'20 cases suggestive of reincarnation' [Archive]

bfinn

24th June 2007, 08:19 AM

Thanks for this. However Rockley is reviewing another book by Stevenson (which I have bought, but not read yet) - though I assume the book is somewhat similar to 20 Cases as it appears to include some of the same cases.

I can't say Rockley's analysis and criticisms are particularly impressive. In the 20 Cases book Stevenson himself devotes a substantial part of the book to considering possible prosaic explanations (involving fraud, self-delusion, coincidence, etc. - even exotic explanations such as telepathy), concluding that these could explain some aspects of some cases but by no means all. He is also quite open about the weaknesses of some of the cases - the 20 Cases book is after all intended to contain a representative sample of strong and weak cases from a variety of countries - not just the best cases.

Rockley would I think hit trouble if he focussed on a single strong case and tried to explain all aspects of it (rather than effectively saying 'we can explain some aspects of some cases, ergo they must all be entirely explicable in a somewhat similar way'). This is something that Stevenson attempts to do at considerable length with each of the cases (in 20 Cases).

I agree with Rockley that the fact that apparent reincarnation seems to arise mostly in cultures that believe in it, and in the way they believe it happens, is puzzling (the suggestion being that reincarnation is imagined), but this does not amount to a satisfactory explanation for the large amount of correct information conveyed by the apparent reincarnee about his/her supposed former life. And it is consistent with other explanations (hey, maybe post-death you can choose whether & how you are reincarnated?) - of course entirely speculative, but it shows there is no logical contradiction here.

I think Rockley's parting shot is quite bogus:
With these comments I believe he blows his credibility as a serious scientist. In my view this casts doubt on all of his work.

Which I translate as:
Ian Stevenson has funny views on consciousness, materialism, etc. - so we can safely ignore all his reports of apparent reincarnation cases.
Which is just an ad hominem attack (Rockley seems very fond of classifying his arguments).

CFLarsen

24th June 2007, 09:20 AM

Do you want to discuss Stevenson's best case, then?

Incidentally, Rockley is "RichardR" on this forum.

bfinn

24th June 2007, 09:45 AM

Sure, which case do you think is the best one? Maybe one of the Indian cases (as they tend to involve separate families)?

CFLarsen

24th June 2007, 10:13 AM

Sure, which case do you think is the best one? Maybe one of the Indian cases (as they tend to involve separate families)?

I don't think there are any cases for reincarnation.

You tell us what the best case is, in your opinion.

Then, let's discuss it.

cj.23

25th June 2007, 02:41 AM

I'm planning to re-read Twenty Cases and will be interested to participate in the discussion.

Stevenson's own methodology always struck me as sound, with the exception of the use of translators in several cases, where there are obvious problems. Clearly this was absolutely necessary, but it still worries me.

Comments about Stevenson not being a decent scientist are farcical. He was committed to the pursuit of medical science - sure he may well have made errors, but his intent was as far as I can see purely scientific, and his efforts have revealed a curiosity.

Apparent Reincarnation Memories in children ( a new acronyum - ARMC ?) --and remember Stevenson was a scathing critic of ALL recovered memory/ hypnotic regression claims, something his detractors generally overlook-- need an explanation,. That explanation may well teach us something about how parents shape children's identities, cultural understandings of religion, or maybe something weirder. Yet what Stevenson spent much of his life on was an oddity which demands exploration, a cross cultural phenomenon which however is clearly shaped by each cultures beliefs and expectations, and yet remains tot his day largely unexplored.

cj x

Brattus

25th June 2007, 05:38 AM

We are all unique beings. All of our thoughts and feelings, hopes and dreams, passions and pleasures, sorrow and pain is ours and ours alone.
To suggest that we are used spirits in new bodies is an insult to our amazing uniqueness.
Instead of wasting time searching for some way to not be who we are. We should be embracing ourselves as the one of a kind beings that each of us truly are.
Reincarnation is not a real thing. When we are dead we are focking dead.
So we should embrace each moment we have no matter how mundane, tragic, sad, painful, happy, loving or beautiful it is.
Life is just to short to do otherwise.

cj.23

25th June 2007, 06:57 AM

I admire the sentiments Brattus, nobly put. I am however convinced there remains an anomaly here worthy of proper scientific investigation: Stevenson's work was not religious (he may well have been) - I think it's a mystery worth exploring. :) I don't believe in reincarnation as it happens, but I want to understand the mechanism by which these cases arise...

cj x

Zep

25th June 2007, 07:25 AM

cj.23

25th June 2007, 07:32 AM

The real world calls this mechanism "delusion".

Delusion? Is that meant to be an explanatory mechanism, because it fails rather badly! :) You are making a priori assumptions, rather than addressing the evidence. Yeah sure the kids might be deluded, in the sense they have false memories, but that tells us nothing about how this arises.

I don't see how it can work, but I know there is a phenomena of children reporting previous lives, and I want to understand why. At the very least it will have something to teach us about developmental psychology and the role of cultural and familial factors on the creation of individual identity, and as such could be extraordinarily important...

cj x

swifty

25th June 2007, 07:43 AM

cj.23

25th June 2007, 07:58 AM

Wait this makes no sense. So we are all spirits. But the human population is increasing. So there are getting to be more and more spirits. Where do these spirits come from? And what chooses who will be what next? If there are old spirits, shouldnt they be much wiser? Why do we need to re-learn everything in our life even though we lived before, if we simply forget everything which happened what is the difference between reincarnation in which you forget everything which happened and everything just not happening?

Unless you want to answer the core fundamentals of this theory, I don't see how this study is relevant.

Reincarnation makes no sense to me philosophically either. Nonetheless, the fact the explanatory mechanism proposed by believers makes absolutely no sense in no way evaluates the peculiarity we face: somehow some children are becoming convinced they lived before. That is fascinating -- even more so if the metaphysical claims are wrong, because it might provide us with material relevant to how individual identity forms.

I note from my memory of reading Stevenson that these memories arises early, say prior to 2, and pass by the age of 5 normally, becoming less and less frequent. Now we can assume it is somehow culturally conditioned, as most of the cases Stevenson reports are from cultures which believe in reincarnation, but, and i speak from experience, it is not necessarily so. It may just be that "memories of other lives" are a stage in separation from mother and development of many children, but only associated with proof of reincarnation in cultures that believe in reincarnation.

I'd like to see a lot more work on this, as human identity and how we formulate our sense of self is fascinating stuff... Just because an experience is often put in box marked woo does not make it woo. Night hag experiences and NDEs are probably real experiences - the woo is in the pseudo-explanatory mechanisms, not in the experience itself, if that makes sense.

Linda suggested a while back that "the paranormal" is possibly a category error, and I agree wholeheartedly. We need more proper science here...

cj x

Pup

25th June 2007, 09:30 AM

To suggest that we are used spirits in new bodies is an insult to our amazing uniqueness.

That sounds like the same argument used by people who want to stop any discussion of evolution. To suggest that we're descended from animals would be an insult to our divine nature, so it would be wrong to discuss it.

I like cj.23's approach. If it appears that the data is there--if children regularly report something that appears like past life memories--it doesn't mean they are having past life memories.

We can discuss sleep paralysis without believing in the "old hag," or the psychology behind ouija boards and dowsing rods without believe in ghosts or dowsing, or mental illness without believing in possession by evil spirits. So why not see if there's some data on this topic worth examining?

Rasmus55

25th June 2007, 01:41 PM

Reincarnation makes no sense to me philosophically either. Nonetheless, the fact the explanatory mechanism proposed by believers makes absolutely no sense in no way evaluates the peculiarity we face: somehow some children are becoming convinced they lived before. That is fascinating -- even more so if the metaphysical claims are wrong, because it might provide us with material relevant to how individual identity forms.

I note from my memory of reading Stevenson that these memories arises early, say prior to 2, and pass by the age of 5 normally, becoming less and less frequent. Now we can assume it is somehow culturally conditioned, as most of the cases Stevenson reports are from cultures which believe in reincarnation, but, and i speak from experience, it is not necessarily so. It may just be that "memories of other lives" are a stage in separation from mother and development of many children, but only associated with proof of reincarnation in cultures that believe in reincarnation.

I'd like to see a lot more work on this, as human identity and how we formulate our sense of self is fascinating stuff... Just because an experience is often put in box marked woo does not make it woo. Night hag experiences and NDEs are probably real experiences - the woo is in the pseudo-explanatory mechanisms, not in the experience itself, if that makes sense.

Linda suggested a while back that "the paranormal" is possibly a category error, and I agree wholeheartedly. We need more proper science here...

cj x

Hmm, how about the simple explanation? Children fib; they make things up all the time. The lie in school, at home, in play with other kids, and in just about every place where children are to be found. Kids do not understand the implication of lying or why it is not generally desirable; that is the whole reason why the legal system gives them a pass. Kids also lie with the encouragement of their parents; given suggestability in young kids (and older ones), is it any wonder that the focus of fibs might be the things to which their parents expose them including religious beliefs? Kids have incredible imaginations; they play with toys, dolls, play guns in the yard, have imaginary friends, etc; more indications of the ability to create fantasy worlds and non-reality. Why is it so hard to recognize BS when you see it? Instead, psychs always seek to validate their pseudo-scientific claptrap with sophisticated sounding theories for something that is usually as plain as the nose on your face. In this case, it's called fibbing.

cj.23

25th June 2007, 01:58 PM

Rasmus55

25th June 2007, 02:15 PM

Because fibbing does not explain large parts of Stevenson's data. Now fibbing is as you say what we might expect from very young kids, and in cross caste cases we can see other motives, but some of the reincarnation cases resulted in severe punishment of the children, and in some cultures arose in heavy parental opposition to the claims.

