There's a major discrepancy in the evidence for the afterlife that's always puzzled me. I don't claim to have the answer, but I thought I would throw out a highly speculative suggestion.
The discrepancy pertains to the always thorny issue of reincarnation. In most near-death experiences and in a great deal of channeled communications, reincarnation does not come up. Some alleged communicators have even gone so far as to state with certainty that reincarnation is a myth. Other communications received by mediums, however, say just the opposite. Moreover, past-life researchers who have hypnotized their subjects not only obtain detailed accounts of previous lives, but in some cases obtain descriptions of a life between lives in which the soul plans its next incarnation.
The inconsistency is most apparent in accounts of the soul's transition to the afterlife. If we listen to near-death experiencers and many purported spirit communicators, we hear that the soul arrives in the afterlife with no memory of any physical incarnation other than the most recent one. The afterlife environment, at least initially, is a place for rest and the casual enjoyment of arts, leisure, and learning. But if we listen to patients placed into deep hypnosis, we hear that the soul arrives in the afterlife with an immediate recall of many past lives. The soul is reunited with other souls that it knows from various earthly incarnations and from many interludes in the spirit world. Moreover, the soul almost immediately embarks on a training program to prepare itself for its next incarnation. Though there are some parallels between the two accounts, the differences are substantial and seemingly irreconcilable.
One obvious explanation is that at least one of these two bodies of evidence is not reliable. If I had to jettison one batch of afterlife accounts, I would choose the material obtained through hypnosis. Hypnotized subjects are notorious for their tendency to confabulate–in other words to invent fictional accounts–in order to satisfy the explicit or implicit demands of the hypnotist. Experiments in hypnotism performed in the late 19th century strongly suggest that a person's latent psi abilities may be greatly accentuated when under hypnosis; therefore, I would not rule out the possibility that the hypnotized subject is actually reading the hypnotist's mind and simply reiterating what it finds there, creating a kind of feedback loop or folie a deux. If this is the case, then the evidence from hypnosis studies may be of limited value. Meanwhile, the evidence of near-death experiences and mediumship in general strikes me as much more solid.
Still, there may possibly be a way of reconciling these two very different sets of accounts. Let's suppose that each type of account is valid, but that the accounts come from different sources. To put it plainly, what if the stories told by near-death experiencers and most mediumistic communicators originate with the ordinary soul, while the stories told by hypnotized subjects originate with the oversoul?
According to some mystical traditions, our earthly identity, which we might characterize as our soul, is only part of a larger, more comprehensive identity known as the oversoul or the higher self. This oversoul allows various aspects of itself to incarnate at different times and in different places in order to experience a variety of conditions in the physical world. The oversoul itself, while connected to the soul, remains distinct from it, much as a tree may be distinguished from a leaf on one of its branches. While the tree and the leaf may be seen as a single organism, they may also be seen as separate entities.
In this view, the individual soul does not reincarnate, since to do so would require losing the individual identity it had built up in its first (and only) incarnation. Instead, some other part of the oversoul undergoes the next incarnation, perhaps carrying with it some of the memories or karma acquired by the first soul in its earthly adventure. We might compare it to a relay race, in which the torch is passed from one runner to the next.
Now if there is any truth in this, we might perhaps see a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two versions of the afterlife. In most cases, near-death experiencers and mediumistic communicators are speaking from the point of view of the individual soul–for want of a better word, the undersoul. On the other hand, some of the higher channeled entities, as well as the entities that communicate when a subject is in deep hypnosis, represent the oversoul, and thus provide a different perspective.
From the perspective of the undersoul, individual identity does not change very much in the transition to the next life. There is no memory of any previous incarnation and no knowledge of any master plan. The main purpose of the afterlife, at least in its early stages, is to provide an opportunity for rest and recuperation, as well as for an assessment of lessons learned.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the oversoul, individual identity is largely dropped or at least minimized upon the transition back to the spirit world. Memories of all the incarnations of its constituents are immediately available to it, and it quickly embarks on developing a strategy for its next incarnation.
This distinction might help to clarify something rather odd about statements made by the hypnotized subjects, who often seem to distinguish between themselves and the person they were on earth. One such subject, for instance, said she felt that one of her earthly incarnations was a good learning experience for her and also worked out well for the person who served as her incarnation. It is rather strange to think of the soul viewing itself both as the incarnated person and as somehow outside the incarnated person at the same time; but this paradox might be resolved if we see it as the oversoul drawing a distinction between itself and one of its constituent undersouls.
In some channeled literature we are told that the soul–that is, the individual soul or undersoul–is eventually motivated to give up its life of leisure and to progress to higher dimensions of the spiritual plane. My hypothesis suggests that this advancement to higher dimensions consists of merging more and more fully with the oversoul, until eventually the distinction between oversoul and undersoul has been largely erased. Of course it is also possible that the oversoul itself may need to progress and merge with other over souls into some larger unity, and eventually, perhaps, into what we may call God itself.
One thing worth noting is that the level of profundity of near-death experiences seems to vary directly with the extent to which the subject is exposed to the so-called Being of Light. Some near-death experiencers do not encounter any Being of Light at all; others see the light but do not interact with it; still others establish a profound spiritual connection with the light. In my hypothesis, the Being of Light–which is sometimes characterized as Jesus or Buddha or some other religious figure–is actually the oversoul or higher self. (This idea is not original with me; Kenneth Ring suggests it in one of his books.) Possibly the more an NDEr interacts with or merges with the Being of Light, the more profoundly the experience affects him and the more closely he continues to identify with the oversoul, and to minimize the importance of the undersoul, even after returning to earthly life.
