them as a whole (because of the beforementioned influence the physical body with it's capabilities and limits has on C).

Unfortunately, every scientific theory dealing with consciousness has the obvious limit that all it can rely on is what you might call "just some memories and feelings", because consciousness really consist only of rather immaterial "things" (like intent, thought, fear etc.). As of now, you still can't reduce a thought to mere biochemical/electrical processes in the brain even with the newest methods of fMRI, and I doubt that the new "mapping of the human brain" initiative will be able to do that. IMO it's going to lead to just more questions, just as the "Human Genome Project" did, where scientists had to admit that there are obviously much less genes involved in making a human than they had expected.

All the evidence indicates that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain-body system, the most important parts of which include the brain itself and our sensory input mechanisms.

So I can only offer more immaterial evidence, for example like this:

Stevenson proposed that extreme phobias which cannot be explained by events in early childhood at least sometimes could be explained with "past life memories", especially by the way an alleged "past life person" died. For example, you have a small child who is terrified by airplanes or helicopters flying overhead, to the point of trying to hide under a table etc. and in conversing with the child (Stevenson never used regression hypnosis, I guess to not add just another controversial factor to his research) the child shows signs of remembering the life of a person who died during an air raid in a military conflict.

My cousin (the boy with the birthmark) has always been afraid of everything with sharp edges. As a child he refused to eat any meat, not so much because he felt for the animals who had been killed for it but because of the very act of cutting and slicing it. Once, he got so agitated over a fish being cut open that he nearly vomited.
And my niece is overly afraid of belly aches. "Once I had a really bad belly ache" is a sentence I've heard from her more than once. My sister-in-law (actually I should say my sister's sister-in-law, but I don't know how that degree is called in english) died of colon cancer. In case you wonder, I did ask my niece, when exactly she'd had that belly ache (I guess she has no other words for it, but her expression when talking about this is more of intense pain than just an ache), but she can't give a good answer to that, as if she doesn't quite remember. Of course, she might just be remembering something from her infancy. Belly pain should be something every child has had to experience, but she is the first one I hear complaining about that so often. And she hasn't had any serious problems like with her appendix or something.

So, nothing substantial again, but I can't just dismiss that either.

Unfortunately I would have to say that diagnosing phobias as baggage from unpleasant past-life experiences is pseudoscientific junk psychology. On the other hand, if it can be shown that memory can be transferred by some as of yet unidentified process, then a reasonable case could be made that these phobias could be the result of those memories ( either conscious or subconscious ). However at this point, the mechanism by which such memories are transferred has not yet been proven to exist. There could be other unknown and very material factors to consider in some of these cases. We simply don't know because we're left to simply take the word of these researchers, many of which seem to lack the critical thinking skills required to get as far as we have in this conversation, and who have already leaped to their own preferred conclusions.

I'm not saying Stevenson doesn't deserve some recognition for his efforts, but at the same time there are plenty of smart honest people who for one reason or another miss things they aren't looking for or don't want to see. For example, what if it turns out that the bond that the young girl has for the older man isn't because she was her husband in a past life, but is actually his illegitimate daughter from an affair with the neighbor? Covering it up by concocting a story about reincarnation could certainly be preferable to admitting the truth, and it could explain birthmarks and other seemingly odd things as well. I'm not saying that this is the explanation for that case, but we do have to admit that such things do happen in the real world and that it is a far more rational explanation than invoking religious beliefs like reincarnation.

 

[Polterwurst]

Fingerprints are easy to do. Even a novice can figure it out without any high tech equipment. I know because I've done it with pencil shavings, tape, and a scanner. With someone's permission and a proper fingerprint kit, there would be nothing to it at all. The most crucial part would be the verifiable documentation of the sampling process ( proving the prints came from who they claim to have been taken ). This also raises the question of why only defects would manifest themselves, and not something as definitive as a simple finger print. Although it's fair to document these things, it's far too early to assign any meaning to them beyond coincidence.

Fingerprints might be easy to do, but in a criminal case, to determine that they belong to the same person, you would have to ask an independent expert to compare them. I don't think that in a court of law fingerprints would count as evidence if there hasn't been a forensics expert looking at them. And I guess the same would apply to determine wether fingerprints could be carried over in a case of alleged reincarnation, if you want that to count as evidence.

Besides, it's quite far-fetched that fingerprints would be stored somewhere in the consciousness that seems to have reincarnated. Consciousness processes might lead to physical (electrical/biochemical) processes, but as I said, I think in themselves they are immaterial (no string of RNA or any other molecule is going to determine if I want an ice-cream, I hope I'm doing that myself). Things like memes, intention, wishes and obviously memories of violent, traumatic events that have physical consequences might get stored in some kind of consciousness field and then - via some kind of imprint on something like a Sheldrakian "morphogenetic field" - might turn up in another person and in some cases influence their physical development, but I don't know about fingerprints.

I couldn't find anything on Stevenson looking to get fingerprints from the case subjects and the alleged past lives, maybe he should really have had a forensic scientist on the team to better check for fraudulent cases.

All the evidence indicates that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain-body system, the most important parts of which include the brain itself and our sensory input mechanisms.