Still, yes lying is a good explanation - but one assumes it would be cross cultural, and probably is? My biggest objection would be why these fantasies of being someone else and having lived before- not something one might easily think of!

My major problem is so much of the information we have is reliant on Dr Ian Stevenson, and therefore subject to the criticisms of his methodology. Further studies by other medical and psychiatric authorities of his rank are rare (I can think of a couple on specific cases) but until we get more data it's hard to comprehend. Children do fantasise, and lie in all innocence, but "Twenty Cases" deals with that issue - an many other equally sound objections...

Insufficient data. I hope we see more well researched studies.

cj x

You largest objection concerning the subject matter of the probable lie is possibly western centric. Perhaps in India someone might find it strange that Western kids have imaginary friends? I think the basis for the fibbing is largely cultural as has been suggested here. As for the severe punishment aspect, that is not necessarily a deterrent to lying. We see this time and again with kids and adults. We also don't know at which point there was heavy parental opposition. Certainly, in cultures where reincarnation is part of the majority religion, how could parents justify belief in reincarnation on one hand then punish a kid for claiming it on the other. The Indian caste system is absolutely dependant upon the notion of reincarnation; karma dictates what caste a person will be born into. If the kid is born as an untouchable, for instance, maybe he would want to create fantasies that he was actually reincarnated from the soul of a great king? And if he then presented that to the society around him, his parents (aware of their social standing) might very well punish him not so much for violation of belief in reincarnation but for misrepresenting his reincarnation and, more importantly, causing problems for the parents. The same could be said of high caste parents who have a kid creating fantasies about a low caste reincarnation. Parallel examples could be discussed for Western societies. Just examples, but it's all fibbing just the same.

davidsmith73

25th June 2007, 02:29 PM

cj.23

25th June 2007, 03:44 PM

You largest objection concerning the subject matter of the probable lie is possibly western centric. Perhaps in India someone might find it strange that Western kids have imaginary friends? I think the basis for the fibbing is largely cultural as has been suggested here.

Possibly: the problem here is to what extent children of that age can assimilate religious symbolism, and graps concepts like death and rebirth, which may vary anyway by individual. There was however i seem to to recall some research mentioned in a BBC news piece which suggested children could learn religious iconography by 3, so this is indeed highly possible.

As for the severe punishment aspect, that is not necessarily a deterrent to lying. We see this time and again with kids and adults. We also don't know at which point there was heavy parental opposition. Certainly, in cultures where reincarnation is part of the majority religion, how could parents justify belief in reincarnation on one hand then punish a kid for claiming it on the other.

Some cultures Stevenson discusses believe previous life memories are a sign the child may die young, hence clearly discourage such, whereas in others the child wishes to go to its "real family", resulting in much distress. There are other reasons in some cases, but those are the key ones as I recall.

The Indian caste system is absolutely dependant upon the notion of reincarnation; karma dictates what caste a person will be born into. If the kid is born as an untouchable, for instance, maybe he would want to create fantasies that he was actually reincarnated from the soul of a great king? And if he then presented that to the society around him, his parents (aware of their social standing) might very well punish him not so much for violation of belief in reincarnation but for misrepresenting his reincarnation and, more importantly, causing problems for the parents. The same could be said of high caste parents who have a kid creating fantasies about a low caste reincarnation. Parallel examples could be discussed for Western societies. Just examples, but it's all fibbing just the same.

Yes, but Stevenson claims that children display knowledge of castes they would have no social contact with. I suspect this could be a way of subverting the social order and allowing the child to "act up" with some cultural validation. I also suspect that when I was young many little girls would recall having been princesses and little boys astronauts in the UK and Denmark! :) Still i can't prove that, because there is no cultural tradition of reincarnation.

Stevenson draws cases from Canada/Alaska, SE Asia, India and the Middle East as I recall, from widely disparate cultures - and unsurprisingly the children's claims reflect the variant form of reincarnation they are exposed to in the main as far as I recall, so there is little consensus as one might expect if the reincarnation hypothesis is true. I may be mistaken though - its been years since i read Stevenson at all.

Still find it all interesting! I love a mystery, and am keen to understand how it arises...
j x

cj.23

25th June 2007, 03:46 PM

I haven't read the Stevenson book. Does he mention "spirits"?

As far as i recall, only in the context of describing the beliefs of the various cultures involved as regards reincarnation. It's been a long while though - someone else may have a copy to hand - I'm afraid I don't!

cj x

bfinn

25th June 2007, 04:19 PM

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.

E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.

This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.

Additionally (and though it is harder to quantify, having witnessed it himself Stevenson puts some emphasis on this aspect) the child typically behaves in an extraordinary way, often strongly believing and acting as if they are the person reincarnated rather than a young child - e.g. denying that their parents are their parents, insisting that they have children and grandchildren (we're talking a 2 or 3 year old here), trying to run away to their 'real' family in a distant town or village the parents have never spoken of or visited, acting towards the dead person's relatives in a quite inappropriate way (e.g. a toddler addressing to the dead person's adult children as if the toddler was their father).

I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.

cj.23

25th June 2007, 04:32 PM

bfinn

25th June 2007, 04:51 PM

Yes, I was thinking about the veridical side - but the issue is that in at least 80% of Stevensons cases the families had already made contact as I recall, so we are dealing with anecdotal recollections of the facts recorded after the event, often sometime after the fact, which while often multiply attested still remain anecdotal and subject to usual problems of confirmation bias, selective reporting, confabulation and all the other issues you get with testimony.

That is true. But nonetheless I reckon the factual information conveyed is the strongest evidence in the cases. The behaviour stuff is all rather qualitative, and it's hard to put much weight on the birthmarks.

Add to that the translation issues, and while extremely interesting, and supported by some other researchers like Haraldsson etc with their cases, I think it's too early to be too sure.
I didn't think translation was much of an issue, in that Stevenson discussed it at some length and if I recall rightly was careful to use different translators on different occasions (or on occasion simultaneously) to avoid errors.

I just think we should keep trying to investigate these cases.
I agree with you there. One thing which I found slightly disappointing with the 20 Cases was that many of them dated from the 1940s or 1950s, which seemed rather long ago - though recent enough for data collection methods to be good, a more robust job would be done now (e.g. it could all be videoed).

cj.23

25th June 2007, 05:59 PM

I note with some amusement James Randi deals with Sam Harris on Ian Stevenson in this weeks commentary. I politely disagree with his stance, as I do with his rejection of Radin's work. Radin needs properly critiquing, and Ersby has done a sterling job - that I respect - but I refuse to simply reject research because i am uncomfortable with the implications - I need to see why it is flawed, not just have it asserted because it does not fit our prevailing paradigm. Guess I took Kuhn to heart! :)

cj x

CFLarsen

26th June 2007, 02:25 AM

bfinn

26th June 2007, 04:44 AM

CFLarsen

26th June 2007, 05:25 AM

I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.

When will that be?

Rasmus55

26th June 2007, 12:44 PM

I'd have to re-read the book to say which is the best case.

I recall that in one case Stevenson showed up on the scene before the families had met, which at least removes the usual doubt about the witnesses - does anyone know the name of that case? (Though I think it was less strong in other respects.)

Hmm, does it remove the doubt? Based upon what, Stevenson's word? I don't think so. He would have to conduct his testing under controlled conditions with independant validation of his practices. That is the entire point to a scientific study, or at least so I've read but I'm no scientist (please correct me if I'm wrong). I grant you that you might not be able to get repeatable results here given the unique nature of what he's going after, although this could very easily have been remedied by independant verification concurrent with Stevenson's own investigations.

I suppose, however, if he argues for reincarnation and that the rates of awarness concerning past lives occur must frequently in children, a modern day study could be made to confirm his results. Why would children suddenly stop claiming to be reincarnated now for instance than at the time of Stevenson's alleged investigation?

Sorry to say that Stevenson is woo. He is a well cited source for the new age mystics. His data is old, tired, and of the same quality as the other credulous "scientists" in the paranormal field; unsubstantiated and anecdotal. He is credulous and clearly marketing himself to the believer. If we were to take what he says as true (that he heard stories from children), at best the most likely explanation is that the kids lied either on their own or with the assistance of their parents.

bfinn

26th June 2007, 02:27 PM

Hmm, does it remove the doubt? Based upon what, Stevenson's word?

Yes - it removes the doubt other than of fraud by Stevenson.

I grant you that you might not be able to get repeatable results here given the unique nature of what he's going after, although this could very easily have been remedied by independant verification concurrent with Stevenson's own investigations.

It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved.

More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them.

Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake).

I suppose, however, if he argues for reincarnation and that the rates of awarness concerning past lives occur must frequently in children, a modern day study could be made to confirm his results. Why would children suddenly stop claiming to be reincarnated now for instance than at the time of Stevenson's alleged investigation?