It is also possible that when we pray, our prayers are directed toward the oversoul; that so-called guardian angels and spirit guides are aspects of the oversoul; and that mystical “cosmic consciousness” experiences involve a direct, albeit brief, apprehension of the oversoul, or at least of a more substantial part of it than we usually can access.
As I say, this is only a speculative hypothesis. It seems to be broadly consistent with several different classes of evidence and with some important strains of mystical tradition. But when dealing with this kind of material, it's wise to add this caveat: everything I just wrote may be completely wrong.
"I've always had have a very strong attraction to 19th century Britain and Ireland, the architecture, the dress, the customs of the time."
Me too, Kathleen. A Masterpiece Theater junkie, all the way. (Big find last year: Katherine Cookson.)
And I too have often wondered if there's a past life connection. But no cool dreams like yours to point me in that direction.
Oh--I bet you'd like Lost in Austen. Magical, if you'd like to experience vicariously the thrill of stepping into Jane Austen's world.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 29, 2011 at 05:25 PM
I have memories of two other lives. The more recent one was someone I was able to track down and find out about. I did that years before my adult NDE. I remembered a life of someone with very similar interests to my own at that time. I was a landscape painter when I was in my early 20s. The woman whose life I remembered was also a landscape painter. She even looked a lot like me. Her style of painting was even similar.
It's possible I could have heard about her when I was young and that had a lasting influence on me. But when I see her work, I remember how it felt to do those paintings, much the same way I experience such memories when looking at my own work. No other artist's work has ever had quite that effect on me.
Posted by: Sandy | July 29, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Sandy said:
"I was a landscape painter when I was in my early 20s. The woman whose life I remembered was also a landscape painter."
Interesting, Sandy! Didn't know that about you. But then, you probably don't know that I'm a fanatic about paintings--it's one of my top 5 or so passions.
Who's the other painter? Any works of hers online? Or yours?
Also--that reminds me of one of the best books out there on reincarnation: Looking for Carroll Beckwith.
Do you know it? It's written by a man who began as an atheist and skeptic, and gradually became convinced that he had, in fact, been a somewhat obscure painter in a past life.
But what I love about the book is that the author is a police detective--Captain Robert L. Snow. He's published a few books on law enforcement. And his methodical, almost obsessive, detective work in tracking down his past life--he actually wanted to DISprove it at first--makes for a convincing case.
As I recall, he also remembers (like you) what it felt like to BE the other artist (Beckwith), and paint his paintings.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 29, 2011 at 06:27 PM
"I've always had have a very strong attraction to 19th century Britain"
Me three. That's one of the things that attracts me to the psychical research of that era rather than than modern parapsychology.
"Has anyone had any personal experiences of reincarnation themselves? "
I tried doing a past life self-hypnosis once. It was horrible. It involved an angry mob and flames. I stopped it almost immediately. I don't want to say anything more about it even anonymously. Unfortuantely I seem to be repeating it, actually forced into similar experiences (but not quite so bad ... yet) - repeatedly in this life. Ugh!
It makes no sense to me. If they wanted me to do something they ought to give me the characteristics needed to accomplish it rather than the characteristics that lead me to become victimized by it.
It's like your life plan says you have to learn to be a long distance runner but you're incarnated into a body with clubfoot. Seems sick, sick, sick to me.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 29, 2011 at 07:15 PM
I was an alien being on the planet Klakmos in the Delta Quadrant.
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 29, 2011 at 08:54 PM
Bruce, I'm a little uncomfortable about giving you her name, it's almost like giving out my own name online. She looks too much like me. We even share an unusual childhood nickname.
Posted by: Sandy | July 29, 2011 at 09:37 PM
Kathleen,
I had a dream where I looked over and saw a young boy dressed in a white tunic and sandals. He was standing on a dry dusty road in bright sunlight. I said to myself -'Oh that's me'. It could have been ancient Rome or Greece. Strange - as it was not like me at all in this life . For a start I'm not male!
I too am ambivalent about reincarnation although the "facet of a diamond" explanation does makes sense.
Posted by: Pearl | July 30, 2011 at 03:11 AM
Kathleen,
Yes, I remember 5 of my past lives back from this one and a few others out of order. At least, that is my perception.
Cheers,
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 30, 2011 at 04:08 AM
I remember quite clearly coming back to 'this earth' and being determined to overcome the failures or at least the fears of the previous 'ride.'
I have to be honest and say, I've failed again, after briefly facing up to a few things that scare me witless I've reverted back to the chicken liver type that dies a thousand deaths every week.
Maybe I was a chicken in a previous life, puck puck puck puck....erk !
Posted by: a coward | July 30, 2011 at 05:35 AM
This is great stuff and many of you are ahead of me in the study of this topic, but I want to my comment on this. No matter how little one understands about this, or if you've only read one book - spending time contemplating and discussing this is more worthy of your time than any sporting event or mass entertainment.
Posted by: Hans Wanker | July 30, 2011 at 05:46 AM
None of us really know what the truth about it is, Spirits on the Other Side seem really divided about Reincarnation.
If anyone wants to claim Channeled Material as factual information they can go ahead and do that but I still find it unrealiable and it is quite contradicting from different Sources that much of it is hard to buy into, We only will know the answers to these Questions when it is our time to cross over, Thats if there even is a Spirit World but I believe there is one.
Posted by: Dion | July 30, 2011 at 05:56 AM
But what advice do you have for a yellow bellied coward like me, Mr Wanker ?
Posted by: a coward | July 30, 2011 at 07:51 AM
The physical universe is a big big place. Why does reincarnation have to be limited to the Earth? There must be thousands of possible worlds in other galaxies where one could spend a lifetime or two?
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 30, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Art said:
"The physical universe is a big big place. Why does reincarnation have to be limited to the Earth? There must be thousands of possible worlds in other galaxies where one could spend a lifetime or two?"
