Over the weekend I spoke to someone that firmly believed in past life regression, being a topic I was unfamiliar with(except in passing) I decided to do some research into the subject. There is certainly a wealth of information online about the topic. The theory basically states that under hypnosis people can access memories of past lives. There seems to be some clinical evidence that some people under hypnosis do say things that could be interpreted as memories of past lives. Although in all fairness the data collected isn't exactly definitive or often particularly credible. I won't go into credibility and merits of the particular studies here as they have already been discussed ad nauseum online, suffice to say there is certainly no general consensus on the credibility of any of the studies conducted from both sides of the issue. Despite the arguments about the credibility of many of the key studies in the area there does seem to be a large amount of anecdotal evidence.
While anecdotal evidence is hardly something to rely on being an open minded guy I decided to do some research into the matter. Nearly all of the articles I read about past life regression seemed to be written by proponents of reincarnation. It appeared to me there is a lot of jumping to conclusions and a whole bunch of people trying to use past life regression as evidence for reincarnation. But as is often the case with these things the people espousing these views have very little hard evidence to link the two theories let alone a testable hypothesis as to how the phenomenon could actually work.
I could find nothing in the way of a solid testable hypothesis as to how these memories are stored and transmitted from person to person and just a lot of wild conjecture. So for those of you out there trying to link reincarnation and past life regression consider the following:
There has been some clinical data collected showing that under hypnosis people can say things that could be interpreted as memories of past lives. That is all the definitive information on the matter at this time.
Many people seem to have prematurely concluded that past life regression must be the result of reincarnation. Reincarnation however is an untested and unproven theory, equally I could say that an invisible unicorn sneaks into your room at night and implants memories of past lives into your brain. Both these theories would explain past life regression or conversely past life regression could be used as evidence to attempt to validate either of these theories. Given that there is the same amount of empirical evidence to support the theory of reincarnation and also the theory of unicorn transmitted memories then I have to conclude that they are both equally probable. No article I could find could offer a decent explanation of how clinical observations past life regression and reincarnation were linked other than nebulous explanations of the "soul" or "some energy" again both theories with no physical evidence.
Seeing as the theory of the "soul" and reincarnation are both unverified theories(with no hard evidence to support them) they should both be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism. While I found many people attempting to use past life regression as evidence of reincarnation or the "soul" I didn't find anyone trying to properly explain how these things could work or answer any of the obvious questions that arise from such explanations like:
What is the mechanism by which these memories are stored and passed from person to person?
What form does the "soul" take?
Given that the "soul" can influence our behaviour then it must in some way be interacting with normal matter so how is this interaction taking place?
Given that the "soul" must be interacting with the normal matter in some way it should therefore be possible to design an experiment to measure this interaction and collect hard data on the theory. So why don't the proponents of these theories come up with a decent hypothesis and design an experiment to test it?
Surely if you firmly believed in something so seemingly unlikely as reincarnation or the "soul" these would be the first questions you would ask and then try to find answers to these questions, if for no other reason than to have the peace of mind of some credible basis for your beliefs. If in fact observed instances of past life regression are actually what is being claimed then the phenomenon should be studied and understood. I read several articles claiming that maybe it is "just beyond logic and science" which shows a particular brand of ignorance that treats science as a static thing, assuming if it can't provide a definitive answer today it never will in the future. In the past many things were "beyond logic and science" which can now be accurately explained so it seems wilfully ignorant(and quite frankly lazy) to assume that something not currently understood can never be studied and explained. If proponents of theories like the "soul" or reincarnation want to be taken seriously then this sort of wilful ignorance will always keep them on the fringes of intellectual credibility. To be taken seriously proof needs to be provided and to just say "it is real but can never be understood so I can never investigate or provide proof" doesn't exactly inspire credibility or give anyone any reason to subscribe to your theory over any other and is certainly not going to win over the people sitting on the fence.
Before I hear the cries of "Well you can't disprove the theory of the soul or reincarnation" I will say this: The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. It is not my responsibility or the responsibility of scientific researchers to disprove every theory that anyone comes up with, it is the responsibility of the person making such extraordinary claims to provide evidence to back up their theory. In addition to this I could not find a testable hypothesis as to how the "soul" or reincarnation could work so even if I did have the resources or inclination to test its veracity there is nothing for me to test.