What exactly is the evidence for that? Why did consciousness emerge in the first place? If anything, I'd say it doesn't seem to be necessary at all. Often, the body or the unconscious has already reacted to an outside stimulus before consciousness is even "alerted" to the fact that there is one. And nature is full of highly efficient organisms (like ants for example who have concquered all climatic zones from the destert to the poles) that get by outstandingly well, running only on instinct, without bothering to contemplate their existence, having parties, falling in love, building cities or discussing fringe topics on the internet, for that matter.

Unfortunately I would have to say that diagnosing phobias as baggage from unpleasant past-life experiences is pseudoscientific junk psychology. On the other hand, if it can be shown that memory can be transferred by some as of yet unidentified process, then a reasonable case could be made that these phobias could be the result of those memories ( either conscious or subconscious ).

I think with at least the same right I could say that declaring transgender people mentally disturbed is pseudoscientific junk psychology, because the psychologists who have agreed on writing that down in their handbook obviously only did it because they didn't know how else to explain these cases. Actually I think there is more evidence correlating phobias with past life memories than there is that transgender people have a hormonal or physical brain malfunction. Maybe most of traditional psychology could even be called that because psychologists notoriously have problems replicating research that depends on states of consciousness (which doesn't keep many of them from condemning parapsychology research for the very reason).

Also,

Stevenson proposed that extreme phobias which cannot be explained by events in early childhood at least sometimes could be explained with "past life memories", especially by the way an alleged "past life person" died.

which IMO is a far cry from

diagnosing phobias as baggage from unpleasant past-life experiences

That is what some new age regression hypnotist / reincarnation therapist might do. Please don't get that confused with good scientific work. In many of the cases, the children had phobias that could directly be related to violent and traumatic deaths ending the alleged past life, not some "unpleasant experience".

Calling someone like Ian Stevenson pseudoscientific to me is probably in about the same category as it would be to you when I called someone like James E. McDonald that. "Reincarnation researchers" (I guess Stevenson never called himself that, neither do the people at his department at the University of Virginia) is a term that is about as misleading as "UFO researchers". Anyone can call himself that, but as you well know, there are real researchers and there are charlatans who claim that title. Same with "research into alleged cases of reincarnation" (maybe that describes it better).

For example, what if it turns out that the bond that the young girl has for the older man isn't because she was her husband in a past life, but is actually his illegitimate daughter from an affair with the neighbor? Covering it up by concocting a story about reincarnation could certainly be preferable to admitting the truth, and it could explain birthmarks and other seemingly odd things as well. I'm not saying that this is the explanation for that case, but we do have to admit that such things do happen in the real world and that it is a far more rational explanation than invoking religious beliefs like reincarnation.

If you should have some time, you might want to try to read some of his stuff or look at the work of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. It's everything but esoteric and pseudoscientific. And they are always aware of the possibility of deception and self-deception by the subjects and their families. I won't say they couldn't have been fooled in a few cases, but not in all of the 2.000+. And that's only the ones Stevenson himself looked at.

As you can see in the documentary about the Scottish boy I posted earlier (does he or his mother seem like fraudsters to you?), there's always new cases turning up. Cases from all over the world, not only in asian countries but also in the the "materialist west". Most of them we never hear about, because the families don't want to go public. And there is probably a substantial amount of cases that never get reported at all, because they are hushed up for fear of being ridiculed.

As for you comparing alleged reincarnation cases to alleged alien abductions, I instinctively wanted to reject that thought first. What I have read and heard about abductions does not convince me at all that there is anything going on but hallucinations. But what do I know? My knowledge in this field is probably as wanting as yours is about Ian Stevenson's research. So, maybe there might be something very real going on here as well, behind all the fraud and self-deception. Just as I am convinced is the case with reincarnation.

 

[Randall]

Fingerprints might be easy to do, but in a criminal case, to determine that they belong to the same person, you would have to ask an independent expert to compare them. I don't think that in a court of law fingerprints would count as evidence if there hasn't been a forensics expert looking at them. And I guess the same would apply to determine wether fingerprints could be carried over in a case of alleged reincarnation, if you want that to count as evidence.

That's a good point, but it doesn't prevent the evidence from being collected and prioritized. If a match were found, then the experts could be called in for further examination.

Besides, it's quite far-fetched that fingerprints would be stored somewhere in the consciousness that seems to have reincarnated.

No more far-fetched than a reincarnated birthmark or brain injury. In fact a brain injury would be even more far fetched that passing along solid intact information such as a fingerprint.

What exactly is the evidence for that? Why did consciousness emerge in the first place? If anything, I'd say it doesn't seem to be necessary at all. Often, the body or the unconscious has already reacted to an outside stimulus before consciousness is even "alerted" to the fact that there is one. And nature is full of highly efficient organisms (like ants for example who have concquered all climatic zones from the destert to the poles) that get by outstandingly well, running only on instinct, without bothering to contemplate their existence, having parties, falling in love, building cities or discussing fringe topics on the internet, for that matter.

There is plenty of evidence that consciousness is an emergent quality of a functioning brain-body system, starting with your own awareness of your location as indicated by your sensory input and analyzed by your brain. But if you want more evidence, there are also brain studies that show how information from our senses is transmitted to corresponding brain regions. And if you want even more evidence, there are scans that can actively trace and even predict behavior based on the bioelectrical information supplied by the brain. And if you want even more evidence, there are studies that indicate that when certain areas of the brain are damaged, we lose the capacity to be conscious of certain things. Ultimately when enough of the brain is impaired, we lose consciousness entirely. Here's a discussion on this issue:

Full debate here.