It's a good question, Art. And to go a step further, if reincarnation is a fact (and I'm sure it is, in some form), then why don't people have memories of lives lived on other planets? There are lots of earth lives recalled, why not lives lived elsewhere?
Betty Eadie talks about visiting other worlds during her NDE, but not specifically about the possibility of reincarnating on them.
Michael or anybody: any thoughts about this?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 30, 2011 at 01:43 PM
To address the question that Art and I are asking about reincarnation into non-earthly environments, here's what Nanci Danison has to say. I don't take this as gospel truth, of course, but she does seem to be a keen observer, and I've found nothing in her NDE account that is at odds with with my own understanding or my most trusted sources.
Speaking of how "Light Beings" incarnate, she says:
"A light being may choose to experience one lifetime, or many lives, or no lives in the "flesh" as we say. It can choose to slow down part of its Energy and dwell in human form, or that of other species sprinkled throughout the universe.
Yes, humans are not the only ones we inhabit as souls, a truth that eluded me until I recaptured all my memories in the Light.
Beings can choose to retain a higher vibration and experience a discrete "lifetime" as a being that has no solid matter as we know it, on planets and planes of existence where all energy vibrates at a very high level.
It can choose to "stay Home" between lives, living and learning in community with others, or resting in the utter bliss of complete unity with Source and its quadrillions of reunited Sourcebeams. Thus, becoming human is a choice."
So, Art, considering all the options, is this a reincarnational scheme you can live with? :o)
She also addresses another fear that you (Art) and others have expressed this way: "If my destiny is to merge with Source, then what happens to my wish to maintain my individuality? Losing my individuality seems like death to me."
Talking about her experience of merging with her group of six eternal soulmates, she says:
"Just by shifting my attention I switched back and forth between the familiarity of the singular person I knew as myself and living as a collective being of six. There is nothing remotely like it in human experience."
Though she returned to the body just after that, her understanding is that the same dynamic applies when we complete the ultimate merger with ALL of the infinite beings that make up the Source.
So there it is. What do you all think?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 30, 2011 at 03:07 PM
eYdz3a http://ueNx8wqkk3Mnd.com
Posted by: crysty | July 30, 2011 at 03:30 PM
"So, Art, considering all the options, is this a reincarnational scheme you can live with? :o)" - Bruce
-------------
I prefer to leave out the part with all the pain, suffering, duality, and separation. I've had enough of that to last an eternity of lifetimes. I don't need no more pain!
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 30, 2011 at 03:48 PM
Art and Bruce - here is interestin point of veiw about reincarnation by Michael Tymn on his blog(you may have already read it):
http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/entry/the_enigma_of_reincarnation/
One point Michael makes there could be very related to Art's "Why does reincarnation have to be limited to the Earth?"
Michael states that there could be "terrestial" reincarnation and "celestial" one.I'm quoting Michael: "Thus, it may be that those mystics and spirits who have rejected reincarnation were rejecting it in the terrestrial sense but not in the celestial."
Posted by: Alexander1304 | July 30, 2011 at 04:01 PM
"The physical universe is a big big place. Why does reincarnation have to be limited to the Earth? There must be thousands of possible worlds in other galaxies where one could spend a lifetime or two?"
Who said it is limited to earth?
I've read in several different accounts that souls can and do incarnate in different worlds. Earth is supposedly one of the hardest schools. Other worlds are not quite so bad. For the most part a person will spend most of their lives on their "home" planet but might move on to a harder school as they develop.
Some humans have had past lives revealed as aliens visiting earth.
Intelligent "Physical" life exists in different dimensions, in different forms, and on different worlds - they are not all humanoid.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 30, 2011 at 04:58 PM
"So there it is. What do you all think?"
I am ok with that, but then i am no one. If I was Someone, I might have a problem with it.
Que sera, sera. All in due time.
Posted by: no one | July 30, 2011 at 06:18 PM
I came across a quote that might be relevant here. It comes from an article called "Who or what were those mysterious 'controls'?" by Michael Tymn. I'm not sure if Michael has published this article yet, but in it he discusses a communication purportedly from the deceased William Barrett, which was relayed to Barrett's widow by the medium Gladys Osborne Leonard.
The "Barrett" communicator said: "Consciousness only holds a certain number of memories at a time. When we pass over they join, make a complete mind that knows and remembers everything; but when one comes here to a sitting the limitation of the physical sphere affects one's mind, and only a portion of one's mind can function for the time being... I cannot come with and as my whole life, I cannot."
The quote is from p. 56 of "Personality Survives Death," by Florence Barrett (1937). I haven't read this book, BTW.
I don't take the quote "know and remember everything" to mean that the spirit becomes omniscient, but rather that it is aware of a much wider spectrum of knowledge than it can access in earthly conditions. This state of being may correspond to the oversoul, while the more limited self that comes through in a typical reading may perhaps correspond to the "undersoul."
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 30, 2011 at 06:26 PM
"Who said it is limited to earth?" - jshgfcre98ijyds
---------------------
Just for the record I don't believe in reincarnation and don't even like the idea of it and I'm being snarky just to be argumentative. I apologize. Ya'll go on ahead and knock yourselves out. Have fun with it. Probably doesn't matter what we believe anyway. I know lots of people who believe in reincarnation and really get off talking and reading about it. For some reason a lot of folks are in love with the idea of reincarnation. For the life of me I can't figure out why. It gives me the willys. I reiterate, I apologize for sneezing in ya'lls punch bowl.
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 30, 2011 at 07:57 PM
no one said:
"I am ok with that, but then i am no one. If I was Someone, I might have a problem . . ."