Anyway this is a big topic(I could write many more pages on this) and I have digressed quite a bit but seeing as nearly everything I read on the topic seemed to be desperately grasping at straws to try and link the "soul" and reincarnation to past life regression I felt that I need to at least cover the topics.
In my initial thoughts on a mechanism for how memories could be transmitted across lives genetic memory seemed like the most obvious answer. Genetic memory is the idea that some behaviours and instincts can be transferred genetically, there are many examples of this such as nest building in birds. To be honest it seemed like a pretty unlikely answer(for many reasons I won't go into here) but it was the only explanation that immediately sprung to mind. I figured that if some epigenetic factor could somehow encode memories into a person's genes they could be transferred to their offspring and therefore across lives. After some research I discounted this idea as many people report remembering dying in past lives and so there is no way this information could have been passed to their offspring, also you would only be able to access memories of people related to you. It would be fairly easy to design an experiment to verify or disprove the theory using identical twins separated at birth(to try and account environmental factors) who should theoretically share identical past life memories. I could not find anything about anyone actually doing such an experiment. So while genetic memory is in well documented in nature it can't explain past life regression adequately.
So what are the other explanations for past life regression? There are a few, none of which have been conclusively proven. One is that it's just made up, people have dreams that feel very real, I could dream I was a Roman soldier or a scullery maid in the past but I would not see that as evidence that I actually was. So it is clearly possible for the brain to create very realistic feeling scenarios that are not based on fact so this could just be what is happening to these patients under hypnosis.
Another is that the hypnotist asks very leading questions while the patient is in a hypnotised state to try and lead them towards saying things that could be interpreted as talking about actual past lives.
But as I said there is no conclusive evidence for any of theories put forward(including reincarnation and the "soul"). So the short answer is no one has a proven explanation for the clinical observations(although to be honest I am even a little suspicious of the clinical evidence).
"Ha Ha, I got you, science doesn't know everything!" I hear the new age anti-intellectuals cry. Well no one claimed it did. Equally new age hippy "spiritualism" doesn't explain everything either. I find people who fervently espouse unverified "spiritual" explanations to as yet unresolved questions a strange bunch, they seem to view science as a static thing(much like their own beliefs) and tend to think if science doesn't explain something today then it never will and has somehow failed and it must be some mystical supernatural force that science can't define. This is such a bizarre and short sighted conclusion to jump to and shows such a massive lack of curiosity, understanding and knowledge of history that I find it difficult to fathom. Less than 80 years ago we didn't know the mechanism for how hereditary traits are passed from parents to their offspring and I'm sure there were many people saying "see, science can't explain it therefore it must be the work of [insert crazy theory here]". But with more research better experiments and brilliant minds we slowly but inevitably peel back the layers and discover the underlying principles of the world around us.
To think that scientific discovery has gone as far as it ever will or can, and will never explain certain things that many around us point to as evidence of the supernatural, will inevitably, like many before you, leave you looking the fool. So for those of you who jump upon unexplained(and often unverified)clinical or experimental data to try and shore up your outlandish, unproven and untested theories I say this: fervent belief in something without evidence poisons the mind, society and advancement of the human condition and will ultimately leave you open to justifiable ridicule.
So until someone can come up with a verified and tested explanation of the observed clinical data I can't make a call either way as to whether clinical observations described as past life regression are in fact memories of past lives. But if I was a betting man my guess would be that whatever the answer it lies within the boundaries of physics, neuroscience and physiology.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am naturally highly sceptical of any theories that are based on new age "spiritualism" and that lack any empirical evidence and do not fit in with the currently known laws of Physics. While you might argue that a lack of an explanation in any of the current theories of Physics is a failing of Physics, given the masses of empirical evidence and predictive power of currently accepted Physics theories such as General Relativity I would need to see some equally compelling evidence that they were incorrect to be swayed. While I fully acknowledge there are some gaps in key Physics theories such as the standard model it still provides a far more compelling explanation and predictive powers than any other theories I have seen put forth. I would therefore see any theory that did not comply with the currently accepted laws of Physics as inherently flawed if it could not also offer explanations for the observed empirical data and also offer the same predictive powers. I don't think this is an unreasonable point of view and given solid evidence to the contrary I would be more than willing to revise this opinion and accept any new facts as they come to light. I will not even get into the obviously lacking Physics explanation of past life regression in this post as it is topic all on its own. That being said I feel that I have approached the topic at hand with an open and inquisitive mind and to the best of my abilities given the resources and time constraints in order to give an even handed and fair overview of the topic. If you an adherent to theories such as reincarnation and the "soul" and disagree with my point of view I feel that the questions raised in the post are the same ones that many others sceptical of your claims will need answered before your theories can be fully taken seriously. They are probably also questions you should be asking yourself too and attempting to find answers for. If you have any reasonable answers to any of the questions posed in this post please feel free to leave a comment.