I think with at least the same right I could say that declaring transgender people mentally disturbed is pseudoscientific junk psychology, because the psychologists who have agreed on writing that down in their handbook obviously only did it because they didn't know how else to explain these cases. Actually I think there is more evidence correlating phobias with past life memories than there is that transgender people have a hormonal or physical brain malfunction. Maybe most of traditional psychology could even be called that because psychologists notoriously have problems replicating research that depends on states of consciousness (which doesn't keep many of them from condemning parapsychology research for the very reason).

While it is true that psychology is still debated as a genuine science, it is an accepted academic field of study. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with everything psychologists say either. I simply don't know enough to make those kinds of calls. However I do know enough to say that reincarnation isn't an accepted field of scientific study ... or even academic study for that matter. Should it be? I think it's very interesting and I don't think studying it should be discouraged within the academic community. Obviously those afflicted with these memories need help understanding them.

That is what some new age regression hypnotist / reincarnation therapist might do. Please don't get that confused with good scientific work. In many of the cases, the children had phobias that could directly be related to violent and traumatic deaths ending the alleged past life, not some "unpleasant experience".

I think it's safe to say that it's ( it being the presumption that the memories we're discussing constitute evidence for reincarnation, and that reincarnation is presumed by these people to be a rebirth of person A into body B. ) is the primary presumption that virtually all the books I've ever seen written about reincarnation make; grant it that some of them are much farther out there than others.

Calling someone like Ian Stevenson pseudoscientific to me is probably in about the same category as it would be to you when I called someone like James E. McDonald that. "Reincarnation researchers" (I guess Stevenson never called himself that, neither do the people at his department at the University of Virginia) is a term that is about as misleading as "UFO researchers". Anyone can call himself that, but as you well know, there are real researchers and there are charlatans who claim that title. Same with "research into alleged cases of reincarnation" (maybe that describes it better).

Skeptics don't hesitate to call McDonald a pseudoscientist, and I wouldn't say that I agree with every assessment he makes either. It's one of the reasons I maintain that credentials in ufology are highly overrated, and I don't advocate the idea that ufology should be called a science. However I do advocate using independent scientists to verify evidence. Unless science is kept at arms length there will always be allegations of bias. And let's not confuse ufology with reincarnation. There is nothing unscientific about the possibility of alien life and technology or interstellar travel. On the other hand, reincarnation stems from a religious belief and the most compelling evidence we have consists of fragmented memories. That being said, I do appreciate what you are saying about doing quality work, and as mentioned previously, I found Stevenson's video quite interesting, and stated that he deserves respect for the efforts he's made to study this phenomenon. I hope that someone carries on his work as well. If the mechanism for the memory transference should prove to be some sort of direct mind-to-mind process, the applications would be astounding.

If you should have some time, you might want to try to read some of his stuff or look at the work of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia. It's everything but esoteric and pseudoscientific. And they are always aware of the possibility of deception and self-deception by the subjects and their families. I won't say they couldn't have been fooled in a few cases, but not in all of the 2.000+. And that's only the ones Stevenson himself looked at.

As you can see in the documentary about the Scottish boy I posted earlier (does he or his mother seem like fraudsters to you?), there's always new cases turning up. Cases from all over the world, not only in asian countries but also in the the "materialist west". Most of them we never hear about, because the families don't want to go public. And there is probably a substantial amount of cases that never get reported at all, because they are hushed up for fear of being ridiculed.

As for you comparing alleged reincarnation cases to alleged alien abductions, I instinctively wanted to reject that thought first. What I have read and heard about abductions does not convince me at all that there is anything going on but hallucinations. But what do I know? My knowledge in this field is probably as wanting as yours is about Ian Stevenson's research. So, maybe there might be something very real going on here as well, behind all the fraud and self-deception. Just as I am convinced is the case with reincarnation.

I don't believe that ridicule is a valid means of establishing the truth of theories or claims. So please understand that when I say some work falls into the realm of pseudoscience, it's not intended as ridicule. I'll be the first to admit that there is more than one example of pseudoscience in the history of ufology ( think orgone energy ). So when examining these topics we need to be as objective as possible, and that means considering the evidence at hand and applying critical thinking. When we do that with the topic of reincarnation we inevitably find all the holes we've discussed here so far. However at the same time, we are still faced with the reality of the phenomenon. How do we reconcile those differences? So far the most logical option based on the available evidence remains the concept of memory transference. How that memory transference takes place is the real mystery. There are probably cases where it's fabricated or planted. But I'm also open to the idea that it's not just that simple in the same way that I'm open to the idea that alien abduction isn't all that simple. I'll also grant that perhaps there is another process at work that we don't yet understand, but that gets into theorizing about the nature of reality itself, and that's a whole other topic.

 

[Polterwurst]

No more far-fetched than a reincarnated birthmark or brain injury. In fact a brain injury would be even more far fetched that passing along solid intact information such as a fingerprint.

