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

[Tyger]

One of the most stunning recent recognitions of the persistence of the complexity of consciousness has been that of patients long in commas whose doctor's advise the families to shut down the life support systems. These are patients whose EEG's show brain activity at extremely low activity, in the single digits for lengths of time. Pim von Lommel devotes a portion of the end of his book on NDE's to what was discovered when the supervising physicians in those cases hooked up the EEG for a short period just before the shut down of life-support. What they discovered was that brain activity leapt to levels that would support consciousness, in ranges in the 80 and 90 percentile for several minutes and then dropped back to previous minimal levels (perhaps flattening out, but I don't remember that part). Needless to say, this research presents significant challenges to medical and familial decision-making in cases of very deep coma.

This is fascinating. Suggests several possibilities. But also need more detailed information.

What are your thoughts, Constance?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes, please do provide us more information about Ebert's deathbed experience, Jeff.

I am so sorry! I thought we had discussed this before. I apologize for not posting the link for the sake of context.

 

[Constance]

This is fascinating. Suggests several possibilities. But also need more detailed information.

The discovery that brain activity appears to 'wake up' and surge to high levels for several minutes before life support is turned off is discussed in one of the later chapters in von Lommel's book linked below. Further information is cited in the footnotes.

Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience: Pim Van Lommel: 9780061777264: Books - Amazon.ca

What are your thoughts, Constance?

I think the above phenomenon suggests that consciousness is not entirely dependent on brain function but is facilitated by the brain in the condition of embodiment.

 

[Constance]

I've linked this interview concerning 'metamind' theory on the Consciousness and the Paranormal thread but it is also highly relevant here where we've been discussing Ian Stevenson's 'reincarnation' research.

Here is an extract from the introduction to the interview, linked below.

There is also, from a theoretical point of view, the question of how exactly information is encoded, or imprinted, into the fabric of reality. Regardless of what we choose to call the collection of memories produced by Stevenson's children, there is no question that, in the cases validated by him and others, there is at least proof of anomalous cognition involved. Yet, as he and others have repeatedly argued (see Becker, 1993), this is no typical psychic ability: these children have not given any indication that they are able to produce extrasensory information about subjects other than the personality they claim to be, or show any other aptitude for psychic functioning. From a remote viewer's perspective, there is a highly significant phenomenological discrepancy between the fragmentary, subtle mental impressions that form the typical RV data and the coherent, controlled retrieval of information that these individuals are capable of - spontaneously or under questioning. A similar chasm separates the experience of conscious or dream telepathy from that demonstrated by Stevenson's cases. If both sets of information (those involved in remote perception and those verified as "reincarnation evidence") require a non-physical substrate as an intermediary storage medium, why are the latter so much more cohesive?

Finally, Stevenson's case for biological "imprinting" of information on the foetus forces us to re-examine the problem of mind-matter interactions in light of their highly charged emotional content. As Stevenson has noted, about 35% of children who allege to remember previous lives present with atypical birthmarks or birth defects which are claimed to correspond to bodily wounds in the previous personality. From the 210 such cases he has investigated, 43 out of the 49 cases in which a post-mortem report was obtained showed a high concordance between wounds and birth defects - typically within a 10 square centimeter radius of the same anatomical location, but often much closer or present at multiple locations, as in the case of bullet entry and exit points (Stevenson,1993). The parapsychology literature is also unanimous in recognizing the importance of emotionally-charged targets in functions like presentiment/precognition (with negative emotions showing by far more prominence to the percipient's mind). Does powerful emotion bind together cognitive representations and automatic reactions (including a possibly archaic psi function) in the same way as the emotional memory shortcut loop studied by neurophysiologists (Chin 1996)? Is this the basis of karmic doctrine, of belief in the persistence of psychic complexes which are fated to seek new physical experiences until gradually dissolved by enlightenment?

Regardless of how we choose to interpret Stevenson's data, his evidence should give fresh impetus to the study of anomalous cognition. While most of the parapsychology literature has tended to focus on subject parameters (psychological profile, brain states, etc) it is our belief that the careful investigation of target characteristics (the type of information that best manifests in psi function, and how this information packet is organized) has just as much to teach us about remote perception. It is our hope that this joint discussion may bring to light some novel perspectives and research possibilities - as well as a deeper understanding of the functional organization of Global Consciousness.

Interview

 

[Randall]

The discovery that brain activity appears to 'wake up' and surge to high levels for several minutes before life support is turned off is discussed in one of the later chapters in von Lommel's book linked below ... I think the above phenomenon suggests that consciousness is not entirely dependent on brain function but is facilitated by the brain in the condition of embodiment.

