More on Past Lives: Real or Imagined?

Discussion in 'Mike Rinders Blog' started by RSS Feed, Nov 18, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Bill - the whole point Ian Stevenson made was that it is provable. Did you read the Scientific American article about him? You should.

  2. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    However, there never can be enough proof to those who consider it impossible. There will always be reasons to reject the alleged proof. The basic reason that it (reincarnation) can't be proven is that it is (to some) impossible. Therefore, the proof must be flawed or fake.

    Even if you could have people recall a past life and you could verify those facts, there would ALWAYS be those who would say "fake" -- because all the factors cannot be restricted to strict laboratory conditions.

    I, personally, know I've lived before, but I don't care if someone else believes it or not. Why do some people get so upset about it?
  3. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Oh - yes - I totally agree with you. I banged my head against those types till I realized they will never change. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. :confused: Mimsey
  4. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    "Both of the two great revolutions in twentieth-century physics—Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and Quantum Theory—revealed that observation played an important role.
    They also challenged the assumption that there is a material reality. Previously it was thought that the physical reality existed independent of our observation it. Shroedinger’s wave function and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle revealed this was not the case.
    As a result, several physicists of the time—Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger, Eddington, Pauli—became interested in the role that mind and consciousness played in the cosmos, but this interest faded over time and few contemporary physicists seek to include consciousness in their model of reality.
    Most attempts to understand the world of modern physics still assume that the primary reality is the physical reality of mass-energy-space-time (whatever they might actually be). Consciousness is generally regarded as a product of brain activity, i.e. something emerging from the physical reality.
    In this article, I argue that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the cosmos, and that what we call the material world emerges from it."

  5. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Let me mention some key points in the Scientific American article: Ian Stevenson was researching children who recalled previous existences:

    1) "The psychiatrist found several patterns in his work on children’s memories of previous lives. First, he was convinced that there is only a brief window of time—between the ages of about two and five—in which some children retain these reminiscences of an earlier self."

    2) "Also, as with the Sri Lankan girl, memories of previous lives tend to occur only when something in the child’s current life jars the recollections awake (in cognitive science terms, a form of recognition memory)."

    3) "In other words, it’s mostly useless to “interview” a child about his or her past life, since—like remembering one's dream from the night before only while lying in bed tonight—recall can’t be forced on the spot. Stevenson also believed that although past lives may be common, only a small percentage of children retained any memories of their previous existence."

    Point #2 is the most important - the need of a trigger to awaken the memory of a past life.

    Hubbard was aware of needing a trigger or restimulator to bring a submerged memory to life as in point #2. He did it in old school Dianetics with the use of hypnotic means. Example: he would say I am going count down and snap my fingers and a date will flash. 5, 4, 3, 2,1 Snap tell me the date. Then they would run whatever occurred at that date. Another one he used was: I am going count down and snap my fingers and the engram necessary to resolve the case will appear. 5, 4, 3, 2,1 Snap tell me what you see.

    These were artificial triggers which worked sometimes. But - Hubbard wanted something better. so he began to use the e-meter to try and find the charged restimulators (triggers) The big problem is the meter reads on belief as much as the real thing. So people could run an engram that read on the meter but had no charge, and thus the person ran dub in instead of the real thing. You know, like your past life as Jesus? So it lead people into believing that past lives were a hoax.

    That is precisely the trap the critic cited in a previous post, James Leininger falls into, He does not understand how the trigger works. He debunks the kid pilot's past life death during WW2 based on the kid seeing a toy plane similar to the one he flew and a few other triggers. However, he can't explain away how the kid knew the name of the carrier he was based on. The links has his attempt at debunkery.

    Had he known how that trigger worked (in cognitive science terms, a form of recognition memory) he would have written ( I hope) a different article. One that was not dismissive of the kid's former life.

    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  6. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Wow. Who exactly are the "upset" individuals that are all up in arms and unwavering about their stance on reincarnation? It sound like, for one, Mimsey, and Bill too. I don't like being lumped into a group that is so stubborn and narrow-minded that "even if there were proof of past lives" I still wouldn't budge from my position. That's nuts.