NOTE: I did find some attempts to explain the existence of the "soul" scientifically, just google "quantum theory of the soul" to see many articles about it, but while the mainstream non-scientific media jumped on the story for it's exciting headline value when you actually read into the details the theory seems very sketchy and is not generally taken seriously among experts in the relevant fields. Again there is no experimental evidence to back up the theory but at least it's nice to see someone producing a hypothesis that could one day be tested(although I imagine the new age types holding up this theory as adding scientific credibility to their beliefs will not change their minds even if this theory was tested and disproven). And again to try and link this to past life regression is just pure unfounded conjecture.
If you like wild conjecture and awful web design you might find these fun:
http://innerrealms.co.uk/plr2.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/past-life-regression-plr.html
An interesting review of one of the books I saw commonly cited:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/418986461
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnotic-regression-to-past-lives-fact-or-fantasy-my-forensic?id=716892%3ATopic%3A1104299&page=1
While anecdotal evidence is hardly something to rely on being an open minded guy I decided to do some research into the matter. Nearly all of the articles I read about past life regression seemed to be written by proponents of reincarnation. It appeared to me there is a lot of jumping to conclusions and a whole bunch of people trying to use past life regression as evidence for reincarnation. But as is often the case with these things the people espousing these views have very little hard evidence to link the two theories let alone a testable hypothesis as to how the phenomenon could actually work.
I could find nothing in the way of a solid testable hypothesis as to how these memories are stored and transmitted from person to person and just a lot of wild conjecture. So for those of you out there trying to link reincarnation and past life regression consider the following:
There has been some clinical data collected showing that under hypnosis people can say things that could be interpreted as memories of past lives. That is all the definitive information on the matter at this time.
Many people seem to have prematurely concluded that past life regression must be the result of reincarnation. Reincarnation however is an untested and unproven theory, equally I could say that an invisible unicorn sneaks into your room at night and implants memories of past lives into your brain. Both these theories would explain past life regression or conversely past life regression could be used as evidence to attempt to validate either of these theories. Given that there is the same amount of empirical evidence to support the theory of reincarnation and also the theory of unicorn transmitted memories then I have to conclude that they are both equally probable. No article I could find could offer a decent explanation of how clinical observations past life regression and reincarnation were linked other than nebulous explanations of the "soul" or "some energy" again both theories with no physical evidence.
Seeing as the theory of the "soul" and reincarnation are both unverified theories(with no hard evidence to support them) they should both be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism. While I found many people attempting to use past life regression as evidence of reincarnation or the "soul" I didn't find anyone trying to properly explain how these things could work or answer any of the obvious questions that arise from such explanations like:
What is the mechanism by which these memories are stored and passed from person to person?
What form does the "soul" take?
Given that the "soul" can influence our behaviour then it must in some way be interacting with normal matter so how is this interaction taking place?
Given that the "soul" must be interacting with the normal matter in some way it should therefore be possible to design an experiment to measure this interaction and collect hard data on the theory. So why don't the proponents of these theories come up with a decent hypothesis and design an experiment to test it?