And all along I thought I was talking to Everyone.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 30, 2011 at 08:19 PM
"I don't take the quote "know and remember everything" to mean that the spirit becomes omniscient, but rather that it is aware of a much wider spectrum of knowledge than it can access in earthly conditions. This state of being may correspond to the oversoul, while the more limited self that comes through in a typical reading may perhaps correspond to the "undersoul."
I think you are correct, Michael. At least that is my take on it as well.
And, it seems to me, from the evidence we have, that the same individual facet of the oversoul (the undersoul) can and does reincarnate with its undersoul personality and memory - at least in some circumstances.
Posted by: no one | July 30, 2011 at 08:30 PM
I wonder what would happen if we did this: take the mediums with a good "hit" record in a study; say the University of Arizona program. Have them attempt to contact the past life personalities associated with children who are claimed to be reincarnated. I am thinking, for example, of the boy who is alleged to be the reincarnation of a WW2 pilot that was KIA in his plane (too late to bother finding the actual name - it's the concept that counts :-).
So we think we know who the boy was in the past life. We have a name. It would be interesting to see if the mediums could locate and communicate with the soul of the pilot. At simplistic face value, the medium should not be able to contact the soul. If they did, would it say, "Hey, stop. I have reincarnated as so and so, the little boy"?
That would be interesting, I think. It could actually be done.
Posted by: no one | July 30, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Art, please excuse me as I'm sure I am being way too presumptuous in making this comment, but just because you don't like the idea of something, in that it is merely unappealing to you in an aesthetic sense, doesn't make it less real.
Sometimes clarity, peace and healing come from accepting - even embracing - that which we don't like, but is real all the same.
Posted by: no one | July 30, 2011 at 09:16 PM
No one said:
" It would be interesting to see if the mediums could locate and communicate with the soul of the pilot. At simplistic face value, the medium should not be able to contact the soul."
Who exactly would be motivated to try that experiment? Seems to me it has the potential to make everyone look bad except for someone who doesn't believe in reincarnation.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 30, 2011 at 09:18 PM
No one,
I think that the mediums WOULD be able to contact that souls that have been reincarnated. It would quite wonderful to see what they have to say about their choice to reincarnate, however!
Matt
Posted by: Matt Rouge | July 30, 2011 at 09:29 PM
I have come to the conclusion that Reincarnation exists. Ons has to achieve a degree of spiritual enlightenment before fragments of one's previous lives are displayed for the individual. I know for example that I worked in a silver mine in Kutna Hora, the present Czech Republic during the 1300s when I, together with a number of my mates have been beheaded for rebellious behaviour. By the same token I was also shown to have had a large estate in England, which I happened to be visiting.
As far as I am concerned, Reincarnation not only exists but is an essential process of our spiritual development.
Posted by: Lou Bordas | July 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM
MP wrote: The quote is from p. 56 of "Personality Survives Death," by Florence Barrett (1937). I haven't read this book, BTW.
That quote is taken from a sitting with GOL on February 8th 1927.
I would strongly recommend reading the whole book.
Posted by: Zerdini | July 30, 2011 at 11:25 PM
I remember being Merlin at the court of King Arthur in my previous life. Before that I was a dark Sith lord in a far far galaxy. And nobody can prove me wrong with the kind of arguments you use in this debate. Are slupne capable of seeing why we need a sceptics?
Posted by: Sbu | July 31, 2011 at 02:26 AM
Sent from ny iPhone with screaming children in the background. Sorry for the spelling mistakes.
Posted by: Sbu | July 31, 2011 at 02:36 AM
I think I am with 'no one' on this. There seem to be lots of different views of the afterlife expressed by those who claim to know, and sometimes they appear contradictory.
If we assume that some are valid then it does tend to suggest that the problem is that we (and perhaps some of the ostensible communicators) don't have the full picture. If that is the case, it doesn't seem prudent to assert that the 'afterlife' (assuming there is one) is thus.
I guess 'not liking the idea' of reincarnation is irrelevant with respect to whether it is a fact or not. I suppose there are many things in life we don't like the look of until we try them - flying perhaps, or roller coasters - of course some still don't like them after trying. :)
I haven't read of a case of reincarnation that wasn't also explainable by some form of 'possession' or 'overshadowing' or some other interference (though in some cases it wouldn't be the simplest explanation). Having said that Silver Birch and others say that it does happen so who knows?
For myself, I'd settle for convincing personal evidence that the afterlife exists before I start worrying too much about how it works.
Posted by: Paul | July 31, 2011 at 04:49 AM
Rest assured Paul,a "convincing personal evidence" will in due course come to all of us, believe it or not.
Posted by: Lou Bordas | July 31, 2011 at 05:03 AM
Seeing as the comments of your last entry are closed, can we continue my dialogue on this post?
Posted by: Forbes | July 31, 2011 at 06:03 AM
Any convincing evidence of an Afterlife definetly won't come from the AWARE study that is certain and I think this experiment is set up to fail from scratch.
It will give the Skeptics a reason to say to the Believers, HA! see I told you so! maybe it's too soon to say but that is my own prediction for it. better to look at other evidence. Sam Parnia is a hard guy to read also, He's taking the middle ground it seems.
Posted by: Dion | July 31, 2011 at 06:50 AM
Bruce said; "Who exactly would be motivated to try that experiment? Seems to me it has the potential to make everyone look bad except for someone who doesn't believe in reincarnation."
Oh, there is absolutely the potential to make people look bad. However, I think that is true of any science where there are strongly opposed theoretical camps. Also, I do not think that such considerations should be criteria for deciding whether or not an experiment is conducted.