I'd agree that it's at least as far-fetched. Both possibilities would be interesting to look into, though. But I guess, Stevenson (if he never did look for fingerprints) might have decided that there are other things that were more important or easier to look into.

There is plenty of evidence that consciousness is an emergent quality of a functioning brain-body system, starting with your own awareness of your location as indicated by your sensory input and analyzed by your brain.

...all of which happens subconsciously, without us even noticing. I'd think even some lizard scuttling out from under a rock to get a sunbath on top of it has that awareness of location. Now, maybe it does have a primitive form of consciousness, but it sure doesn't need to have a scientific explanation or a philosophy why it even does that.

But if you want more evidence, there are also brain studies that show how information from our senses is transmitted to corresponding brain regions. And if you want even more evidence, there are scans that can actively trace and even predict behavior based on the bioelectrical information supplied by the brain. And if you want even more evidence, there are studies that indicate that when certain areas of the brain are damaged, we lose the capacity to be conscious of certain things. Ultimately when enough of the brain is impaired, we lose consciousness entirely.

AFAIK it has been shown that if brain damage occurs very early, other parts of the brain can take over these functions seemingly without effort. I think there has been cases where one hemisphere was entirely removed (I know that at least in lab rats that has been shown), where full functionality was regained. The most extreme case (discussed in a scientific publication, I think) was maybe that of a young man whose skull was found to be almost entirely filled with water with the brain being about 10 percent the size of a normal brain. Still, he was functioning normally and was even highly intelligent. And I guess the old paradigm of specific brain regions being responsible for specific abilities, functions etc. has been weakened by fMRI studies of the brain, because more often than not, there are patterns throughout the whole brain responding instead of just certain parts. Maybe the new "brain project" is going to shed some more light on that.

And in the case of Pamela Reynolds, there even seems to have been heightened awareness when her brain had been essentially switched off (but I guess you'll put NDE research into the same "probably pseudosientific and religiously motivated" drawer as research into alleged reincarnation.

However I do know enough to say that reincarnation isn't an accepted field of scientific study ... or even academic study for that matter. Should it be? I think it's very interesting and I don't think studying it should be discouraged within the academic community. Obviously those afflicted with these memories need help understanding them.

Absolutely.

I found Stevenson's video quite interesting, and stated that he deserves respect for the efforts he's made to study this phenomenon. I hope that someone carries on his work as well.

That would be Dr Jim Tucker:

And let's not confuse ufology with reincarnation. There is nothing unscientific about the possibility of alien life and technology or interstellar travel.

I'm afraid there is lots of physicists who wouldn't agree with the latter. Even if one could travel with speeds that would get you to the nearest star system in a few years instead of centuries, there would still be the problem that even the smallest grain of stardust becomes an insurmountable obstacle (at least in the minds of those scientists).

On the other hand, reincarnation stems from a religious belief (...)

Again, that was my own assumption until a few years ago. Nowadays I'm asking myself, well, does it, really?

If I've now witnessed two of these cases in which children - without the slightest religious or spiritual motivation, in a "just so you know"manner - made very strange remarks about having been to some form of afterlife (which was the case with both of them) and seem to be remembering something that seems very much like another lifetime, I guess other people have too, which seems to be corroborated by cases like those in the videos I posted above. And in Asia as well as anywhere else in the world, not only since the 60s and the new age movement but for millennia. The belief in reincarnation in Asia is older than Buddhism, maybe older than Hinduism.
It's been around in Europe for at least as long (the celts had a variation of it and all through history, people referred to it - I'm not tallking about some nutjob claiming that he was Napoleon or Jesus Christ).

I'd say it stems from these strange cases of kids with "past life memories" being observed over and over again. Some cults and religions then seized upon them and made them part of their belief system (while others like my own - Christianity - looked at them and dismissed them instead), thereby introducing the religious belief in reincarnation.

But "in the beginning" there was probably just the observation of a strange, incredible phenomenon, which reminds me a lot of UFOs, like it or not. And UFOs have been seized upon by cults and integrated into belief systems now, too, maybe there's even some proto-religion forming, as Chris once said. Granted, UFOs are probably much more material and tangible, but other than that I don't see that big a difference.

(...) and the most compelling evidence we have consists of fragmented memories.

...which sometimes contain full names, places and events which can be verified... nothing to see here, move on people...

So when examining these topics we need to be as objective as possible, and that means considering the evidence at hand and applying critical thinking. When we do that with the topic of reincarnation we inevitably find all the holes we've discussed here so far.

Absolutely. It's just that I personally (from my own experience) objectively find that there has to be some immaterial factor like "the soul", involved. Which IMO not only accounts for the holes in "reincarnation research" but also fills other holes in traditional psychology and would explain what seemed like an element of intelligent, decision-making behaviour of these - according to you - fragmented memories in one of "my" cases.

Unfortunately, we don't have an officially acknowledged scientific theory for the "soul" (I prefer "discarnate consciousness") and I'm afraid any theory proposed (like for example, Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, the holographic consciousness proposed by the late Michael Talbot or the theories of the late german scientist Burkhard Heim who proposed additional dimensions that might "contain" consciousness etc.) would infallably have to be refused by materialists as "pseudoscientific junk" because there can be no material evidence per definition.
So I'm afraid we cant't do much more than agree to disagree. Btw. I think what you say you saw in that church was the very thing I was just speaking of, discarnate consciousness.