Surely if you firmly believed in something so seemingly unlikely as reincarnation or the "soul" these would be the first questions you would ask and then try to find answers to these questions, if for no other reason than to have the peace of mind of some credible basis for your beliefs. If in fact observed instances of past life regression are actually what is being claimed then the phenomenon should be studied and understood. I read several articles claiming that maybe it is "just beyond logic and science" which shows a particular brand of ignorance that treats science as a static thing, assuming if it can't provide a definitive answer today it never will in the future. In the past many things were "beyond logic and science" which can now be accurately explained so it seems wilfully ignorant(and quite frankly lazy) to assume that something not currently understood can never be studied and explained. If proponents of theories like the "soul" or reincarnation want to be taken seriously then this sort of wilful ignorance will always keep them on the fringes of intellectual credibility. To be taken seriously proof needs to be provided and to just say "it is real but can never be understood so I can never investigate or provide proof" doesn't exactly inspire credibility or give anyone any reason to subscribe to your theory over any other and is certainly not going to win over the people sitting on the fence.
Before I hear the cries of "Well you can't disprove the theory of the soul or reincarnation" I will say this: The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. It is not my responsibility or the responsibility of scientific researchers to disprove every theory that anyone comes up with, it is the responsibility of the person making such extraordinary claims to provide evidence to back up their theory. In addition to this I could not find a testable hypothesis as to how the "soul" or reincarnation could work so even if I did have the resources or inclination to test its veracity there is nothing for me to test.
Anyway this is a big topic(I could write many more pages on this) and I have digressed quite a bit but seeing as nearly everything I read on the topic seemed to be desperately grasping at straws to try and link the "soul" and reincarnation to past life regression I felt that I need to at least cover the topics.
In my initial thoughts on a mechanism for how memories could be transmitted across lives genetic memory seemed like the most obvious answer. Genetic memory is the idea that some behaviours and instincts can be transferred genetically, there are many examples of this such as nest building in birds. To be honest it seemed like a pretty unlikely answer(for many reasons I won't go into here) but it was the only explanation that immediately sprung to mind. I figured that if some epigenetic factor could somehow encode memories into a person's genes they could be transferred to their offspring and therefore across lives. After some research I discounted this idea as many people report remembering dying in past lives and so there is no way this information could have been passed to their offspring, also you would only be able to access memories of people related to you. It would be fairly easy to design an experiment to verify or disprove the theory using identical twins separated at birth(to try and account environmental factors) who should theoretically share identical past life memories. I could not find anything about anyone actually doing such an experiment. So while genetic memory is in well documented in nature it can't explain past life regression adequately.
So what are the other explanations for past life regression? There are a few, none of which have been conclusively proven. One is that it's just made up, people have dreams that feel very real, I could dream I was a Roman soldier or a scullery maid in the past but I would not see that as evidence that I actually was. So it is clearly possible for the brain to create very realistic feeling scenarios that are not based on fact so this could just be what is happening to these patients under hypnosis.
Another is that the hypnotist asks very leading questions while the patient is in a hypnotised state to try and lead them towards saying things that could be interpreted as talking about actual past lives.
But as I said there is no conclusive evidence for any of theories put forward(including reincarnation and the "soul"). So the short answer is no one has a proven explanation for the clinical observations(although to be honest I am even a little suspicious of the clinical evidence).
"Ha Ha, I got you, science doesn't know everything!" I hear the new age anti-intellectuals cry. Well no one claimed it did. Equally new age hippy "spiritualism" doesn't explain everything either. I find people who fervently espouse unverified "spiritual" explanations to as yet unresolved questions a strange bunch, they seem to view science as a static thing(much like their own beliefs) and tend to think if science doesn't explain something today then it never will and has somehow failed and it must be some mystical supernatural force that science can't define. This is such a bizarre and short sighted conclusion to jump to and shows such a massive lack of curiosity, understanding and knowledge of history that I find it difficult to fathom. Less than 80 years ago we didn't know the mechanism for how hereditary traits are passed from parents to their offspring and I'm sure there were many people saying "see, science can't explain it therefore it must be the work of [insert crazy theory here]". But with more research better experiments and brilliant minds we slowly but inevitably peel back the layers and discover the underlying principles of the world around us.
To think that scientific discovery has gone as far as it ever will or can, and will never explain certain things that many around us point to as evidence of the supernatural, will inevitably, like many before you, leave you looking the fool. So for those of you who jump upon unexplained(and often unverified)clinical or experimental data to try and shore up your outlandish, unproven and untested theories I say this: fervent belief in something without evidence poisons the mind, society and advancement of the human condition and will ultimately leave you open to justifiable ridicule.