There is also potential for some people to come out of the experiment looking good, even like heros. Given a blind experiment on the medium's side, if the medium could not contact the previous personality in the afterlife, then, while not conclusive, one possible explanation is that the personality had indeed reincarnated and thus was not present on the other side. Better still, what if the medium received information from a control that stated the personality was not available precisely because it had reincarnated? The appex of success would be the control going farther to state not only reincarnation, but also the name or other salient details of the incarnate personality (like the little boy n the WW2 pilot case).
Actually, the only downside I see - interms of people looking bad - would be where the medium contacts the original personality and says that it has been hanging out in the spirit world since 1945 and it doesn't know anything about reincarnation. Then we would say that the little boy alleged to the reincarnation of the pilot was simply mistaken and some other - probably more normal - processes had been in force in this case. Not too devasting.
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 07:31 AM
matt said, "I think that the mediums WOULD be able to contact that souls that have been reincarnated. It would quite wonderful to see what they have to say about their choice to reincarnate, however!"
Yes. That is another possible outcome that should be added to what I wrote immediately above. It would, indeed, be interesting.
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 07:36 AM
maybe SBU would support my experimental concept :-0
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 07:40 AM
no one, The young boy you are referring to who remembers a Past Life as a WW2 Pilot, his name is James Leininger.
I can't think of anyone else it would be.
Posted by: Dion | July 31, 2011 at 07:44 AM
yep, that's the one. Thanks.
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 08:39 AM
Rest assured Paul,a "convincing personal evidence" will in due course come to all of us, believe it or not.
Thanks Lou - hopefully before I get a "convincing personal experience" :)
Posted by: Paul | July 31, 2011 at 08:52 AM
"I haven't read of a case of reincarnation that wasn't also explainable by some form of 'possession' or 'overshadowing' or some other interference (though in some cases it wouldn't be the simplest explanation)."
Reincarnation seems to be a better explanation when there is a birth mark at the site of a wound that occured the previous life. (see: Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_07_4_stevenson.pdf
Also reincarnation is a better explanation for the therapeutic value of past life regression. When you have repressed memories, making them conscious can help psychologically. Presumably if you are overshadowed, the other spirit already knows his past so regression therapy shouldn't have therapeutic effect if the phenomena was due to a second spirit.
Hypnosis however is used to treat overshadowing and in those cases the spirit identifies itself as a distinct entity currently existing and can be talked into leaving the patient. ( see "The Unquiet Dead" by Dr. Edith Fiore). Past life regression and spirit overshadowing are two distinct phenomena are have different characteristics.
In regression therapy, people say the same souls incarnate as close relatives or friends from life to life. Reincarnation is a better explanation for this than overshadowing.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 09:01 AM
Guess I wasn't paying attention when I typed up that quote from the allegedly discarnate William Barrett, because I left off the first sentence. Here's the full quote:
"In the earth body we have the separation of subconscious and conscious. Consciousness only holds a certain number of memories at a time. When we pass over they join, make a complete mind that knows and remembers everything; but when one comes here to a sitting the limitation of the physical sphere affects one's mind, and only a portion of one's mind can function for the time being... I cannot come with and as my whole life, I cannot."
By "subconscious," I suspect what is meant is both the subconscious and the superconscious, or what FWH Myers called "the subliminal self." This would correspond to the higher self or oversoul, more or less.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 31, 2011 at 09:14 AM
"matt said, "I think that the mediums WOULD be able to contact that souls that have been reincarnated. It would quite wonderful to see what they have to say about their choice to reincarnate, however!""
A while back I read a book about the medium leslie flint's communications from the spirit of rudoph valentino.
http://survivalebooks.org/#The%20Voice%20of%20Valentino
At one point a previous incarnation of valentino came through instead of valentino himself.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 09:22 AM
"Seeing as the comments of your last entry are closed, can we continue my dialogue on this post?"
Sure. I had to close the comments because I was getting too much X-rated spam.
"it has the potential to make everyone look bad except for someone who doesn't believe in reincarnation."
If we accept Karl Popper's view that falsifiability is key to the scientific method, then we have to be willing to perform experiments that may make us look bad. That said, if different facets of the oversoul incarnate each time, then we would still be able to contact the deceased person, even if some of his memories and "karma" had been carried over into the current incarnation.
"nobody can prove me wrong with the kind of arguments you use in this debate. Are [you] capable of seeing why we need ... sceptics?"
We do need skeptics, but in this case we're not trying to prove anything - just freely speculating.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 31, 2011 at 09:29 AM
"Sent from my iPhone with screaming children in the background."
And some people say there's no hell!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 31, 2011 at 09:31 AM
To me reincarnation is a controversial subject and I suspend the judjement.There apears to be anti-reincarnation book by spiritualist/magician James Webster "Case against reincarnation".Did anybody read it?
Posted by: Alexander1304 | July 31, 2011 at 10:38 AM
I'm disappointed so many simply rejects the findings of a 'negative' outcome of the AWARE study. This suggests to me that many aren't interested in the truth rather than being mislead by imagination.
Fact is that NDEs are a very hyped phenomena with many many people putting high stakes on that this particular phenomena proves the after life. Everything that's popular unavoidable becomes subject for people looking for easy money, fraud, people imaging things, hallucitions etc.
The AWARE study will 1) Hopefully prove veridical perception during the NDEs 2) Cancel out some of the myths about this phenomena if 1 isn't successfull.
To me the truth is important not what I would really like to be real which seems to be the starting point for some deabatters.
Posted by: sbu | July 31, 2011 at 12:45 PM
"we have to be willing to perform experiments that may make us look bad. "
I agree. I was just looking at the reality of it and saying that I can't see who would be eager to try an experiment like that, at least publicly.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 31, 2011 at 12:55 PM
"Also, I do not think that such considerations should be criteria for deciding whether or not an experiment is conducted."