 

[Randall]

That would be Dr Jim Tucker:

Another good video. Thanks for posting it. I like how he said that they don't use hypnotic regression and that they do consider the possibility of frauds, fabrications and coincidences.

I'm afraid there is lots of physicists who wouldn't agree with the latter [that there's nothing unscientific about the concept of interstellar travel]. Even if one could travel with speeds that would get you to the nearest star system in a few years instead of centuries, there would still be the problem that even the smallest grain of stardust becomes an insurmountable obstacle (at least in the minds of those scientists).

Then, not unlike what you've just done, they'd be padding their response with conditions upon which to make their disagreement seem rational, when in fact it's not. What they're really saying by invoking these conditions isn't that the concept of interstellar travel is unscientific, but that given what we know, under x conditions, interstellar travel would be very difficult. So any disagreement based on that reasoning carries zero weight. Additionally, if we invoke conditions that are within the realm of possibility based on our present day knowledge, interstellar travel seems very feasible. I've gone over this before in more detail elsewhere, but to give you a quick debunking of the "distances are too great and speed required too large" argument, even at 0.3 of light speed ( less than one-third of warp ) there are over 500 Sun like stars within a 300 Earth year travel time. There are also living organisms on Earth with lifespans longer than that, and we are rapidly closing in on resolving the aging problem for ourselves. So in reality, all we ( or any other species ) needs is modestly long lifespans or multi-generation capability, and a large well equipped space ship. No warp drive needed.

In contrast, the one rational theory that could facilitate the concept of continuity of consciousness requires more unproven circumstances and much wider reaching assumptions than that of interstellar travel.

Again, that was my own assumption until a few years ago. Nowadays I'm asking myself, well, does it [the concept of reincarnation stem from a religious belief], really?

Well ... I suppose that reincarnation could be looked at in a more philosophical than religious sense, but if we're not going to look at it in a religious context, then we need to remove the religious beliefs and trappings that go along with it. And even when we do that, we still find ourselves dealing with nebulous concepts like "souls" and "spirits" and so on. If we're going to be completely objective and empirical, the evidence does not justify the leaps in logic required to justify a belief that the evidence constitutes a transference of our "selves", in some ethereal form such as a "spirit" or "soul". Let's be completely hard line here. What the evidence suggests is an unknown form of memory transference, and even that is based on data gathered from uncontrolled circumstances.

If I've now witnessed two of these cases in which children - without the slightest religious or spiritual motivation, in a "just so you know"manner - made very strange remarks about having been to some form of afterlife (which was the case with both of them) and seem to be remembering something that seems very much like another lifetime, I guess other people have too, which seems to be corroborated by cases like those in the videos I posted above. And in Asia as well as anywhere else in the world, not only since the 60s and the new age movement but for millennia. The belief in reincarnation in Asia is older than Buddhism, maybe older than Hinduism.
It's been around in Europe for at least as long (the celts had a variation of it and all through history, people referred to it - I'm not tallking about some nutjob claiming that he was Napoleon or Jesus Christ).

I'd say it stems from these strange cases of kids with "past life memories" being observed over and over again. Some cults and religions then seized upon them and made them part of their belief system (while others like my own - Christianity - looked at them and dismissed them instead), thereby introducing the religious belief in reincarnation.

Again, I'll point out that the evidence points to memory transference and that leaping to conclusions about continuity of consciousness based on memory alone is very premature. These subjects are people with their own individual lives who seem to possess fragmented memories of some dead person, nothing more, and the presumption that these memories are sufficient to constitute a continuity of consciousness should be pulled entirely from the equation. That being said, our memories breathe a lot of life into who we are, so I can see why it's so easy to make that leap in logic.

But "in the beginning" there was probably just the observation of a strange, incredible phenomenon, which reminds me a lot of UFOs, like it or not. And UFOs have been seized upon by cults and integrated into belief systems now, too, maybe there's even some proto-religion forming, as Chris once said. Granted, UFOs are probably much more material and tangible, but other than that I don't see that big a difference.

There are similarities between reincarnation research and some aspects of ufology, especially abduction research. For example, apart from Roger Leir, who might be considered the equivalent in ufology for the investigation of medical trace evidence, the evidence rests almost entirely on the memories of the subjects. The primary difference in the quality of the evidence seems to be the apparent verification of the memories. However there are also many factors that could lead to such verification seeming to be valid when in fact it's not. These foreign locations, particularly India have enormous populations with many people with identical names who do the same kinds of work and because of the high population density, no doubt live not far from others with the same name who do the same type of thing. Their studies also show that the incidence of the phenomenon is higher in places where belief in reincarnation is prevalent. And this leads to the motivation to believe it for reasons of social status. So for example, did anyone bother to make a note of how many of these subjects seemed to possess memories of people who are of a lower caste or status? What would those statistics show I wonder? This important motive seems to have been entirely overlooked.

Absolutely. It's just that I personally (from my own experience) objectively find that there has to be some immaterial factor like "the soul", involved. Which IMO not only accounts for the holes in "reincarnation research" but also fills other holes in traditional psychology and would explain what seemed like an element of intelligent, decision-making behaviour of these - according to you - fragmented memories in one of "my" cases.