So until someone can come up with a verified and tested explanation of the observed clinical data I can't make a call either way as to whether clinical observations described as past life regression are in fact memories of past lives. But if I was a betting man my guess would be that whatever the answer it lies within the boundaries of physics, neuroscience and physiology.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am naturally highly sceptical of any theories that are based on new age "spiritualism" and that lack any empirical evidence and do not fit in with the currently known laws of Physics. While you might argue that a lack of an explanation in any of the current theories of Physics is a failing of Physics, given the masses of empirical evidence and predictive power of currently accepted Physics theories such as General Relativity I would need to see some equally compelling evidence that they were incorrect to be swayed. While I fully acknowledge there are some gaps in key Physics theories such as the standard model it still provides a far more compelling explanation and predictive powers than any other theories I have seen put forth. I would therefore see any theory that did not comply with the currently accepted laws of Physics as inherently flawed if it could not also offer explanations for the observed empirical data and also offer the same predictive powers. I don't think this is an unreasonable point of view and given solid evidence to the contrary I would be more than willing to revise this opinion and accept any new facts as they come to light. I will not even get into the obviously lacking Physics explanation of past life regression in this post as it is topic all on its own. That being said I feel that I have approached the topic at hand with an open and inquisitive mind and to the best of my abilities given the resources and time constraints in order to give an even handed and fair overview of the topic. If you an adherent to theories such as reincarnation and the "soul" and disagree with my point of view I feel that the questions raised in the post are the same ones that many others sceptical of your claims will need answered before your theories can be fully taken seriously. They are probably also questions you should be asking yourself too and attempting to find answers for. If you have any reasonable answers to any of the questions posed in this post please feel free to leave a comment.
NOTE: I did find some attempts to explain the existence of the "soul" scientifically, just google "quantum theory of the soul" to see many articles about it, but while the mainstream non-scientific media jumped on the story for it's exciting headline value when you actually read into the details the theory seems very sketchy and is not generally taken seriously among experts in the relevant fields. Again there is no experimental evidence to back up the theory but at least it's nice to see someone producing a hypothesis that could one day be tested(although I imagine the new age types holding up this theory as adding scientific credibility to their beliefs will not change their minds even if this theory was tested and disproven). And again to try and link this to past life regression is just pure unfounded conjecture.
If you like wild conjecture and awful web design you might find these fun:
http://innerrealms.co.uk/plr2.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/past-life-regression-plr.html
An interesting review of one of the books I saw commonly cited:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/418986461
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnotic-regression-to-past-lives-fact-or-fantasy-my-forensic?id=716892%3ATopic%3A1104299&page=1
i wrote a whole lot in the comment section before finishing your passage. seems it was premature as you clarified a few things later about being willing to accept new developments in science.
ReplyDeletei really enjoyed the read
i hope to draw some of my own conclusions on the matter and youve surely helped
If we throw away all the speculations and ideas about where a soul could be located and how it might be "encoded" in our physical reality, we are left only with a raw idea: soul is some set of information which cannot currently be detected or proved to be physically or energetically "encoded" in our physical reality. Then we might come to a crazy idea that soul might be outside of our physical reality. I mean, like in computer games you see objects which seem solid and even obey game physics rules, but if you go deeper, they are "made of" pure information, and there is no way to prove this information exists or does not exist from inside of the game engine, not even talking about whether it exists on a hard drive or in the web cloud. The same way we can't prove that soul exists (or not) outside of some "virtual reality" if we have only some "virtual tools" - devices and detectors which are made out of the same stuff as this reality. At the same time, we just have to admit that while something is not provable, it still might exist and we have no rights to laugh at people who have some experience, no matter how weird it seems. If there is some kind of layer of "pure information" outside of our reality, we might miserably fail trying to prove it in case if this outer layer of information has some rules which protect it from being discovered. Of course, these are just speculations and I have no prove for any of this but I have experienced some weird stuff which current science is not able to explain. Thus I have no other way as to stay with some "multilevel virtual reality" model which for me seems to be pretty logical although currently completely unprovable. I don't say "It works that way" but I say "I'll try to make as little assumptions as possible and be logical, skeptical and open minded, which leads me to an idea that it might work like this and that, and it fits with my previous experiences." If something works for me and gives constructive solutions to my everyday problems, I just use it and I feel just a little sad that science has no tools yet to prove or explain it. At the same time, I'm glad to see if some more or less credible scientists come to similar ideas and might even have some smart tricks to prove that we indeed live in a simulation. Just do a web search for digital physics by Nick Bostrom and Ed Fredkin. Then there is only one question left - who is "we" who are experiencing the simulation? Consciousness? Collective subconscious? Souls?