No one, I just noticed that you, like Michael, also came down on me for that. I had no idea that my thoughts about the realities of experimenters' motivations would be so controversial. :o)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 31, 2011 at 01:09 PM
"I wonder what would happen if we did this: take the mediums with a good "hit" record in a study; say the University of Arizona program. Have them attempt to contact the past life personalities associated with children who are claimed to be reincarnated."
This would be interesting, and you might be able to get some informal results that suggest an answer but I don't think it would be practical or even possible to to get a result that would stand up to scientific criticism, even if the critizing scientists were parapsychologists who favor survival.
Proving the identity of a spirit is really very hard. You need the spirit to tell you something that you can verify that was known to them in life but not known by the medium.
This is not too hard for people who have died recently where there are living people who might be able to say one fact or another was known to the spirit and not the medium.
However, proving the identity of someone who died long ago is much harder, it might require looking up government records on births, marraiges, deaths etc because there is no living person who knows enough about the person to identify them.
Also, I don't think the Arizona mediums are good enough. I think you would need trance mediums or automatic writing mediums. There are not a lot of those around.
Even so, the biggest problem is that it is not really possible to prove with 100% certainty that a spirit is who they say they are. Spirits are psychic, they have information that is not available to us, they can can read the minds of the sitters attending the medium, so it is easy for them to impersonate another spirit.
You also have to make sure the medium doesn't know what the experiment is or their bias could influence the results. This is the reason mainstream science experiments are done as double blind experiments.
But since spirits are psychic, I don't think you can really do a blind experiment. You can't hide information from sprits. You can prove the medium is psychic, but you can't prove who the spirit is.
You could try to set up a proxy sitting where the sitter represents someone who wants to communicate with the spirit of the child's past life, although the sitter doesn't know it. Then you have to get enough information through the medium to prove she is communicating with the exact person the child claiming reincarnation says it was. And then you still don't really know where the spirit got the information from. It could be from the mind of the true sitter, the mind of the child, through clairvoyance by the spirit, or from the spirit's actual incarnation as the past life of the child.
Also mediums don't decide which spirits communicate with them. It is the spirits who decide. So, if you set up an experiment you have to hope the spirits want to participate too.
Furthermore it is said that spirits move on to other activities in the spirit plane and so they might be too busy to participate. If they are advanced spirits, it is said that such spirits may not be able to come back to the earth plane to communicate with a medium.
So, it is an interesting idea, but it would not be easy to do especially if you wanted to do it in a scientific manner. A negative result wouldn't tell you anything because there are so many reasons it could fail, and a positive result would not be conclusive because you can't really prove the identity of a spirit.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 01:52 PM
@jshgfcre98ijyds - playing Devil's advocate..
Reincarnation seems to be a better explanation when there is a birth mark at the site of a wound that occurred the previous life. I agree that is one explanation of such markings. I recall that that there are other instances where physical changes are manifest during possession for example so whilst I would agree it is definitely one explanation, I am not sure it is the only explanation (not that you suggested that), or even the most likely.
Also reincarnation is a better explanation for the therapeutic value of past life regression. - this one I am less convinced by, though this may simply be down to my own ignorance.
Establishing whether such recovered memories are even true seems to be something of a difficulty in many cases. The human imagination being as powerful as it can be, is it not also possible that such experiences are therapeutic whether they are actually historically true or not? I sometimes wonder whether such memories might be memories of some attached or obssessing spirit (assuming this is possible of course), and are simply interepreted by the hypnosis subject as belonging to themselves, when in fact they do not.
We are sometimes told that 'like attracts like' from a spiritual perspective - if that is true is it not possible that the state of mind or issues experienced by the hypnosis subject attract the attention of spirit people afflicted by the same problems?
...end of Devil's Advocacy...
From a personal perspective; if one accepts that we survive physical death in some way, and that communicators such as Silver Birch are genuine, then there seems to me to be little doubt that reincarnation does occur. My own, perhaps limited reading of Silver Birch, suggests though that such reincarnations are not automatic and do not occur a short time after physical death.
Posted by: Paul | July 31, 2011 at 02:10 PM
"I agree. I was just looking at the reality of it and saying that I can't see who would be eager to try an experiment like that, at least publicly."
You don't need the permission of a medium. Ideally the medium should not even know the details of the experiment. Being ignorant of that would prevent her bias from influencing the results.
You just need to 1) get permission from the medium to allow a proxy sitting and 2) get someone to organize the proxy sitting and research the information coming from the medium to see if it identifies the past life of the child.
But as I said in my previous post a negative result is meaningless because the experiment can fail for many reasons. If the medium told the proxy sitter everything the child said about the past life, that would be encouraging. But it doesn't really prove with 100% certainty the information is coming from the spirit you are looking for.
Also you would need to be able to tell if the medium was communicating with the soul or the oversoul. I'm not sure a mental medium would be able to make that distinction. A trance medium or a automatic writing medium might.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 02:17 PM
"research the information coming from the medium to see if it identifies the past life of the child."
Acutally you would need separate person to do this and you would have to set up a way for them to do it blind - like choosing one of several profiles from a group based on the information that comes from the medium. And you'd have to do this several times - using different people to get a statistically significant result.
You could easily set up a proxy sitting and if you got a positive result it would be very interesting, but to go from interesting to proven is a lot of work and not guranteed to be possible.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 02:24 PM
"I recall that that there are other instances where physical changes are manifest during possession for example so whilst I would agree it is definitely one explanation, I am not sure it is the only explanation (not that you suggested that), or even the most likely." - Paul
--------------------------------------------
According to Dr. Fred Alan Wolf PhD physicist in his book The Spiritual Universe "thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality." It's what the book The Secret it about. Matter is an epiphenomena of consciousness, or consciousness is primary and matter is secondary.
In Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe he's got pictures of people who have stigmata who go so far as producing horn like nails in their hands during stigmata. It looks like nails!
I'm not saying I don't believe the evidence for reincarnation is real. I think it is. I just think that it could be just "tuning into" the collective consciousness, some child that hasn't developed their own sense of "self" tuning into someone else's station or memories. And it may be that just tuning into those memories might be enough for that child to manifest some of the physical similarities with the story they are tuning into.
What we call reincarnation is just a word - a story we have made up to explain something that we don't fully understand. If our universe is made of consciousness, and if consciousness is actually a single entity, what we call reincarnation may be just the sharing of stories. In a holographic piece of film all the information is infinitely interconnected, each piece contains the whole, and nothing is separate from anything else. That is what that woman who had an NDE meant when she said "we here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend the oneness of heaven."
Posted by: Art Riechert | July 31, 2011 at 03:32 PM
I strongly dislike the idea of an oversoul for at least six reasons. The idea of an oversoul as I understand it is basically like a lot of souls glued to an octopus with thousands of arms and one of these souls incarnates at a time, and instead of reincarnation a completely different soul comes to earth while the one that just finished its time here chills out with the rest of the octopus forever.
What I don't like about this is:
1. If I want to reincarnate I can't. I have to be this same little ego forever (or until I merge with the other souls in the group). I don't get to play at creating a new persona and meet new people here, I have to just hang out over there, being the same small ego, getting very bored in the process, and never being able to help people on earth again.
2. There is no such thing as justice. I am sent here to suffer for something someone else did. It does not matter if our souls are connected, we're still fundamentally different people and I'm being punished for something I didn't do. This makes the oversoul an ass for punishing the innocent me.
3. Similarly, someone else will have to be punished by being sent to the earth for something I did. This makes me an ass for not being perfect so the oversoul (which is already an ass as of #2) is forced to send someone else down.
4. It is gross and inelegant. Instead of one entity reincarnating there is a whole complicated system of souls tied together somehow by some means no one from the other side can explain (or chooses to explain).
5. There is no such thing as personal responsibility. I will never have to come back here to face the consequences of my actions, someone else will. This is a big advantage to sadists. They can just be as bad as they want and some other poor sap will have to suffer a terrible life on earth as a consequence while they look on in enjoyment.
6. Enlightened people here who remember their all their past lives are wrong and unenlightened people on the other side (dying does not make someone omniscient) who propose this complex system are. On the flip side, enlightened people here can teach us how to eliminate suffering and unenlightened people on the other side cannot, so who am I going to believe, a great sage here who gives me loads of practical wisdom gained through walking the walk or a medium who is possibly channeling a low level entity who may be making the whole thing up about what does and does not reincarnate?
I suppose I could accept a system where I reincarnate (my awareness) but my old little insentient ego personality stays behind and can talk to mediums, and on earth I create a new ego personality and when I come back to spirit I can access all my personalities because they're like different bags of clothes. In this sense the insentient ego personalities are like the little souls and my awareness is the "oversoul." I can accept this because it's almost exactly the same thing that happens during dreams. I create a new identity in the dream world but when I wake up I'm still me even though the old false identity has "died" upon waking. When I go back to sleep I "reincarnate" and create a new false dream identity just as I might do when I come back to earth.
The way I see it, we do reincarnate (our awareness and some persistent aspects of our personality), but it usually takes a few centuries between incarnations. Most people will be willing to wait around to greet their grandchildren when they cross over, but I can't see most people waiting around for their great great grandchildren who they never knew on earth. The ancient Hindu and Buddhist idea is that we stay over in spirit as long as our good karma lasts, which can take centuries (Yogananda says the average person will spend between 500-1000 years between incarnations, but he himself will reincarnate in only 200 years to help more people here). I suspect karma might also work like getting bored. After a few centuries of wishing things into existence it might be fun to have to struggle for a few decades, knowing that nothing can really hurt you.
I personally, as a little boy, did remember bits and pieces from a past life, but no one believed me so I never got to explore just how much I knew and have since forgotten everything. I personally would like to come back to earth to do more things here, and not just sit back in perfection and watch someone else do it for me. I personally find the idea of an oversoul to be disgusting, aesthetically and morally. Just because I don't like something does not mean it does not exist, and if the oversoul idea is real then it's hard cheese for me and I'll learn to deal with it in the vast aeons I will have over there stuck being me, but if I had my choice I will stick with what is simple.
Posted by: Enoch | July 31, 2011 at 05:25 PM
"No one, I just noticed that you, like Michael, also came down on me for that. I had no idea that my thoughts about the realities of experimenters' motivations would be so controversial. :o)"
Just playing the idealist to your realist.
I think all parties should be blind except the ultimate experimenter. Then they won't won't succumb to your most likely accurate assessment.
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 05:47 PM
"No one, I just noticed that you, like Michael, also came down on me for that. I had no idea that my thoughts about the realities of experimenters' motivations would be so controversial. :o)"
Just playing the idealist to your realist.
I think all parties should be blind except the ultimate experimenter. Then they won't won't succumb to your most likely accurate assessment.
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 05:47 PM
a shorter Enoch, " I don't want to be in an octopus' garden......."
;-)
Posted by: no one | July 31, 2011 at 06:11 PM
no one said:
"Just playing the idealist to your realist."
I know. It's our usual Sunday night good cop/bad cop routine. :o)
Wait a minute. After writing that, I just realized that you're calling YOURSELF the idealist. That's the role *I* like to play!
"I don't want to be in an octopus' garden.."