What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?

Sorry to say that Stevenson is woo. He is a well cited source for the new age mystics.

So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur.

His data is old, tired
What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)

and of the same quality as the other credulous "scientists" in the paranormal field; unsubstantiated and anecdotal

What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them.

'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily.

He is credulous and clearly marketing himself to the believer.

I don't see any evidence of that in the 20 Cases book. On the contrary he seems to me to be careful & cautious in his claims, discussing possible mundane explanations, fraud etc. in depth for each case individually and for all collectively - I'd guess a third to a half of the book is taken up with such discussions. (Or is this not so?) And in the title of the book he says no more than that the cases are 'suggestive' of reincarnation (doesn't say they are proof of or examples of or even strong evidence of reincarnation).

If we were to take what he says as true (that he heard stories from children), at best the most likely explanation is that the kids lied either on their own or with the assistance of their parents.
Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?

CFLarsen

26th June 2007, 02:40 PM

Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?

If they haven't, it has been remarkably quiet.

Don't you think that, by now, we would have had an increasing number of well-documented cases of reincarnation?

Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?

If you are so familiar with the book, you should have no trouble picking the best case.

bfinn

26th June 2007, 02:49 PM

If they haven't, it has been remarkably quiet.

Don't you think that, by now, we would have had an increasing number of well-documented cases of reincarnation?

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

(Hey, no-one's produced any new moon rocks in the last 30 years, so does that mean the moon doesn't have rocks on it any more? And those moon rocks from the 1960s - that's old, tired data. So there never were any rocks. Those astronauts, they were probably lying about rocks. )

CFLarsen

26th June 2007, 03:18 PM

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

(Hey, no-one's produced any new moon rocks in the last 30 years, so does that mean the moon doesn't have rocks on it any more? And those moon rocks from the 1960s - that's old, tired data. So there never were any rocks. Those astronauts, they were probably lying about rocks. )

Oh, come on! About 1 in 4 believe in reincarnation (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359), it is a common theme in popular culture. Reincarnation is hot.

Yet, nobody seems to be able to dig up really convincing accounts. Heck, not even less convincing ones.

Look, just dig up any account that you find convincing, and let's discuss that.

OK?

Rasmus55

26th June 2007, 03:44 PM

"It depends how independent you want it. E.g. many (perhaps most) of his investigations were witnessed by translators, who could be interviewed as to what they saw & heard. Yes, I suppose they could be in on a conspiracy too. But conspiracy theories get less and less plausible as the greater the number of people that have to be involved."

Except that if the underlying story was BS, then it doesn't matter how many other people heard it. The translators would be infected by the same fraud and fantasy as the researcher. (Please forgive me if I'm doing this whole quote thing wrong, I'm new to the boards and blogs in general and something of a hamfist when it comes to computers.)

"More than that and it wouldn't be 'very easy'. E.g. if you want an independent scientist trailing around after Stevenson verifying everything - that wouldn't be so easy. (And then the issue would arise about how independent that other scientist was - he could be in on it all too.) Stevenson's work was at least replicable - his interviews could have been replicated (even years later) by any other scientist who wanted to verify them."

So he made available to anyone who asked the names/address/contact info for each and every subject? And these subjects had agreed to further contact?

"Like I said, it would be more practical nowadays to provide some verification by videoing it all (though the video could itself be an elaborate fake)."

Agreed.

"What makes you say that? Have children stopped claiming to be reincarnated?"

My meaning was simple enough I think. If children have (according to the implication raised by his work) the ability or a heightened ability to remember past lives in comparison with adults, then why are researchers not out now, in the present day, attempting to confirm this most valuable discovery? Surely children today would have just as much memory of their past lives as children from the 1960's.

"So...? So if new age mystics cite quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is false? Non sequitur."

Umm, not really. It's not quantum mechanics that is "false", although much of it is theoretical and yet to be proved. It is the new agers' use of quantum mechanics that is flawed; the flagrant hijacking of these theories as proof of some other, logically disconnected concept. In any case, my point was that this guy strikes me as having written this specifically with the parawoo audience in mind. He is providing this to others who are already prone to believe it without questioning either his methods or the veracity of those interviewed.

"What is 'tired' data? Does data degrade over time?
The age of data is irrelevant if it was gathered properly. (I have London stock market data going back to 1694. Is this 'old, tired data' which cannot be used? Stevenson's data is from the 1960s. Comparatively recent I'd say.)"

Well, no, age of data can certainly be relevant in many contexts. Detailed astronomical measurements taken in 1960's, for instance, can become "tired" or obsolete given the power and exactitude of modern equipment and computer systems. In this case, it is tired because (amongst other things) he is no longer around to discuss results that don't seem to accord with reality, who knows where the subjects are, and there is no way to evaluate the credibility of his methods. Fresh data is needed to confirm or support his hypothesis. Given the fact that children are born every day and they seem to be in such plentiful supply, there should be no problem conducting a new test with open and understood, controlled credible scientific methodologies and modern technologies.

"What would count as 'substantiated'? Multiple witnesses? He has those. And anyone else could have replicated Stevenson's interviews had they wanted to verify them."

Nope, multiple witnesses are subject to the same fraud as the researcher if approaching the issue from the same perspective. Substantiated would depend upon his method really. Did he separate the kids from the parents and then ask for descriptions of place/people/etc? Did he ask them to speak the language of whichever place their previous soul lived? Aside from what the kids wanted to say about people/place/things, did he ask questions each kid should know if he/she truly lived in that place/time? The list goes on and on and is dependent upon really his methodology.

"'Anecdotal' - so is all testimony to be discarded? What about any scientist's testimony - e.g. research data - that can be made up just as easily."

Anecdotal evidence is perhaps the worst kind. Witnesses in court lie under oath, don't remember things as they happened correctly (when faced with a video evidence for instance), might remember things that did not happen because of mental or physical illness, and a host of other factors. The same is true of UFO sightings, ghost sightings, etc. For instance, my grandmother has Macular Degeneration (spelling?). It affected her eyesight much later in life and she is by now basically blind. Yet, she told us that she began seeing my dead grandfather sitting by the bed at night while she was trying to fall asleep. She also sometimes sees Christmas trees, snow, and a host of other things from her life experiences while traveling in the car long distances (of course, she doesn't drive, she's a passenger). When she told her doctor these things (we thought she might be crazy), he said don't worry. This is very common. It is because when someone who had eyesight all their life loses it because of this illness, the brain begins to replay images from his/her life that appear real. The notion is that because this area of the brain was so occupied with sight for those many years, when the stimulus is gone it searches for activities on its own. Those include replaying the images. As an aside, this is one reason why some people see ghosts and aliens. In any case, my point is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable and to be taken with the utmost skepticism.

"Assuming you have read the 20 Cases book (have you?), how could 'lying' explain a toddler's apparent knowledge of names, faces, relationships, places, objects and events to which the toddler and his parents have had no exposure?"

Haven't read them, probably won't, but don't need to. Simple way to explain this; the kid saw those people/place/things in person or was shown them by some other person. He/she was shown them in this lifetime; even if it was King Tut, someone said, "Ok, remember King Tut and here's a likeness; tell it to the nice man when he comes to talk to you." If the child actually knew these things, then I would first look to the parents or a close family member as the culprit. This sort of thing happens all the time with children. Sometimes children just make it up on their own, sometimes with the help of others.

davidsmith73

27th June 2007, 03:16 AM

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead, and I don't know how many others were working in this field, but presumably very few. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, particularly if no-one is looking.

Dr. Jim Tucker published a book in 2005 "Life before life". I haven't read it. I think he worked with Stevenson before he died and its a continuation of his work with more cases from around the world.

MRC_Hans

27th June 2007, 03:33 AM

davidsmith73

27th June 2007, 03:58 AM

Please, please, PLEASE! Could we have a concrete case to discuss? I have read such accounts in the past (I fail to remember where), and I didn't find them very convincing, the weak point usually being the verification of the alleged memories.

But all this won't lead us anywhere. If we have a concrete case, we can discuss the concrete issues of that case.

Hans

With all respect to Stevenson's apparently honest scientific approach (I haven't read his work), I don't think you are going to get a "concrete" case. The unpredictable nature of all this really guards against it. People have enough of a hard time trying to induce an OBE under controlled conditions (trying to induce "reincarnation" would seem to necessitate killing someone, mmmm).

So I think the point of investigating "reincarnation" cases and writing a book about them is to engage those who are willing to hypothesise what it may mean for the nature of consciousness. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They retreat in embarassment. If they're right however...

MRC_Hans

27th June 2007, 04:16 AM

By concrete case, I mean one of the existing accounts, like for instance one from the mentioned book.

Hans

CFLarsen

27th June 2007, 04:18 AM

With all respect to Stevenson's apparently honest scientific approach (I haven't read his work), I don't think you are going to get a "concrete" case. The unpredictable nature of all this really guards against it. People have enough of a hard time trying to induce an OBE under controlled conditions (trying to induce "reincarnation" would seem to necessitate killing someone, mmmm).