    People can believe what they want. But no one can tell me that because I look to science to reassess my experiences that I am wrong or bad, or try to shame me for feeling harmed by Scientology.
  7. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    I apologize if anything I said offended you. I was not talking to you and I was, most assuredly, not talking about you. I certainly had nothing to say about shaming you for "feeling harmed by Scientology" nor do I, or would I, lump you into any group at all.

    I am most disturbed by all the things you have read into what I wrote.
  8. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    You can look to science without any qualms from me - pseudo, real or otherwise. The thing is about reincarnation, past lives, thetans, OOB, NDEs, spirits - what have you, you are free to believe in them or not. However, my point is: if you say they don't exist and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary, in my opinion, you are doing yourself a disservice. Even so, I will uphold your right to disbelieve in them.

    If you look to science to tell you if such exist - how do you determine which portion of science is correct? Do you believe the portion of science that says they are all charlatans or do you look at researchers like Ian Stevenson who have spent years of careful, painstaking research and have examined thousands of cases, gone into the field to verify the validity of the alleged reincarnations by trying his best to debunk them?

    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
  9. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    The two articles I pointed to were about fact checking details in stories/claims and not science.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
  10. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Mmm - please read my post above dated 12:08 am where I discuss the problems with James Leininger's "fact checking"

  11. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Did you mean 2:08am?
    If that post is what you are referring to then that particular post does not address the details about James in:
  12. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Bill, I was not speaking of you specifically lumping me into a group. I mean that you are agreeing with Mimsey's stance on reincarnation and your belief that if a scientist were given facts to discredit their views, they still would not budge on how they see things. I'll look for the post. (It's post 22)

    The thing I was referring to about shaming comes from this post of Mimsey's: More on Past Lives: Real or Imagined?, that one would call their experiences in Scientology "dub in" or having been harmed instead of having had some kind of spiritual gain of some kind. Feeling harmed was listed in her examples, like an excuse.

    In any case, it's easy to say these days (I guess, although I don't understand why) that people on the side of science are now wrong and narrow minded, un-open to various other possibilities, many of them wondrous even. To me, science is completely wondrous enough. It is totally open to every possibility possible because we do not know everything. Science begs to be proven wrong. But that's just the thing--if we allow science to wiggle into science fiction based on flimsy evidence, or because of numbers of people's accounts/memories, or theories from people who believe in past lives--and those people are fancy educators that write articles and do lectures, yet still can not produce hard evidence or proof, then where would the world go to for the scientific answers? Science is science and the rest is whatever that is. You can't make that stuff science too. Science is based on observation and getting the exact same results/conclusions from that data . If you insert new data, then the result would change, of course! I don't think science in itself has any "agenda" to block reincarnation or spirituality. I do not see why they can't live together in fact, but there is a difference between faith (belief) and facts. The Pyramids existed and still do. They have been documented visually during their time and years after, and now in every which way. Jesus as a person may have existed. There is written evidence (although indeed debated) that could have been recorded from an elders' eyewitness, or their elders' once passed down to others who may have seen his every move. (?) ...My point is that Jesus being "God" is not a fact, but a belief. Maybe there is/will be evidence that he was here. I doubt you will find evidence that he was God. Science is based on facts, not beliefs and we have to rely on things to be tested under very strict circumstances for a reason. It's not that science is "closed off." There's no conspiracy going on.

    By the way. I am not upset or offended. I am just not going to be told (by anyone) that somehow Scientology and past lives are fact and that I was NOT harmed by 20 years of brainwashing. I have read the Scientific American article. I read a ton of stuff like this before. If you knew my story and ME, you'd know that I'd much rather have had my past lives and old ideas of myself be true. Then I wouldn't have to face everything I've had/have to. This thread has been taken over and has put me, and those like me, in a position where we look "upset" or narrow minded if we would start posting scientific or psychological evidence to the contrary of these outside people that are giving legitimacy to reincarnation as fact. That's fine, but to say that this now de-legitimizes science? I will not bother posting any links to the contrary because it would be like talking to a bunch of gorillas.