Like the concept of souls or spirits, memories are "immaterial factors". They are not simply neurons and bio-electrical impulses. They are virtual images and sounds that have a powerful influence on the way we perceive the world and our selves. So you don't need to go over the edge and start invoking "souls" and "spirits" when the proven phenomenon of memory will do nicely. Additionally, when working with a living subject, it could be psychologically damaging to make them think they aren't really who they seem to be. When working with these subjects we have an ethical responsibility not to lead them down the path of our own pet beliefs.

Unfortunately, we don't have an officially acknowledged scientific theory for the "soul" (I prefer "discarnate consciousness") and I'm afraid any theory proposed (like for example, Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, the holographic consciousness proposed by the late Michael Talbot or the theories of the late german scientist Burkhard Heim who proposed additional dimensions that might "contain" consciousness etc.) would infallably have to be refused by materialists as "pseudoscientific junk" because there can be no material evidence per definition.
So I'm afraid we cant't do much more than agree to disagree. Btw. I think what you say you saw in that church was the very thing I was just speaking of, discarnate consciousness.

I see no way that you can ethically disagree. Working with living subjects and leading them to believe that they aren't who they are because they seem to possess memories of a dead person is simply not responsible. And let's not deny that's what their premise is, to quote:

"What we're saying specifically is that, um, there's this phenomenon of, past life memories in young children, that, provides evidence that, consciousness does not end with the death of the physical body, but instead can carry on, and um, at least in certain situations, can then uh, carry over to another life." - Jim Tucker​

I'll grant that the evidence indicates that some subjects have memories that correspond to information about certain deceased people, but that is all. Apart from that, I think it's very important to help these subjects recognize that they are their own persons who can have their own healthy dreams and desires and relationships in the life they are living now, unfettered by these memories from the past. At the same time, I wouldn't say it 's wise to repress the memories either. That could also be damaging. However helping the subjects to catalog them in their memory banks as one would a family photo or video archive would put the phenomenon into a far more rational perspective. From there, studying how these memories came to be transferred is a legitimate question and is worthy of further study.

BTW: This has been a very enjoyable exchange and I hope I'm not coming across as disrespectful. That isn't my intent. But sometimes people get mad at me when I don't simply give them a green light on the "agree to disagree" escape hatch. I'm much more of a "feet to the fire" kinda guy. Maybe sometimes I push a little too far. But there's never any ill intent involved.

 

[Polterwurst]

Working with living subjects and leading them to believe that they aren't who they are because they seem to possess memories of a dead person is simply not responsible.

And who would be doing that? As I said 99 % of the kids stop making these remarks around 6 to 8 years, and they even forget about them. In the case of my cousin, the family was glad that he did so and they never encouraged him to talk some more about his "memories". As by the way, I'm not doing with my niece. I don't think anyone is urging these kids to go on making these remarks, not the scientists at least. That they might be telling them "they are not who they are" is a crude misrepresentation of their work. So, yes, I can ethically disagree. There are probably a few charlatans in this field who are indeed irresponsible and leading their subjects with questions and questionable regression hypnosis sessions, but certainly not Stevenson or Tucker.

Skeptics don't hesitate to call McDonald a pseudoscientist, and I wouldn't say that I agree with every assessment he makes either.

Well, exactly. I don't agree with everything I read in Stevenson's books or what Tucker is saying either. But from all I have heard of James E. McDonald, he was very intelligent and an outstanding atmospheric physicist. And when he saw a genuine phenomenon he couldn't quite explain, he acknowledged it and didn't keep silent, which would probably have been the opportunistic thing to do even back then. And that earned him the laughter and ridicule of his collegues. Much like Stevenson, but at least the latter had some financial backing. (I wonder why that Xerox guy thought that this kind of research was worth leaving them one million dollars, which back then would have been unheard of in terms of research funds, I guess).

I'll grant that the evidence indicates that some subjects have memories that correspond to information about certain deceased people, but that is all.

That's actually way more than I was hoping for, seeing how rigorously you have been sticking to traditional science and your convictions in other threads.

I'll be considering your alternative explanations in my further "armchair research" if you consider, in case a kid tells you something like "you know, I was a truck driver once" not just going "What a vivid imagination you have" but rather saying something like "A truck driver? Not an astronaut or a paleontologist? Tell me more."

 

[Randall]

And who would be doing that?

There are numerous reincarnation authors that appear to be pushing the idea that people who seem to possess the memories of dead people are in fact those dead people who have been somehow reborn via a transference of consciousness from one body into another. Even Stevenson and Tucker's research is based on that premise. To quote again:

"What we're saying specifically is that, um, there's this phenomenon of, past life memories in young children, that, provides evidence that, consciousness does not end with the death of the physical body, but instead can carry on, and um, at least in certain situations, can then uh, carry over to another life." - Jim Tucker​

I'm not saying that Stevenson and Tucker are so irresponsible as to lead young children to believe such nonsense, however at the same time, it's easier than we want to admit to let our own pet beliefs and biases creep into the research process. I have little doubt that such bias takes place with less discerning researchers who are just as likely to lead the subject during these "interviews" as some abduction researchers are. At least in the video you posted, Tucker uses the phrase "past life memories" rather than always assuming that it is a "continued consciousness". These are very important distinctions. At this point I'm not making any specific accusations because I haven't read any of Stevenson's interview transcripts, but the comment is cautionary, and I urge you in your armchair research to be on the watch for it during transcripts of interviews and in your own investigations.