ReplyDeleteMy god James. The ONLY thing U have Debunked is: That Myopic Conjecture is Often Overly Verbose as an attempt to misguide the readers focus from the Author's own UNCERTAINY ...
DeleteThe ONLY person that could correctly comment on "soul" would be Marvin Gaye. And he's dead.
ReplyDeletewOw. Firstly, I understand the concept of 'scientific proof', regarding this, and any other subject... and, on the surface, would tend to agree... except- it seems arrogant to assume that we, as a species, seem to think that we even know the correct questions to ask.
ReplyDeleteI would also say that it seems almost as if you've certainly been asked if you believe in anything that has not already been proven... with a logical example being: Do you now, or have you ever loved anyone?... and if so, prove it... yes, scientifically.
I worked in a planetarium when black-holes were largely considered probable, but were still 'unproven'. Just as now, the concept of multiverse seems likely... but technically, is still nothing more than theory. When I consider such things, I seem to frequently imagine the top scientists of the day (200 years ago) citing their proof on things like why manned-flight is impossible... what causes illness... or the prospects of communication between multiple people in multiple global locations, simultaneously, and in real-time. Certainly, the scientific knowledge of a particular time, as well as, the technology is what makes things impossible. The 'ability' to provide scientific proof would seem to be linked in the same way.
Yet, I cannot help but wonder where we'd be if the great discoveries and inventions our species have gained, first required 'scientific proof' first. Yes... a large amount is accomplished, built upon what has been proven. But how much of what we know take for granted, started out with an unproven "What if?"?
Look... simply put... scientific proof is not the beginning or the end. I just know, that the more I learn about our 'known' universe, the more I AM convinced that there must be more to it, than what can be 'scientifically proven'.
I am certainly not given to buying into every little 'what's hip this week claim', new age, or FM theorem (effin' magic). But I also know that limiting what I may accept strictly from scientific proof is a mistake in the other extreme... and makes existance quite hollow.
Besides all that... don't you ever listen to your gut?... (really asking if you even consider that there just may be more than you can find published as fact?). Because things that will only be proven in our lifetime are pretty finite... for an 'infinite universe*)... or do set, provable boundaries and quanties have to be established before I can use that term? In fact, using the strict 'letter of the law' premise... unless you personally have conducted your own scientific tests, on virtually everything you 'know as a fact', aren't YOU just accepting someone else's word, for everything you know? Hmmm.
I believe in reincarnation and already regressed to past lives. The point is the data that can be historicaly confirmed, or events confirmed by the different people.
ReplyDeleteI am open to the ones who are sceptical, because it's show intelligence, but your statemens just show lack of information, and straight ignorace.
You lost your line when you asked about the form of the soul, there's researches and also explanation of what happen between life. Anyway, you point that science NEEDS to know everything as if nowadays there is ultimate technology, and it's not true.
ps: sorry my spelling errors, i'm not english speaker
ReplyDeleteVery interested in your comments james. I have read a good deal about past life regression and have experienced this myself. In a broader sense, these sorts of discussion are loaded and coloured with the subjectivity of the commenter. As such, my belief is that we should always take a step back to reflect, look for bias in our conclusions as all scientists should. I think a problem we have in finding answers is the the polarization of ideologies, traditional science vs spiritual awareness. To often it seems to me, this creates tensions that resort to insults and at that moment the discussion has ended.
ReplyDeleteSo if we really want to understand phenomena that poses questions we need to come the table with an open mind.
I think the name "debunking nonsense" is loading the dice for you James.