So I think the point of investigating "reincarnation" cases and writing a book about them is to engage those who are willing to hypothesise what it may mean for the nature of consciousness. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They retreat in embarassment. If they're right however...

Sure, we can get concrete cases.

Skeptic Guy

27th June 2007, 04:23 AM

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?

And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.

Mojo

27th June 2007, 04:38 AM

Who would be documenting them? Ian Stevenson is now dead...

Surely a temporary inconvenience such as death won't stop him.

MRC_Hans

27th June 2007, 05:18 AM

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?

To be fair, that was actually covered, it seems. Those were cases of things that were hidden, and were subsequently found by the directions from the child. Of course there could be many ways to cheat with this. And here could me many ways to be honestly wrong with it, as well.

While we wait for the story to discuss, I can give an example of something "unknown" disclosed as an alleged past-life memory (and its debunking, of course ;) ):

There was a (Danish) woman who claimed she had been a French monk. She clearly described several features of the monastry, and its approximate whereabouts. She had never been to France.

The reporters (this was part of some TV feature), went to the designated area in Southern France, and found a monastry. They went in, and found her description of the interiour to be reasonably precise.

Fantastic? Not quite. You will have difficulty finding a district in Soutnern France that does not hold several monastries. And you don't need to go to france to know how a monastry is laid out, because they are all laid out more or less in the same way. Even in Protestant Denmark, you can learn how that layout is.

- I'm quite ready to beleive that this lady was not intentionally making up her story. The point is that she did not need to have been a monk in an earlier life to have this information.

And I have yet to see an account of past life memories where there could not be an alterantive explanation of how the person in question could come by the given information.

Hans

cj.23

27th June 2007, 08:36 AM

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?

No idea. If one wants to allow the possibility of ESP, how can one not just cite that? If anyone has known it and the facts might have been disseminated, cryptomnesia is possible. I have never seen a case which convinced me.

And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.

There is some research going on. Roy Stenman occasionally seems to be following cases up, and a few other investigators. On ghost hunting, I spent the weekend carrying out a double blind investigation of a purportedly haunted castle using Schmeidler's method which I described on a previous thread on this forum, to allow a quantitative assessment. It won't prove ghosts, but it might give us some insight in to environmental factors which cause people to have these experiences at least.* Research is continuing, it's just not high profile.

(*And no I have no idea what we found on the maps completed by the test subjects yet- the volunteers passed the results to a sceptical judging team to try and reduce confirmation bias, and I will not be involved again until the write up.)

cj x

CFLarsen

27th June 2007, 10:02 AM

Surely a temporary inconvenience such as death won't stop him.

Maybe he was reincarnated...

To be fair, that was actually covered, it seems. Those were cases of things that were hidden, and were subsequently found by the directions from the child. Of course there could be many ways to cheat with this. And here could me many ways to be honestly wrong with it, as well.

While we wait for the story to discuss, I can give an example of something "unknown" disclosed as an alleged past-life memory (and its debunking, of course ;) ):

There was a (Danish) woman who claimed she had been a French monk. She clearly described several features of the monastry, and its approximate whereabouts. She had never been to France.

The reporters (this was part of some TV feature), went to the designated area in Southern France, and found a monastry. They went in, and found her description of the interiour to be reasonably precise.

Fantastic? Not quite. You will have difficulty finding a district in Soutnern France that does not hold several monastries. And you don't need to go to france to know how a monastry is laid out, because they are all laid out more or less in the same way. Even in Protestant Denmark, you can learn how that layout is.

- I'm quite ready to beleive that this lady was not intentionally making up her story. The point is that she did not need to have been a monk in an earlier life to have this information.

And I have yet to see an account of past life memories where there could not be an alterantive explanation of how the person in question could come by the given information.

Hans

See, this is why we can't rely on memory. :)

It wasn't a woman, but a man, Erik Peitersen. I know, because I've done a lot of research on that tv series.

In time, it will be revealed. And it ain't gonna be pretty.

No idea. If one wants to allow the possibility of ESP, how can one not just cite that? If anyone has known it and the facts might have been disseminated, cryptomnesia is possible. I have never seen a case which convinced me.

There is some research going on. Roy Stenman occasionally seems to be following cases up, and a few other investigators. On ghost hunting, I spent the weekend carrying out a double blind investigation of a purportedly haunted castle using Schmeidler's method which I described on a previous thread on this forum, to allow a quantitative assessment. It won't prove ghosts, but it might give us some insight in to environmental factors which cause people to have these experiences at least.* Research is continuing, it's just not high profile.

(*And no I have no idea what we found on the maps completed by the test subjects yet- the volunteers passed the results to a sceptical judging team to try and reduce confirmation bias, and I will not be involved again until the write up.)

cj x

That's nice. Show us a case, and let's discuss that.

Rasmus55

5th July 2007, 12:54 AM

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows". I bet you that I, too, could come up with some information from "a past life" that no one else knows. How would you be able to check me?

And as Claus says, if there was such convincing evidence of reincarnation, why is no one working on it today? I mean, such a discovery would be life-changing! It is part of the same argument as against psychics, ghost hunters, etc.

Of course consider this: If the child knew something that "absolutely no-one else knows," then isn't the "thing" the child asserts as true completely unverifiable? That is, how can it be determined whether the factual claim is true if it is not known to any other living person? So I think this isn't very a very scientific progression at all. The person claiming the past life should be tested on the basis of what today would be considered obscure historical fact but, at the time, general knowledge. Also, language is another way to test some of these BS claims.

Cuddles

5th July 2007, 04:30 AM

Comments about Stevenson not being a decent scientist are farcical. He was committed to the pursuit of medical science - sure he may well have made errors, but his intent was as far as I can see purely scientific

All the good intentions in the world do not make a good scientist. You are essentially doing the opposite of an ad-hom attack here by saying that because he meant well his results are valid. Even you admit he made errors. If he didn't know about those errors then a good scientist would try to carry out new research having corrected them, and would not rely on the previous work containing errors. If he knew about the errors and did not correct them or at least make it clear that they were there then he is a bad scienctist, simple as that.

Apparent Reincarnation Memories in children ( a new acronyum - ARMC ?) --and remember Stevenson was a scathing critic of ALL recovered memory/ hypnotic regression claims, something his detractors generally overlook-- need an explanation,.

This is a big problem for your argument. The recovered memory nonsense was proved wrong by showing just how easy it is to get people to remember things that didn't happen. My favourite example was one where children remembered seeing Bugs Bunny in Disneyland. If Stevenson agrees that this is the case, how can he possibly argue that some apparent memories are actually from past lives and not just exactly the same thing?

Herzblut

5th July 2007, 05:09 AM

I think it is interesting that it is claimed that in some cases the child "knows things that absolutely no-one else knows".

What the child knows is either

1. verifiable,
2. unverifiable or
3. falsifiable,

isnt it? Which option does not completely discredit the assertion?

Herzblut

Herzblut

5th July 2007, 05:28 AM

On the contrary he seems to me to be careful & cautious in his claims, discussing possible mundane explanations, fraud etc. in depth for each case individually and for all collectively - I'd guess a third to a half of the book is taken up with such discussions. (Or is this not so?) And in the title of the book he says no more than that the cases are 'suggestive' of reincarnation (doesn't say they are proof of or examples of or even strong evidence of reincarnation).

Yeah, cautious in his claims. Let's see:

just because detective Stevenson could not find an explanation for the
knowledge of a child, it follows automatically that:

the Flying Spaghetti Monster - which often spends some vacation days in
India - has whispered these things into the kids year. You know, the FSM
feels about the misery in India and helps some poor kids by implanting the
biography of some rich children that died young. You know, the media in
India makes a spectacle out of it, the rich parents are sooo glad they
can embrace their reincarnated son. Finally, the poor parents and their 15
kids - excluding the one they gave away - make a good deal as well.

You see, everybody's happy and the FSM has done good again to us
earthlings.

Oh, btw, this also explains why these "reincarnations", hehe, only happen
in countries where everybody believes in those! Clever FSM!

Herzblut

Herzblut

5th July 2007, 05:49 AM

This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.

Absolutely!

And here the Invisible Pink Unicorn jumps in and ..eh.. no sorry its the Flying Spaghetti Monster which .... wait a minute .... now i got it: its God Popobeatle which created the whole Universe, including our false memories, 15 minutes ago!

Now you know!

Herzblut

sophia8

5th July 2007, 06:08 AM

Of course consider this: If the child knew something that "absolutely no-one else knows," then isn't the "thing" the child asserts as true completely unverifiable? That is, how can it be determined whether the factual claim is true if it is not known to any other living person? That is the problem with every single "past-life" case that I've read about. The reincarnatee produces all sorts of obscure facts which are then verified by historians, to universal amazement. However, these facts were already publically available somewhere in books and archives!
I'm sure I'm repeating myself here, but I remember one credulous UK TV show about a man who claimed to be a reincarnation of an 18thC British soldier. The TV people took him to his claimed regiment's museum, where he, speaking in character as this dead soldier, impressed the resident historian with his knowledge of some obscure battle.
What amazed me was his accent. The regiment was one of the Lancashire ones; an 18thC Lancashire farm-boy, as this man claimed to be, would have spoken in an almost unintelligible local dialect. Instead, this man (who was from London) spoke perfectly clear modern English with no dialect words - and with a Manchester accent! Certainly the accent would have sounded "Northern" to anybody from the South-east; but to this long-time Lancashire resident, it was laughably fake.
And again, I repeat myself: don't test reincarnatees on facts, however obscure; test them on skills. If they claimed to have been a trumpeter, give them a trumpet and invite them to play; if they claimed to have been a Saxon farmer, give them a knife and a live pig and invite them to produce sausages.