I'll be considering your alternative explanations in my further "armchair research" if you consider, in case a kid tells you something like "you know, I was a truck driver once" not just going "What a vivid imagination you have" but rather saying something like "A truck driver? Not an astronaut or a paleontologist? Tell me more."

I get the sense that your interest is entirely well intentioned, but even asking "Not an astronaut or a paleontologist?" can lead young people to believe that's what you would have prefered to hear, and for them to change their minds in order to please you, and if the subject you wanted to match them up with also happened to be an astronaut ... well ... I'm sure you can see my point. It would actually be better to simply skip that part and move on to "Tell me more" or to ask What kind of truck?

On the idea of implying it's all just in a child's imagination: I've never been a big supporter of that. I think it stifles something valuable. I had a some missing time and OOBE-like experiences when I was young that my parents simply dismissed. Maybe it was just my "imagination" but the dismissiveness wasn't a really great feeling. Anyway, you come across as a decent person who is sincerely interested in the truth, and the field could probably use more people out there like you. Have you considered pursuing it as more than just an armchair interest?

 

[Polterwurst]

There are numerous reincarnation authors that appear to be pushing the idea that people who seem to possess the memories of dead people are in fact those dead people who have been somehow reborn via a transference of consciousness from one body into another.

That would be the layman's "I want to believe" interpretation of the phenomenon, yes. Unfortunately it's true that some authors feed that interpretation rather recklessly presumably in order to sell more books, but most of the publications I've read were considerate of alternative explanations.

Even Stevenson and Tucker's research is based on that premise.

I think it's not so much a premise but an opinion they have formed over the years, studying all these cases. Maybe they should keep their personal opinion out of it and only state the demonstrable facts: that these "memories" can turn up in little children and are sometimes verifiable and not due to cryptomnesia etc. But the area is fraught with emotions and therefore a real minefield for scientists who want to stay subjective. The first and foremost thing people are going to ask is probably "does that mean that the soul is real?" to which the answer probably should be "no idea". Even though some of the children speak about an alleged afterlife, these things cannot be verified.

I get the sense that your interest is entirely well intentioned, but even asking "Not an astronaut or a paleontologist?" can lead young people to believe that's what you would have prefered to hear, and for them to change their minds in order to please you, and if the subject you wanted to match them up with also happened to be an astronaut ... well ... I'm sure you can see my point.

That was intended as a witty remark, I see why it would be a leading question, though. I guess I typed that because it demonstrates one of the things that IMO makes these remarks credible, that the children are not talking about "having been" a cowboy, an astronaut or a "dinosaur scientist", but mostly give rather prosaic occupations (if they mention a job at all).

On the idea of implying it's all just in a child's imagination: I've never been a big supporter of that. I think it stifles something valuable.

Absolutely.

Have you considered pursuing it as more than just an armchair interest?

Yes, I have. But a) I don't have any academic degree or psychological schooling, b) I live in a very rural area . Even moving to a city wouldn't help, I guess, because I don't know of any good researchers here in Germany. There are one or two authors, but they are more on the esoteric or overly religious side, I'm afraid. And lately, reincarnation has become an entertainment item. B-class celebrities are having regression hypnosis on TV and crap like that. Anyone considering serious research would have to put up with that. And c) if you publicly show an interest in a topic as fringy as that, you're probably never going to be able to do anything else any more. I guess that's even more so the case here as it is in America or Canada.

 

[Randall]

That would be the layman's "I want to believe" interpretation of the phenomenon, yes. Unfortunately it's true that some authors feed that interpretation rather recklessly presumably in order to sell more books, but most of the publications I've read were considerate of alternative explanations.

So that's something to avoid then as you proceed forward.

I think it's not so much a premise but an opinion they have formed over the years, studying all these cases.

It's a direct quote from the video that says that's what they are "specifically saying". In the context of their work ( which is what it was ), that's more than just a mere opinion.

Maybe they should keep their personal opinion out of it and only state the demonstrable facts: that these "memories" can turn up in little children and are sometimes verifiable and not due to cryptomnesia etc. But the area is fraught with emotions and therefore a real minefield for scientists who want to stay subjective. The first and foremost thing people are going to ask is probably "does that mean that the soul is real?" to which the answer probably should be "no idea". Even though some of the children speak about an alleged afterlife, these things cannot be verified.

Again, why invoke all the baggage that goes along with the idea of continuity of consciousness and souls and spirits when the phenomenon of memory is well accepted, fits the evidence, and is an equally compelling mystery? It's better ( and safer for the subjects ) to keep all that at arms length but still open to discussion ( as we have here ), than diving head first into "born again" pool ( the title of this thread ).

That was intended as a witty remark, I see why it would be a leading question, though. I guess I typed that because it demonstrates one of the things that IMO makes these remarks credible, that the children are not talking about "having been" a cowboy, an astronaut or a "dinosaur scientist", but mostly give rather prosaic occupations (if they mention a job at all).

I got the witty remark and it was really hard not to just let it go as that because it was so positive in spirit .