    Sorry, I am just being funny. I don't really believe or have scientific evidence that anyone here is an actual gorilla, except for me maybe.
  13. Bill

    Bill Silver Meritorious Patron

    Ooog! Let me make one thing very, very, very, extremely clear: Scientology/Dianetics does not work. Scientology's "past lives" is fake, bogus, a fraud. I would not, do not, will not ever claim that Hubbard's "past lives" is valid. Never.

    In case I haven't made myself clear: Scientology doesn't work.

    That being said, "reincarnation" as a completely separate subject is something else. Long before I ever heard of Scientology, I had some experiences that convinced me that I had memories from a previous existence. I have absolutely no intention of attempting to convince anyone else that this is true. I don't care and it isn't important. It does not bother me that there is a difference of opinion here.

    My point and only my opinion is that things that are spiritual are very difficult, if not impossible, to study with science -- not really being manifested in the physical universe. That doesn't say that science is bad (heavens no!) or that all spiritual things are valid (lots of fraud there).

    Therefore: (my opinion only)
    "Science proves that reincarnation doesn't exist" is not actually true.
    "Science shows that reincarnation has not been scientifically proven", however, would be true.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
  14. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Okay Bill. Very loud and clear. Got it! :) Sorry that I did not understand this previously.
  15. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    on the bottom right it said last edited at 12:08 Counting this one, it is 11 posts above and says it is post #25 and is nine paragraphs long.

    The starting sentence is:

    Let me mention some key points in the Scientific American article: Ian Stevenson was researching children who recalled previous existences:

    Please read the whole thing so the comments about James makes sense.

  16. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

  17. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron

    We’re worlds apart in our understanding of what constitutes science. Science is not belief. Nor is it anecdote.
    There simply is no conclusive scientific proof to support it.
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  18. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader


    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  19. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Patron with Honors

    Mimsey. I'm sorry that you think that I have an "idealized view of how science is done." I am quite sure how it is done, but I'm not going to sit here and type out how and how many and where and who makes the probabilities on which subjects. Bottom line, science is not based on belief and then finding evidence to prove that belief, whereas your little arena of expertise is.

    The subject for the thread is: past lives, real or imagined, is it not? And you're trying to push that it's real. Fine. I'm "narrow minded" and have an idealized view of how science is done if I have done 17 years of study since I've been out of Scientology about how powerful ones imagination can be (which is great), but how dangerous that can wind up in the hands of a manipulator. Believing you have lived before, on your own accord, is pretty harmless. It's when someone starts guiding you through a bunch of belief and telling you it is all reality and starts taking you into states of disassociation when it becomes a problem. My opinion, which I have a right to.
  20. Teanntás

    Teanntás Patron Meritorious

    ' is not only believers in the survival of consciousness beyond death who engage in wishful thinking. “The pervasiveness of wishful thinking becomes all the more evident when we realize that it can be negative as well as positive, as our thoughts about philosophical possibility, and our interpretations of empirical data, are sometimes guided by what we hope not to be true.” Hermann von Helmholtz, a nineteenth century scientist, provided an example of such negative wishful thinking when reportedly said of telepathy, “I cannot believe it…[Not] even the evidence of my own senses would lead me to believe in the transmission of thought from one person to another…It is clearly impossible.”
    Such stubborn skepticism, an a priori rejection of the possibility of a phenomenon even before either positive or negative evidence is proffered, would seem to be as alien to the spirit of empirical research as a stubborn insistence that the phenomenon is real. It is not that either form of insistence is necessarily wrong; but neither equates to science. Both, rather, are philosophical inclinations, to which one may be drawn for reasons having little or nothing to do with empirical evidence. A peculiarity of the discussion of the survival of consciousness after death is that one such set of assumptions–the negative set–is taken by many to be established science, when the reality is that a variety of possible accounts of reality are logically compatible with our current scientific knowledge........"

Share This Page