Herzblut

5th July 2007, 06:41 AM

Jeff Corey

5th July 2007, 06:41 AM

This whole discussion reminds me of a case that was popular over a half century ago. http://skepdic.com/bridey.html

Herzblut

5th July 2007, 10:17 AM

The reincarnatee produces all sorts of obscure facts which are then verified by historians, to universal amazement.

To my particular suspicion because our memory is notoriously inaccurate and ... false.

And again, I repeat myself: don't test reincarnatees on facts, however obscure; test them on skills. If they claimed to have been a trumpeter, give them a trumpet and invite them to play; if they claimed to have been a Saxon farmer, give them a knife and a live pig and invite them to produce sausages.

I'm afraid this neither proves nor disproves reincarnation or any of the billions of supernatural claims you could make up to "explain" seemingly implausible events.

In terms of verifying the plausibility of the blabber, the best to ask about is just normal day-2-day-live. How old are you? How's a normal day in your life? What do you eat? How are you dressed? What is your work? How to use your toilet? How often do you wash yourself? Where do you buy the things you need?

Herzblut

sophia8

8th July 2007, 06:09 AM

In terms of verifying the plausibility of the blabber, the best to ask about is just normal day-2-day-live. How old are you? How's a normal day in your life? What do you eat? How are you dressed? What is your work? How to use your toilet? How often do you wash yourself? Where do you buy the things you need?

HerzblutThat's part of my point. To take my example of a peasant farmer, turning pigs into food is a everyday task they are very familiar with. Somebody claiming to be a reincarnated peasant farmer should therefore be able to slaughter and butcher a pig without any qualms, before demonstrating how to turn it into ham and the like.
Just having them answering questions isn't enough - all that information is available in books and on the internet.

Of course, the problem of this approach is that very few reincarnatees claim to have been people with such demonstratable life-skills; most of them were royalty, pharoahs, high priests and so on. What are a King's skill sets?

cj.23

8th July 2007, 06:55 AM

This whole discussion reminds me of a case that was popular over a half century ago. http://skepdic.com/bridey.html

Needs updating I think. While i'm no way supporting a past life explanation for Bridey Murphy, the claims about the woman living across the street have long been debunked, and the whole thing is rather more complex than that. I can cheerfully put in an afternoon on research and corrections if it will help? Bridey Murphy was "rehabilitated" several times, because to be honest there appears to have been blatant misrepresentation and falsification in the original newspaper debunks, which have then been uncritically circulated by well meaning sceptics. This just serves to provide ammunition for believers, and tends to rather discredit other well researched sceptics. It's a shame, but even the excellent Melvin Harris was caught out by this one...

cj x

cj.23

8th July 2007, 06:59 AM

This is a big problem for your argument. The recovered memory nonsense was proved wrong by showing just how easy it is to get people to remember things that didn't happen. My favourite example was one where children remembered seeing Bugs Bunny in Disneyland. If Stevenson agrees that this is the case, how can he possibly argue that some apparent memories are actually from past lives and not just exactly the same thing?

Yes, but I'm not arguing the experience is genuinely of past life memory. I'm saying we need an explanatory mechanism. Now sure we have confabulation, false memory,a nd all kinds of other things, but if there is veridical content we need an explanatory mechanism, and even if the whole thing is just confabulation we still need to understand how and why it arises in certain cases - saying its not "real", when to be honest it had never crossed my mind that it could be, in no way explains how it arises. I want a model which explains how the cases arise, how it fits in tot he development of personal identity and if there are other personality, familial or neurological issues at stake.

Worth reading Stevenson though. He was well aware of FMS - hence the rejection of ALL "recovered memory" cases.

cj x

osmosis

8th July 2007, 08:01 AM

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations which in many (not all) cases they & their families & acquaintances have not (and pretty much could not have) had any connection with.

E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.

This is the central evidence that demands and lacks a conventional explanation.

You do know what an anecdote is, don't you? It doesn't even really qualify as evidence.

If even one of these cases could be shown to have more than anecdotes backing it up, a rational person would have reason to give this discussion serious consideration.

But until then, you'll have to pardon myself and the rest of the rational world for not taking this idea seriously.

osmosis

8th July 2007, 08:16 AM

Surely a temporary inconvenience such as death won't stop him.

Beautiful... couldn't have said it better myself!

Rasmus55

8th July 2007, 08:18 AM

Yes, but I'm not arguing the experience is genuinely of past life memory. I'm saying we need an explanatory mechanism. Now sure we have confabulation, false memory,a nd all kinds of other things, but if there is veridical content we need an explanatory mechanism, and even if the whole thing is just confabulation we still need to understand how and why it arises in certain cases - saying its not "real", when to be honest it had never crossed my mind that it could be, in no way explains how it arises. I want a model which explains how the cases arise, how it fits in tot he development of personal identity and if there are other personality, familial or neurological issues at stake.

Worth reading Stevenson though. He was well aware of FMS - hence the rejection of ALL "recovered memory" cases.

cj x

Here's a simple way to research why people lie about sensational things. Go talk to the English guys who make crop circles at night for the benefit of the woo community. They do it as a prank. Talk to them about their motivations. You could also talk to people who have reported UFO claims that were later shown to be hoaxes. Barring actual mental/physical illness, it is just lying. Maybe these people want attention or maybe it's much more simple, like some are paid for their stories/activities. Motivation won't be too hard to find, but accepting the fact that they are most likely liars is a tough hump for believers and pseudo-scientists to get over first.

delphi_ote

8th July 2007, 09:18 AM

Interesting thread. I have a question for less skeptical: if these are not cases of a child picking up memories from some source in the present and representing them to others as coming from a past life, what is an alternate hypothesis for these claims? What other mechanism would put memories in a child's head supposedly from another person's life in the past? Are you suggesting that it is the traditional physics defying reincarnation we've heard about for years? Or do you have another hypothesis?

Gord_in_Toronto

9th July 2007, 02:24 PM

Needs updating I think. While i'm no way supporting a past life explanation for Bridey Murphy, the claims about the woman living across the street have long been debunked, and the whole thing is rather more complex than that. I can cheerfully put in an afternoon on research and corrections if it will help? Bridey Murphy was "rehabilitated" several times, because to be honest there appears to have been blatant misrepresentation and falsification in the original newspaper debunks, which have then been uncritically circulated by well meaning sceptics. This just serves to provide ammunition for believers, and tends to rather discredit other well researched sceptics. It's a shame, but even the excellent Melvin Harris was caught out by this one...

cj x
Bridey Murphy ?

What a skeptic has to say:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_287.html

Furthermore, in the words of one writer sympathetic to Bridey's cause, "No verification has yet been obtained that a barrister named Duncan Murphy and his wife Kathleen lived in Cork in 1798 and in that year had a daughter, Bridget Kathleen; nor that a Bridget Kathleen Murphy married in Cork a Catholic called Sean Brian McCarthy; nor that she died in 1864 in Belfast; nor that there was in Belfast in her days a St. Theresa's church; nor that it had a priest named John Joseph Gorman who, as Bridey states, performed a second marriage ceremony there."

It may be true, as Bridey proponents point out, that no vital statistics were kept in Ireland prior to 1864. The fact remains that the evidence for Bridey's authenticity consists almost entirely of trivia. If you want anyone besides the New Age crowd to take this stuff seriously, Morey, you're going to have to better than that.

What believers have to say:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/ducasse/critical/25.htm#conclusions

8. What conclusions are and are not warranted about the case

The outcome of our review and discussion of the Bridey Murphy case may now be summarily stated. It is, on the one hand, that neither the articles in magazines and newspapers which we have mentioned and commented upon, nor the comments of the authors of the so-called "Scientific Report" and of other psychiatrists hostile to the reincarnation hypothesis, have succeeded in disproving, or even in establishing a strong case against, the possibility that many of the statements of the Bridey personality are genuinely memories of an earlier life of Virginia Tighe over a century ago in Ireland.

On the other hand, for reasons other than those which were advanced by those various hostile critics, and which will be set forth in the next chapter, the verifications summarized by Barker, of obscure points in Ireland mentioned in Bridey's six recorded conversations with Bernstein, do not prove that Virginia is a reincarnation of Bridey, nor do they establish a particularly strong case for it. They do, on the other hand, constitute fairly strong evidence that, in the hypnotic trances, paranormal knowledge of one or another of several possible kinds concerning those recondite facts of nineteenth century Ireland, became manifest. This brings us directly to the question of what sort of empirical evidence, if we had it, we would regard as constituting definite proof of reincarnation.

:confused:

I spent my few minutes on the Internet. Possibly you could follow up your offer: "I can cheerfully put in an afternoon on research and corrections if it will help?"