 

[Burnt State]

I understand that. The nebulous thing is this concept of the so-called "core self", "soul, spirit ... whatever" ( as you put it ). I already covered the logic of how it alone is grossly insufficient in delineating the totality of who we are, and there is no reasonable evidence that it is something that is capable of existing independent of a functioning brain. There is however plenty of evidence that indicates that it is the product of a functioning brain-body system, and that together, these things are what make us who we are. To use an analogy, we cannot rationalize that if we purchase a red Ferrari and then swap the body and controls out for those of a Lada, that we're still driving the same car ( assuming it would even function at all ).

The reason why we have these discussions is that some do like to speculate about the mystery of life beyond life. Consequently, the analagoy does not work at all. Cars work mechanically as do our bodies but the self that animates this corporeal automaton is a separate kind of spark. That's apples and oranges.

Like you say, "spirituality" is a pretty nebulous place. The word serves more as a convenience term for new-agey types who like to immerse themselves in these nonsensical ideas and beliefs. It's pretty much identical to a religious belief. In a more rational light it is for all intent and purpose the same as using the word "personality". A brain dead person doesn't seem to have much personality, while a live one does. A person with a tender loving spirit can just as easily be said to have a tender loving personality. I can't think of any exceptions that aren't related to this idea, however by invoking the trappings of "spirituality" as opposed to psychology, it facilitates all the wishy washy notions we hear coming out of the new-age psychic community.

I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing convenient about spirituality, certainly not as I experience it. There's a rich history on planet earth of various cultural pursuits concerned with attaining inner peace, a connection to the natural world and a feeling of a sense of kinship and compassion with all who live here. To do no harm and lead a moral life does have very unique feelings associated with such a path. As a response to discovering a purpose to existence and the mystery of life beyond life it fits well with the speculation around reincarnation. While some religions explore spirituality I would never claim a spiritual person means religiosity is a focus for them. That whole new agey thing you talk about does not equate for me as a worthwhile pursuit, but to each their own.

...
Therefore perhaps some method of wireless communication taking place that allows for the transference of certain memory fragments. I realize these factors represent tenuous circumstantial evidence, but at least they're not based on anything supernatural. I would also add, that it is a common experience of many people to have a sixth sense about people they are closely connected to. So in addition to the objective scientifically verifiable circumstantial evidence, we also have a wealth of subjective personal experience. Together I believe this makes the theory worthy of more serious consideration than the typical leaps in logic to conclude that dead Alice = living Bob.

Sixth sense is one thing but getting someone's memories beamed in before, during or after death is about as supernatural as reincarnation and the idea of a soul.

Don't think of Alice = Bob but that both Alice and Bob are just different exterior identities for another idea of self that is the spark. Sure it's far-fetched but it is a nice way of wrapping up spirituality, reincarnation, NDE's, life and death etc. into a nice nebulous package that you can contemplate while watching the butterflies do their thing with the flowers.

 

[Randall]

The reason why we have these discussions is that some do like to speculate about the mystery of life beyond life.

Sure ... why not. It's perfectly natural.

Consequently, the analagoy does not work at all. Cars work mechanically as do our bodies but the self that animates this corporeal automaton is a separate kind of spark. That's apples and oranges.

The analogy I used identifies what doesn't work but what is often presumed to be the case. However it may not apply to every example equally.

I couldn't disagree with you more. There's nothing convenient about spirituality, certainly not as I experience it.

I don't maintain that spirituality is convenient, I maintain that the word "spirituality" is a convenience term for the mish-mash of concepts and theories surrounding the idea of "spirits" and "souls" that often manifests itself as little more than new-age gobbledygook.

There's a rich history on planet earth of various cultural pursuits concerned with attaining inner peace, a connection to the natural world and a feeling of a sense of kinship and compassion with all who live here. To do no harm and lead a moral life does have very unique feelings associated with such a path. As a response to discovering a purpose to existence and the mystery of life beyond life it fits well with the speculation around reincarnation. While some religions explore spirituality I would never claim a spiritual person means religiosity is a focus for them. That whole new agey thing you talk about does not equate for me as a worthwhile pursuit, but to each their own.

Inner peace, morality, kinship, and compassion don't require the word "spirituality" in order to have meaning. All that word does is add unnecessary connotations that open the door to confusion.

Sixth sense is one thing but getting someone's memories beamed in before, during or after death is about as supernatural as reincarnation and the idea of a soul.

As indicated in one of the previous posts, the possibility of memory transference based on the proven science that the brain both emits and receives measurable signals may be tenuous, but it's certainly not supernatural.

Don't think of Alice = Bob but that both Alice and Bob are just different exterior identities for another idea of self that is the spark. Sure it's far-fetched but it is a nice way of wrapping up spirituality, reincarnation, NDE's, life and death etc. into a nice nebulous package that you can contemplate while watching the butterflies do their thing with the flowers.

Sure, I can appreciate that it does us good sometimes to suspend our disbelief and sense of logic for the sake of entertainment or to muse about the possibilities while we watch "the butterflies do their thing with the flowers", but when it's time to take it seriously, then we also have these other issues to consider. Personally, I enjoy the exchange of ideas quite a bit. It's better than most of the other entertainment out there these days.