To me it's more logical to think that it suggests exactly the opposite ( that consciousness is dependent on brain function ). After all, the evidence leading to the suggestion ( either way ) is intimately connected to brain function. For that matter, virtually all the evidence suggests that human consciousness requires a functioning brain. Perhaps for some people ( like yourself ) some evidence also somehow suggests brain function isn't required, and I'm willing to consider that possibility, but what concerns me is why believers only acknowledge the least supported of the two possibilities and often do whatever they can to dismiss or handwave evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint.

 

[smcder]

To me it's more logical to think that it suggests exactly the opposite ( that consciousness is dependent on brain function ). After all, the evidence leading to the suggestion ( either way ) is intimately connected to brain function. For that matter, virtually all the evidence suggests that human consciousness requires a functioning brain. Perhaps for some people ( like yourself ) some evidence also somehow suggests brain function isn't required, and I'm willing to consider that possibility, but what concerns me is why believers only acknowledge the least supported of the two possibilities and often do whatever they can to dismiss or handwave evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint.

but what concerns me is why believers only acknowledge the least supported of the two possibilities and often do whatever they can to dismiss or handwave evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint.

Believers . . . (by definition?) do this all the time - they kind of have to . . . so, what is the specific concern here?

 

[Tyger]

The discovery that brain activity appears to 'wake up' and surge to high levels for several minutes before life support is turned off is discussed in one of the later chapters in von Lommel's book linked below. Further information is cited in the footnotes.

I think the above phenomenon suggests that consciousness is not entirely dependent on brain function but is facilitated by the brain in the condition of embodiment.

I didn't read the source yet, and I need to do that to get the details in order to comment in a more informed way - but what springs to mind is the curious apparent correlation between an intent of people near the body and a physical spike in brain activity. The spike is happening with a specific intent occurring near the body - in this case an intent to permanently sever the consciousness to the body. It suggests that the consciousness is aware of what is going on even though it's not using the brain/body to any great extent. I see possibilities for further work in this area. It suggests to me that the consciousness is somehow 'around' - present but not focussed on the body. With the approach of an intent to sever the consciousness from the body, the consciousness/awareness spikes because it is drawn back to the body by the intent. Why?

 

[Randall]

but what concerns me is why believers only acknowledge the least supported of the two possibilities and often do whatever they can to dismiss or handwave evidence that is contrary to their viewpoint. Believers . . . (by definition?) do this all the time - they kind of have to . . . so, what is the specific concern here?

The specific concern is what drives people to, to quote you: "... kind of have to ..." What is the explanation for this behavior?

 

[smcder]

The specific concern is what drives people to, to quote you: "... kind of have to ..." What is the explanation for this behavior?

Good! That sounds empirical . . . can it be formulated as: "What makes the believer believe?"

And don't they "kind of have to" if they are to remain believers? (again by definition)

And now, to demonstrate my mad quoting skillz:

“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” - Baruch Spinoza

 

[smcder]

The specific concern is what drives people to, to quote you: "... kind of have to ..." What is the explanation for this behavior?

I suppose it is one of my beliefs that we all engage in this behavior to some extent - we may have more or less sophisticated means of self-correcting for bias, but I also believe we all have blind spots and ultimately rely on others to see these, whether or not we ever come to admit them ourselves.

But how many of us have the courage to ask of our intimates - what are my biases and prejudices?

 

[Randall]

And now, to demonstrate my mad quoting skillz:

“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” - Baruch Spinoza

I make a ceaseless effort too. I'm just not always successful .

I suppose it is one of my beliefs that we all engage in this behavior to some extent - we may have more or less sophisticated means of self-correcting for bias, but I also believe we all have blind spots and ultimately rely on others to see these, whether or not we ever come to admit them ourselves.
But how many of us have the courage to ask of our intimates - what are my biases and prejudices?

I suspect it takes more courage for most people to ask their employer to treat them like human beings rather than pieces on a game board.

 

[smcder]

I make a ceaseless effort too. I'm just not always successful .

I suspect it takes more courage for most people to ask their employer to treat them like human beings rather than pieces on a game board.

I suspect it takes more courage for most people to ask their employer to treat them like human beings rather than pieces on a game board.