It would certainly help me. :blush:

The_Animus

1st August 2007, 10:04 PM

I have only read one of the books that talks about some of these cases. I believe it was called "Old Souls - The evidence for reincarnation". First about the population increase. People constantly use this and only this as their reason for throwing out reincarnation as a possibility. Let us assume that there is only a set number of souls and that no new souls can be made. Does the population increase then disprove reincarnation? Not at all. If there is a soul and a person dies, where does it go? It certainly isn't visible or 'here' in the sense that we can see it or measure its existence. So let us say that here in the physical is Side A and that where it goes is Side B. So who can say how many souls are sitting on side B waiting for a body to attach themselves to? Even if the population rises 5 billion in the next 50 years there could be 20 trillion waiting on the 'other side' so to speak. I would also like to state that lack of evidence or understanding of how the process of reincarnation occurs is not sufficient reason to disregard it as a possibility. At some point in time we didn't know exactly how gravity works, in fact we still don't fully understand why it is so much weaker than all other forces, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. It just may be that the process has yet to be discovered.

I assume the people who have nothing more to add than that it is only lies and delusion haven't even read any of the cases in depth or much on this topic at all. I'm not going to give the evidence or explain the case studies. If you are unfamiliar with them you probably shouldn't even be posting in this discussion.

Anyone who is familiar with the many cases, for which I believe there are over a thousand now, knows that an explanation of lies and delusion simply don't cut it. And lies and delusion don't explain the birthmarks or physical abnormalities in some of the cases. So then what is the explanation? Some people say its the cultural belief that spawns it, which is why the cases are mostly in areas which have that belief. The only problem with this is that there are cases everywhere. The reason that there are not as many reported cases in places such as the United States is that the parents simply ignore the children and tell them thay are wrong repeatedly until the child grows up and the memories fade. That reincarnation is thought absurd by most americans results in less cases found in the US. It is not because they aren't there. It is because in the US when a child tells their parents that they aren't his parents, or that he lives in another city, the parents think nothing of it and simply tell the child they are wrong and that they are his parents and that he lives in this city. In some other countries, however, the parents are more willing to believe their children and investigate the claims made by them to see if they are true. This is why there are still cases in places like the US, but why there are fewer of them.

Unless another explanation can be given which fully explains the incidents of these cases, then reincarnation cannot be simply denied. There may be another explanation, it may not be reincarnation, but this means we have to continue to study more cases and build up a larger base of information so we can determine whether there is any other explanation besides reincarnation which fully and accurately addresses the evidence.

Skeptic Guy

1st August 2007, 10:18 PM

Maybe you can provide a case that you consider with merit? If there are thousands of cases, surely there is one that is compelling.

The_Animus

2nd August 2007, 09:29 PM

Perhaps you can read the books that this topic are about? If you haven't read about any of the stronger cases why are you even joining this discussion?

Cuddles

3rd August 2007, 04:43 AM

Perhaps you can read the books that this topic are about? If you haven't read about any of the stronger cases why are you even joining this discussion?

You misunderstand. Many people here have read about the relevant cases, but do not consider them in any way strong. What is being asked is for you to state what you consider a strong case so we can discuss that. If we were to simply debunk cases that we chose we would be open to accusations of attacking straw men since they might not be the cases you consider strong.

JoeEllison

3rd August 2007, 05:17 AM

The reason that there are not as many reported cases in places such as the United States is that the parents simply ignore the children and tell them thay are wrong repeatedly until the child grows up and the memories fade. That reincarnation is thought absurd by most americans results in less cases found in the US. It is not because they aren't there. It is because in the US when a child tells their parents that they aren't his parents, or that he lives in another city, the parents think nothing of it and simply tell the child they are wrong and that they are his parents and that he lives in this city. In some other countries, however, the parents are more willing to believe their children and investigate the claims made by them to see if they are true. This is why there are still cases in places like the US, but why there are fewer of them.

How is this completely unfounded assertion on your part any more likely than the more sensible assertion(with at least some evidence) that the whole thing is false? Clearly, from your own posts, it is apparent that believers are willing to twist the evidence until they find the shape pleasing to them. Is that not the most likely explanation for all these "thousands" of cases, many of which you've simply imagined to exist with ZERO evidence, and none of which you choose to discuss specifically?

The_Animus

4th August 2007, 10:33 PM

Cuddles - I understand now. Thank you for the clarification.

I do not have the book with me. I borrowed it from the library and returned it months ago and as such I cannot give you full accurate case details at the moment.

JoeEllison - I think my assertion is far more sensible. I would also like to add that I explained myself. You provided no explanation, or evidence for your opinion and simply chose to insult me. I suggest you learn to post explanations of your opinions instead of purposeless insults.

There are a few things you have to keep in mind when looking at this.
1. These children are around 1-2 years of age and in many cases speaking their first words when they start giving information related to their previous life.
2. These children do not know their parental or cultural beliefs, nor have the brain capacity to understand them or their significance.

Now which makes more logical sense?
1. These children are picking up their parental or cultural beliefs. This results in more of these cases being seen in areas with these religious beliefs, and less in places such as the US where these beliefs are uncommon.
2. The children with parents or a culture that believes in reincarnation is more likely to believe the child and explore and examine what the child says. The children with parents or a culture that doesn't believe in reincarnation is less likely to believe the child and less likely to explore or examine what the child says. This results in many more cases in a reincarnation based culture and far fewer in a non-reincarnation based culture.

In the few American cases I've read about the parents would say that they ignore what the child said and told them they were mistaken. Sometimes it was only by sheer chance that they came across information related to what their child said and thus became interested. Can you imagine how many cases there could be in the US that are never known about simply because our culture and thus most likely their parents disregard it completely until the child grows up and their memories of their previous life fade?

I don't see how you can reasonably deny that a culture that does not believe in reincarnation would REPORT less cases than a culture that does believe in reincarnation.

someone11

5th August 2007, 08:44 AM

Hi,

I think that even if the cases were verified rigorously, that wouldn't prove that there is some entity which goes from one body to another, a soul, or even a mental cause-and-effect as buddhists would say. Other explanations, metaphysical and not-metaphysical can be offered.

For example, a special ability to know the past by supernatural means. Or, an ability to read the minds of other people, inferring from that what would the life of a diseased person look like. I am not actually suggesting these explanations, just saying that they are not neccessarily worse than reincarnation. Do you agree?

(I don't what natural explanation can be offered for a verified case. )

RichardR

5th August 2007, 11:12 AM

Much of the above discussion is worthless (if I may be so bold!) because lying, cultural conditioning etc. in no way explains how the children are able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations...

Correction - the children are claimed to have been able to provide large quantities of accurate information about people, past events & locations...

Stevenson spoke to the children long after they supposedly started "remembering" their previous lives. In some cases many years after.

E.g. the child is able to identify names & relationships of people in an unconnected family & location, knows how to navigate around towns he/she has never visited, can identify and provide the history of possessions of the dead person, knows very intimate details that almost no-one else knows (e.g. what someone's dying words were), in some cases demonstrably knows things that absolutely no-one else knows (e.g. that the dead person buried such-and-such in the garden which is then dug up, or knowing that such-and-such is written on the back of a clock). In the stronger cases there are 30 or 40 individual items of this kind.

Examples please.

I recommend you read Ian Stevenson's books for more details.
I did. I was unimpressed.

RichardR

5th August 2007, 11:32 AM

In the 20 Cases book Stevenson himself devotes a substantial part of the book to considering possible prosaic explanations (involving fraud, self-delusion, coincidence, etc. - even exotic explanations such as telepathy), concluding that these could explain some aspects of some cases but by no means all.
Really? How about the case of Michael Wright?

A young girl has a childhood sweetheart who dies in a car crash. She would have married him but for this car crash, but now marries someone else. She then has a child who she thinks is the reincarnation of her sweetheart. The child’s mother and grandmother strongly believe in reincarnation, and they are the only ones who have witnessed the child "remembering" his previous life.

There is really no need to propose reincarnation to explain this. And yet Stevenson does, which tells us a lot about Stevenson’s credulity.

Rockley would I think hit trouble if he focussed on a single strong case and tried to explain all aspects of it (rather than effectively saying 'we can explain some aspects of some cases, ergo they must all be entirely explicable in a somewhat similar way').

What are you babbling about? I addressed all cases in the book – including the strongest ones. None of them are convincing.

I think Rockley's parting shot is quite bogus:
With these comments I believe he blows his credibility as a serious scientist. In my view this casts doubt on all of his work.

Which I translate as:
Ian Stevenson has funny views on consciousness, materialism, etc. - so we can safely ignore all his reports of apparent reincarnation cases.
Which is just an ad hominem attack (Rockley seems very fond of classifying his arguments).

No – an ad hominem is where you attack the person making the argument INSTEAD OF attacking their arguments. I dealt with all his arguments first, and explained why they were unconvincing. After I had done that, I also examined several of Stevenson’s other statements. Specifically this one:

"If materialism... were true, telepathy should not occur; but it does occur, and so materialism must be false."

…and pointed out that this blows his credibility. And it does – as does the rest of his work that I also examined.

CFLarsen

5th August 2007, 11:50 AM

I did.

You sure did:

Book Review: Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation, Ian Stevenson (http://skepticreport.com/newage/stevensonbook.htm)
Some of the perhaps best cases for reincarnation are investigated. How do they hold up to reality?