Heres a scientist who debunks traditional science; watch it with an open mind and an open heart.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
Nice post keep it up. Hope to see you next post again soon. Thanks for sharing us...
ReplyDeletePast life regression therapy | Past life regression therapy in delhi
Check out "Many Masters, Many Lives" by Dr. Brian Weiss M.D. I am surprised you didn't mention his research.
ReplyDeleteI am not quick to jump to conclusions, and I would like to have a scientific explanation of the soul/source energy. However, we can't even wrap our heads around singularity, and I think the astral realms are even further down the rabbit hole.
While these things can't be explained, they can be experienced. Try a session yourself with a hypnotherapist, practice transcendental meditation with the intention of having an OBE, or try Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) with a shaman that knows how to work the realms.
Your mind will be blown, and while you might remain apprehensive to take it as the truth (as I have), you will never be able to dismiss it as new age nonsense for YOU WILL SENSE "IT", YOU WILL ENCOUNTER "THEM", and your gut will know it even if your mind keeps asking for tangible proof.
At that point, you will find it comical that an overly evolved primate who exists on a rock that floats around a giant ball of fire can try to debunk something so far out of our reach. Existence is far more complicated than what physics/chem/math can currently explain/predict.
"Fervent belief in something without evidence poisons the mind, society and advancement of the human condition and will ultimately leave you open to justifiable ridicule." You said yourself. The same logic applies in the opposite direction.
Completely agree, although being cautious about interpretations of own experiences. If you experience something which seems like a past life etc. and then decide that it was actually your past life, you are making assumptions. Every experience in its essence is just information, it might come from various sources and trigger various emotions and memories (even false memories), but it does not mean that it's true. I know about OBEs and NDEs and have read books by Robert Monroe and Thomas Campbell - really amazing experiences and ideas, but even they themselves say that you have be careful with interpretations and assumptions to avoid creating new beliefs. Being open-minded is about learning to doubt everything (even your own memories and judgement) and put it through tests. At the end, even if you can't prove some experience to be true, it still is something to learn from or to keep for some time in the future when it might make more sense. It's like dreams - most people neglect them as rubbish and noise of fantasies and symbols, but when you dig deeper, even the most seemingly stupid dream has some deeper layers beneath. As does every experience.
DeleteYou can check out the research done by the Newton Institute. Dr. Michael Newton and the train therapists from The Institute have successively had over 40,000 people visit the place where we go between lives. What's happened is these 40,000 have mapped out what it's like and where we go in between lives. Very very fascinating. I took the journey myself 3 months ago and it has really impacted my life. I have now been trained by The Institute to be one of the therapists and you can see videos of people going through this process of Life between lives at my website. Www.VisitTheAfterLife.com
DeleteI liked your article. I lo e the use of hypnosis for therapy, but I think loads of people put add ons to it that mislead people... Like the past life regression and another popular lie, spirit guide through hypnosis and so on. Anyone want a explanation why we don't have a soul should read... No ghost in the machine by Rodney Coterill
ReplyDeleteIf all the existing proof accumulated by those who have, as far as possible, used the scientific method to test reincarnation is to be debunked, it will need an explanation as to how the results came about without that being the one. So far, all the theories I have seen on the subject (from lucky guesses to tapping into some cosmic database) come across as wildly improbable by comparison.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that descriptors such as "soul", "past life regression" and even "person", often inhibits any serious effort to open up investgative studies involving returning consciousness through natural generational processes. While inheriting detailed memories through genetic chemistry admittedly seems clearly doubtful... I cannot really see where returning with a clean, programmable thought process is all that unlikely. In fact, it seems to me that many of us may more than likely actually be the very same life form through genetic distribution... but the development of environmental awareness and the disconnect of our distributed self apparently produces this illusion of singularity of being. A simple example that comes to mind is the early and sequential developmental processes of identical twins. Clearly at one point, a singular life form as we know it and yet, despite the sharing of matched DNA, the illusion of 2 separate and life forms induces the cognitive dissonance of all who know the twins to turn their backs on the idea of these people actually being one person with two separate consciousness and two separate bodies. So... perhaps those interested in such an idea may ask themselves... what does cave paintings and Facebook have in common and why should they both have any part on this discussion.... pianodavy@comcast.net
ReplyDelete