So, I am thinking you have done this? How did it go? (it might matter which piece . . . ;-)

 

[Randall]

I suspect it takes more courage for most people to ask their employer to treat them like human beings rather than pieces on a game board. So, I am thinking you have done this? How did it go? (it might matter which piece . . . ;-)

Well like I said above, "most people", and I'm not one of them. I simply tell it like it is and take the consequences, which have mostly evoked the toxic side of corporate power culture, but on more rare occasions actually led to improvements. The fear I was referring to is the fear I saw in my fellow employees who refused to stand-up for themselves or what was right, even though they acknowledged privately to me that they were being treated unfairly. I've had several jobs over the years and have seen the same look on those faces time and time again.

 

[smcder]

Well like I said above, "most people", and I'm not one of them. I simply tell it like it is and take the consequences, which have mostly evoked the toxic side of corporate power culture, but on more rare occasions actually led to improvements. The fear I was referring to is the fear I saw in my fellow employees who refused to stand-up for themselves or what was right, even though they acknowledged privately to me that they were being treated unfairly. I've had several jobs over the years and have seen the same look on those faces time and time again.

I've seen this too . . . I do OK in terms of standing up for myself or others, not always - pick your battles and so forth.

How about the other question:

But how many of us have the courage to ask of our intimates - what are my biases and prejudices?

 

[Randall]

I've seen this too . . . I do OK in terms of standing up for myself or others, not always - pick your battles and so forth.

How about the other question:

But how many of us have the courage to ask of our intimates - what are my biases and prejudices?

I've never taken a poll.

 

[smcder]

I've never taken a poll.

lol

 

[Jeff Davis]

I've seen this too . . . I do OK in terms of standing up for myself or others, not always - pick your battles and so forth.

How about the other question:

But how many of us have the courage to ask of our intimates - what are my biases and prejudices?

I wonder what meaning it would contain? Biases and prejudices coming from our intimates might just be their own. Forest for the trees and that sort of stuff.

 

[smcder]

I wonder what meaning it would contain? Biases and prejudices coming from our intimates might just be their own. Forest for the trees and that sort of stuff.

Forest for the trees and that sort of stuff.

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. (which apparently originated in the film The Godfather Part II)


I wonder what meaning it would contain? Biases and prejudices coming from our intimates might just be their own.

Individual results may vary - it's an experiment you just have to do for yourself, I think. For me, it has been helpful. You would probably have some idea of your intimates' blind spots and might be able to compensate, the theory anyway is that looking for the blind spots together is productive.

The idea that the only person who could tell the King the absolute truth about himself was the Court Jester also comes in to play. As Danny Kaye said in The Court Jester:

I was battered and bruised but the king was amused and before the siesta he made me his jester and I found out soon that to be a buffoon was a serious thing as a rule! For a jester's chief employment is to kill himself for your enjoyment, and a jester unemployed is nobody's fool!

 

[Jeff Davis]

Forest for the trees and that sort of stuff.

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. (which apparently originated in the film The Godfather Part II)


I wonder what meaning it would contain? Biases and prejudices coming from our intimates might just be their own.

Individual results may vary - it's an experiment you just have to do for yourself, I think. For me, it has been helpful. You would probably have some idea of your intimates' blind spots and might be able to compensate, the theory anyway is that looking for the blind spots together is productive.

The idea that the only person who could tell the King the absolute truth about himself was the Court Jester also comes in to play. As Danny Kaye said in The Court Jester:

I was battered and bruised but the king was amused and before the siesta he made me his jester and I found out soon that to be a buffoon was a serious thing as a rule! For a jester's chief employment is to kill himself for your enjoyment, and a jester unemployed is nobody's fool!

The King found his Jester to be a more so suited mirror due to all the vanity that filled his own. You are right, as you were via the Flynn Effect, (which I found amusing due to the acedemic arguments that have ensued since - Genetics vs, Academics) and external perspective is often incredibly helpful.

 

[smcder]

The King found his Jester to be a more so suited mirror due to all the vanity that filled his own. You are right, as you were via the Flynn Effect, (which I found amusing due to the acedemic arguments that have ensued since - Genetics vs, Academics) and external perspective is often incredibly helpful.

I did a lot of reading on IQ at one time (long ago) and came across the Flynn Effect, when you posted, it just reminded me of this and I posted it - it's pretty hard to pin down what is actually going on there, I don't think it means people are getting smarter and smarter in some absolute sense . . . IQ is not equal to intelligence I don't think and it's also not fixed. Galton posited the idea of "g" as general intelligence and claimed that it corresponded to speed of reflex, I think this was later refined with EEGs and that came up again in The Bell Curve with all it's controversies over race and IQ.

Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book): Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray: 9780684824291: Amazon.com: Books