The Apparent Belief System Of Ian Stevenson (http://skepticreport.com/newage/stevensonbelief.htm)
This is a follow-up to the book review of Ian Stevenson's book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation".

JoeEllison

5th August 2007, 11:54 AM

JoeEllison - I think my assertion is far more sensible. I would also like to add that I explained myself. You provided no explanation, or evidence for your opinion and simply chose to insult me. I suggest you learn to post explanations of your opinions instead of purposeless insults.
No one insulted you. If you feel insulted by an accurate description of your posts, maybe you need to take a closer look at your position, and how it looks to people who think critically and skeptically at such matters.
There are a few things you have to keep in mind when looking at this.
1. These children are around 1-2 years of age and in many cases speaking their first words when they start giving information related to their previous life.
2. These children do not know their parental or cultural beliefs, nor have the brain capacity to understand them or their significance.So, it seems more rational to assume that they parents are feeding them the information, as no one year old child is really speaking in ANY WAY that could legitimately be able to convey complex information of the sort that would suggest reincarnation. The more likely explanation is that foolish people who believe in reincarnation will pretend that their children are showing signs of it, the way that they pretend that gassy kids are smiling, and that baby babble sounds like "mama" and dada". Parents teach their kids to say certain things, by assuming that they are saying those words and reinforcing it through repetition. Later on, they misremember it as being all from the child, when it reality it all came from them, and from their imagination.

The_Animus

5th August 2007, 01:05 PM

And what reason do they have for doing this? This occurs in all walks of life. It occurs with parents who believe and those who don't. It occurs in cultures that don't persecute people for those beliefs and those that do. It occurs in people who can benefit from it and in those that are harmed by it. So why do parents who do not believe in reincarnation, can be persecutes for even being affiliated with this belief, and have no financial, or personal benefit from programming their children, do so? There are a thousand reported cases, and as I said it stands to reason that there are many times more that are not reported or publicly known. And your answer is that everyone single one is lying or delusional.

Well time will tell. Even though Ian Stevenson is dead, there are other scientists who continue with his work and continue to research the cases. Perhaps in 50 years they will find out that it is indeed all fraud, but I don't think so.

RayG

5th August 2007, 01:05 PM

Unless another explanation can be given which fully explains the incidents of these cases, then reincarnation cannot be simply denied. There may be another explanation, it may not be reincarnation, but this means we have to continue to study more cases and build up a larger base of information so we can determine whether there is any other explanation besides reincarnation which fully and accurately addresses the evidence.

A half-dozen years ago, in my quest for further info of the scientific kind about reincarnation, I read a number of books by proponents, visited websites, and even joined a message forum. At no time did I read or see anything presented that could be considered as scientific proof for reincarnation.

In fact, I found no agreement over what reincarnation is, or the method and medium by which the knowledge from one person would be transferred to another. What I found instead were arguments, opinions, excuses, and statements from proponents, but no valid evidence.

These proponent arguments can be found in my article here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/reincarnation29.htm)

I also reviewed some reincarnation books, and could dig those up if someone were really interested.

RayG

Paul2

5th August 2007, 04:08 PM

There are a thousand reported cases, and as I said it stands to reason that there are many times more that are not reported or publicly known. And your answer is that everyone single one is lying or delusional.Are you saying this as if it's somehow one small piece of evidence for reincarnation? Don't you think that if reincarnation was false, we'd still see thousands of these instances?

RichardR

5th August 2007, 04:39 PM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v18/ai_16334412/pg_1

Empirical evidence for reincarnation? examining Stevenson's 'most impressive' case

Ian Stevenson's conduct of the Imad Elawar investigation, considered among the strongest of his cases, fails on six fundamental grounds.

HerzblutWOW! From the link:

[The parents] believed that he was claiming to have been one Mahmoud Bouhamzy of Khriby who had a wife called Jamilah and who had been fatally injured by a truck after a quarrel with its driver.

[Snip] Amazingly enough, the boy's memories are in the end held to be good evidence for reincarnation in spite of the fact that the best past-life candidate Stevenson found was not named Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a wife named Jamilah, and did not die as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with the driver.

:jaw-dropp

The_Animus

6th August 2007, 12:04 PM

That isn't good evidence. That is a weak case. There are numerous much stronger cases where the names, memories, and even cause of death are accurate.

RayG

6th August 2007, 12:28 PM

Which specific 'stronger cases' are you referring to?

RayG

RichardR

6th August 2007, 11:16 PM

Which specific 'stronger cases' are you referring to?

Yes. Which stronger cases, specifically, are you talking about, Animus? Do tell.

Cuddles

7th August 2007, 03:57 AM

That isn't good evidence. That is a weak case. There are numerous much stronger cases where the names, memories, and even cause of death are accurate.

What is being asked is for you to state what you consider a strong case so we can discuss that. If we were to simply debunk cases that we chose we would be open to accusations of attacking straw men since they might not be the cases you consider strong.

Do I get the million now?

The_Animus

7th August 2007, 11:49 AM

I do not have the book with me. I borrowed it from the library and returned it months ago and as such I cannot give you full accurate case details at the moment.

Please read the posts next time. I do not appreciate having to post things two or more times. Choosing a case where the person got none of their information correct is obviously a weak case. How about you choose one where they got pretty much everything right? Perhaps if I have time on Thursday or Friday I will see if I can borrow the book again or search online for one of the stronger cases. That way I can give a full accurate case detail.

Ethan Thane Athen

7th August 2007, 03:52 PM

I have only read one of the books that talks about some of these cases. I believe it was called "Old Souls - The evidence for reincarnation"...

...I assume the people who have nothing more to add than that it is only lies and delusion haven't even read any of the cases in depth or much on this topic at all. I'm not going to give the evidence or explain the case studies. If you are unfamiliar with them you probably shouldn't even be posting in this discussion.

That's a pretty incredible position to take. You've only read one book on the subject (which you also later admit you can't remember well enough to discuss in detail). Then you state that the evidence is overwhelming - but you're not willing to detail it but assume anyone who disagrees with you therefore can't be an expert and is not allowed to post!

So, roughly translated: 'I'm an expert and it's all true but I'm not going to share or justify my expertise...and actually I can't really remember the cases well enough to discuss them...but they were really convincing...and anyone who disagrees can't have read them (even if they have - indeed even if they have read more about it than me and can provide evidence, cite cases etc) and as such they shouldn't post.'

Is that your position? Do you see the inherent weaknesses in your argument?

Winterfrost

7th August 2007, 04:58 PM

So why do parents who do not believe in reincarnation, can be persecutes for even being affiliated with this belief, and have no financial, or personal benefit from programming their children, do so?

What about spiritual benefit? I would think that the thought that they might have proof of life after death in their own children would be a very compelling reason (not to mention very reassuring).

When I was about three years old, I "spontaneously" (according to my parents) told them a story that I had lived a previous life in a cabin which I identified as being in the forest on a nearby mountain. I provided an incredibly detailed and woe-filled story of being abused by my evil mother, and slowly dying from cancer or some wasting disease, though I met my end prematurely when a tree collapsed on the cabin, crushing me. I told them I then became a "shadow on the wall" and wandered around looking for new parents. I picked them because they "seemed nice" and "I went into mommy's tummy"!

Both of my parents were scientists, but in those days both also had an interest in "unexplained phenomena." My story was still detailed and striking enough to them that they called it quite "eerie" when recalling it some years later. They found it very difficult to believe that a child as young as myself would be able to create such an elaborate fantasy which involved many things about which I should have had little knowledge (child abuse, cancer) at that age.

I remember my mother had been reading some books on reincarnation around then. I would say it is quite likely that my story may have struck a chord, and more than likely I was encouraged (subconsciously or intentionally) to continue the tale based on this. The susceptibility of children to suggestion is well known (see any of the daycare ritual abuse hysteria trials of the 80's), and many elements which creep into these fantasies -- particularly the more ridiculous ones -- are ignored or re-interpreted by adults who may want to see the story as more than it is.

In my case, my story also included the fact that I was fed nothing but styrofoam for years -- that's what caused my illness! (I vividly remember the old McDonald's Big Mac containers...) I believe that is what probably convinced my parents that perhaps my story couldn't be taken at face value... ;)

Cuddles

8th August 2007, 03:33 AM

Choosing a case where the person got none of their information correct is obviously a weak case. How about you choose one where they got pretty much everything right? Perhaps if I have time on Thursday or Friday I will see if I can borrow the book again or search online for one of the stronger cases. That way I can give a full accurate case detail.

No. It's your argument that there are strong cases, so you provide an example.

Please read the posts next time. I do not appreciate having to post things two or more times.

Oh, the irony.

The_Animus

8th August 2007, 12:26 PM

Wow. The straw men are out in full force today.

That's a pretty incredible position to take. You've only read one book on the subject (which you also later admit you can't remember well enough to discuss in detail). Then you state that the evidence is overwhelming - but you're not willing to detail it but assume anyone who disagrees with you therefore can't be an expert and is not allowed to post!

So, roughly translated: 'I'm an expert and it's all true but I'm not going to share or justify my expertise...and actually I can't really remember the cases well enough to discuss them...but they were really convincing...and anyone who disagrees can't have read them (even if they have - indeed even if they have read more about it than me and can provide evidence, cite cases etc) and as such they shouldn't post.'

Is that your position? Do you see the inherent weaknesses in your argument?

Yes I did only read one book. I have, however, read other articles online as well as the criticisms of the book and various explanations for the cases. If we are going to debate a case, then obviously I shouldn't simply go off my memory of the details from the book because memory is not a video recorded tape. It does not offer 100% accurate playback. As such if I were to simply try to provide the case details as best recalled by my memory there could be some inaccuracies or mixing up of case details. This is why I stated I would prefer to wait until I have more time to provide all of the correct information for a case which I feel is strong.

It appeared many people who were posting on this didn't even know anything about the topic of this thread and simply chose to post liar or delusion without giving any explanation at all. If you don't know the subject material at all you shouldn't post here. While there are numerous people on these forums who are very intelligent, there are also many who seems to simply enjoy arguing or get angry very easily. As a result many threads turn into a war of personal attacks and 'who can make the most witty comeback without providing actual information'. I have no interest in this as it accomplishes nothing and only entrenches both sides in their previous beliefs regardless of new evidence or information.

So Ethan I would appreciate it if you stopped using straw men concerning my posts. I already stated I was more than willing to provide a case a little later in the week when I had more time.

Winterfrost - That is an interesting story. For reincarnation cases it is not whether the child has a memory that is important. It's whether those memories are accurate. So in your case you may have simply imagined it.

No. It's your argument that there are strong cases, so you provide an example.

I asked you to read posts more carefully. It appeared it was ignored. But I am patient, so I ask you again to please read more carefully.

Perhaps if I have time on Thursday or Friday I will see if I can borrow the book again or search online for one of the stronger cases. That way I can give a full accurate case detail.

As you can see I stated I would most likely provide this case. And I simply stated that using a case where all the memories are wrong is of no value in disproving reincarnation. There is nothing there to disprove because that isn't a valid case for reincarnation.

Hostility and straw men are not conductive to a free exchange of ideas. Please be calm and wait until I have more time available and can provide a case detail that I think is strong. Then we can discuss the details in a civilized and friendly manner.

More than likely I will post it as a new thread and I will post a link to that thread in here as well.

Winterfrost

8th August 2007, 01:01 PM

Winterfrost - That is an interesting story. For reincarnation cases it is not whether the child has a memory that is important. It's whether those memories are accurate. So in your case you may have simply imagined it.

I completely understand this. I guess the anecdote was more to say that even rational people, as I consider my parents to be, can be caught up in the "apparently" strange things and have that truly warp their perceptions of an event, and therefore the conclusions.

How are the memories determined to be "accurate?" If my story finished with, "And we went into the woods and found the remains of an old cabin," would you consider that to be validation that my "memories" must have been real? Is it possible that the children were being "led" in some way? We've all read many interesting anecdotes of the supernatural, but most seem to collapse independent corroboration or examination.

Hopefully you can borrow the book again and can write up some of the cases you found most compelling for further discussion on the forum!

RichardR

9th August 2007, 07:30 PM

Skeptic Guy

9th August 2007, 08:45 PM

Please read the posts next time. I do not appreciate having to post things two or more times. Choosing a case where the person got none of their information correct is obviously a weak case. How about you choose one where they got pretty much everything right? Perhaps if I have time on Thursday or Friday I will see if I can borrow the book again or search online for one of the stronger cases. That way I can give a full accurate case detail.

I hope that you have some time Friday to do some research on a compelling case or two. I've read through what I can find and haven't found anything that I could call "compelling".

(SNIP)
If we are going to debate a case, then obviously I shouldn't simply go off my memory of the details from the book because memory is not a video recorded tape. It does not offer 100% accurate playback. As such if I were to simply try to provide the case details as best recalled by my memory there could be some inaccuracies or mixing up of case details. This is why I stated I would prefer to wait until I have more time to provide all of the correct information for a case which I feel is strong.

Fair enough, I was thinking that if you felt this strongly that reincarnation was a real phenomenon, and had read enough about it to come to that conclusion, you could remember more specifics. But perhaps tomorrow.

It appeared many people who were posting on this didn't even know anything about the topic of this thread and simply chose to post liar or delusion without giving any explanation at all. If you don't know the subject material at all you shouldn't post here. While there are numerous people on these forums who are very intelligent, there are also many who seems to simply enjoy arguing or get angry very easily. As a result many threads turn into a war of personal attacks and 'who can make the most witty comeback without providing actual information'. I have no interest in this as it accomplishes nothing and only entrenches both sides in their previous beliefs regardless of new evidence or information.

(Bolding mine.) I think Cuddles explained where we are coming from here and that we are familiar with the subject material. I, for one, would like to know what you would consider a compelling case. Maybe I missed one.

(SNIP)

More than likely I will post it as a new thread and I will post a link to that thread in here as well.

Sounds good.

there are also many who seems to simply enjoy arguing or get angry very easily. As a result many threads turn into a war of personal attacks and 'who can make the most witty comeback without providing actual information'. I have no interest in this as it accomplishes nothing and only entrenches both sides in their previous beliefs regardless of new evidence or information.

Yeah, I hate when people do that.

Perhaps you can read the books that this topic are about? If you haven't read about any of the stronger cases why are you even joining this discussion?

The_Animus

10th August 2007, 02:32 PM

The book I wanted to look through was already checked out by someone else so I will be unable to provide the cases from it.

I agreed that I misunderstood and thanked cuddles for his explanation that it wasn't that they were uninformed but that they didn't believe the cases to be strong. What I said may have been a little harsh. It seemed from some of the posts that people were posting without any knowledge of the cases at all.

TV's Frank

10th August 2007, 06:21 PM

I am the reincarnation of Ian Stevenson. I have all his personal memories and can prove it: I remember making up that entire book, knowing that reincarnation is bunk!

...wait.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th January 2008, 05:58 PM

I received my copy of Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation today. I opened the book to a random case and read it.

It's the Brazilian case of Marta Lorenz. I noted the following:

Stevenson investigated this case 40 years after it happened.
The mother of Marta was a friend of Maria, the deceased woman who was supposedly reincarnated as Marta.
Marta's father kept a detailed diary of the case, but it was lost.

Next!

~~ Paul

devnull

17th January 2008, 07:31 PM

To suggest that we are used spirits in new bodies is an insult to our amazing uniqueness.

Im 34, and suffer from crohns, arthritis, and all sorts of other related stuff.

Sometimes I feel like a new spirit in a used body........ and that 85 year old man can have his frickin body back.....

CFLarsen

18th January 2008, 01:32 AM

m_huber

18th January 2008, 02:10 AM

When my brother was very young, he used to make comments to my father beginning with, "When I was the daddy and you were the son..." Does that mean that he was the reincarnation of my grandfather?

ExMinister

18th January 2008, 06:22 AM

During 20 some years in the New Age and even having conducted many past life regressions, I have, disappointingly, never once come across a case where evidence was given that was truly verifiable, or something that couldn't be known through normal means, although many people claimed their experiences "seemed so real." My own son talked of when he was a "doctor" in Mexico "when he was big," at age 2. He claimed my other son lived in China and was a "girl." Odd and seemingly out of the blue at the time, but not verifiable.

There is a big difference between the Western take on reincarnation and the Eastern, which involves transmigration of the soul into the form of animals, etc. In the West, the belief is that spirits have more than one chance at life on earth (as a human), the idea being that we are suppsed to be evolving into better more positive. loving humans who will no longer have to reincarnate once that goal is reached, and that in the meantime souls reside on the "other side," or in a spirit realm, so all souls are not on earth at any given time.

There doesn't seem to be much by way of solid, verifiable evidence for the existence of past lives, but the one exception, I thought, was Dr. Stevenson's book, which I read many years ago. At first glance it does seem impressive - one thing I found intriguing was the issue of birth marks that closely correspond with the person's manner of death. But a few months back I read Mary Roach's book "Spook," not exactly a scholarly tome but well written and thoughtful - she did a nice job with it, and in it she tells of going to India to work with a Dr. Rawat who worked with Stevenson in the 70s. She followed along on a typical investigation of a claim made by a certain family, and what she discovered was interesting. First, that most of the stories, by the time they reach the researchers, have been told numerous times to family and friends, possibly encouraging the children's stories to become more and more elaborate, as well as making it almost impossible to know what the original claims might have been. Second, there is a great willingness among these people to believe these stories and in general it is greeted enthusiastically and expectantly, giving the families an "excuse" to come together and party and share resources, etc. She said day to day life in these typically impoverished areas tends to be one of monotony, and her impression what that the child's supposed recognition of lost relatives had been exaggerated by the enthusiastic families who for a time have a claim to "neighborhood fame," something welcomed by whole neighborhoods. So there IS plenty of reason for the families to elaborate the claims, and the for the children to pretend or even play along. This is not to say that is always the case, but it does cast the phenomena in a slightly different light for me. :) Just a few thoughts.

Having posted here for awhile I'm sure my ability to think critically and skeptically is still in the earlier stages, although I've made great strides and appreciate the members of this forum for bearing with me.

I have not read the books by Richard R - I'm curious if his findings were similar.