That's because you don't know how delightful octopus's gardens can be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn_iv4HfrLQ
(My student.)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 31, 2011 at 09:21 PM
jshgfcre98ijyds said:
"Also reincarnation is a better explanation for the therapeutic value of past life regression. When you have repressed memories, making them conscious can help psychologically."
Excellent point. If you read Fiore, Woolger, Weiss, or Carole Bowman, it's hard not to be struck by the apparent healing power of uncovering and reliving past life memories.
"In regression therapy, people say the same souls incarnate as close relatives or friends from life to life. Reincarnation is a better explanation for this than overshadowing."
Another good point. Do you know Carol Bowman's book Return From Heaven? One of my very favorite books, and its focus is entirely on reincarnation within the same family.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 31, 2011 at 09:30 PM
This book is interesting and worthy of study:
“Beyond Human Personality” being a detailed description of the Future life purporting to be communicated by the late F. W. H. Myers [Frederic William Henry Myers, 1843-1901]
Containing an account of the gradual development of human personality into cosmic personality - through GERALDINE CUMMINS (Automatic writing medium)
Posted by: zerdini | July 31, 2011 at 09:56 PM
“Beyond Human Personality”
This is a great book. The section on reincarnation explains pseudo-skeptics:
http://www.trans4mind.com/spiritual/cummins/cummins2.html
"Actually, such men as tyrants and inquisitors often reincarnate as idiots or imbeciles."
The section on reincarnation makes sense out of a lot of what we have been discussing. Individual souls reincarnate and they also benefit from the incarnations of their soul group.
"But the majority of people only reincarnate two, three or four times. Though if they have some human purpose or plan to achieve they may return as many as eight or nine times. "
"It is not necessary for us to return to earth to gather into our granary this manifold variety of life and knowledge. We can reap, bind and bring much of it home by participating in the life of our group-soul. Many belong to it and these may spread themselves in their journeys over past, present and future. "
"You will recognize how greatly power of will, mind and perception can be increased through your entry into the larger self. You continue to preserve your identity and your fundamental individuality. But you develop immensely in character and in spiritual force. "
"This existence within the memories of others is a form of experience scarcely understood by human beings. The soul resembles a spectator caught within the spell of some drama, that is strange to its actual life. It does not therefore, suffer or indeed thrill with the joy that direct physical experience would offer it of such a period in time. It perceives, however, all the consequences of acts, moods, thoughts in detail in this life of a kindred soul ..."
"A soul that, for the first time, enters a material body is, usually, related spiritually to some member of its Group and, so close is its relationship, it may take on the karma of the older soul. "
"Souls are centers of imagination, but some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator, so the spirit of the Group realizing that they are unworthy and unable to attain to immortality, condemns them to disintegration."
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | July 31, 2011 at 11:32 PM
"Souls are centers of imagination"
"Souls" is the better term - discarnates don't use the Freudian term "ego". In any case, an ego doesn't develop until the age of 2. It's not an inborn thing.
Posted by: Barbara | August 01, 2011 at 12:25 AM
""Souls are centers of imagination, but some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator, so the spirit of the Group realizing that they are unworthy and unable to attain to immortality, condemns them to disintegration."
A soul condemned to disintegration? What exactly does that mean? Actual death for some souls? How does this feel to the soul who's being disintegrated?
This is a new one to me. Sounds like some bad plot device from a sci-fi movie.
If souls are split-off pieces of The One, does this mean part of The One is destroyed?
The phrase "unable to attain to immortality" doesn't make sense to me. Immortality, in my understanding, is not something that has to be earned. It's a quality inherent in all spiritual beings.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 01, 2011 at 01:12 AM
I have to say, the notion of condemning a soul to disintegration doesn't tie in with other sources that I'm aware of. Sounds like it might be a distortion coming from the mind of the channeler.
Unless disintegration implies a sort of recycling of a soul's energy to remove its "impurities"--whatever that might mean.
What do you all think?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 01, 2011 at 01:28 AM
There are beliefs that surround the existence of an afterlife, not theories. Theories are based upon observable evidence and can be tested to the point where they lose validity. Beliefs are based upon human needs, in this case the need to feel that we cannot cease to exist. As we cannot avoid seeing and experiencing death all around us, we choose to believe that it can be overcome by means of moving to another plane of existence, and therefore we cheat death. All faiths and systems of religion are founded by human beings - can anyone name a religious belief that has not sprung from human experience(however it is claimed to be informed by some God or other)? Can anyone produce credible evidence of Creation that does not have to be interpreted in accordance with some 'religious' text or other? Rational human beings can conclude that there has been no hard evidence produced that can be verified by independent witnesses(which means non-believers) of any kind of conscious existence after death.
Posted by: Dreamer | August 01, 2011 at 01:36 AM
"Rational human beings can conclude that there has been no hard evidence produced that can be verified by independent witnesses(which means non-believers) of any kind of conscious existence after death."
Dreamer -
This is quite the "no true scottsman" argument. There is ample evidence and many highly qualified and well credentield scientists ackowledge that the evidence points to survival of consciousness. However, I suppose that by accepting the evidence the scientist becomes a "believer" and, as a believer, is now considered to be no longer rational. Or, converesly, the only rational choice is to not believe.
Sorry, Dreamer, but most of us here have actually studied a good portion of the volumes of eividence and found some of it to be compelling. Perhaps you could share with us some specifics within the breadth of your studies that have led you to your conclusions? That would be far more interesting than sweeping statements.
On this thread we are being purely speculative. You are right that we are, at best, developing theories based on our beliefs. There are many other threads where we are far less speculative and deal with hard evidence in a very rational manner. Maybe you would enjoy perusing this blog and reading some of these threads? I have to tell you that your skeptical "non-believers" usually come out of those discussions looking very silly and irrational in their attempts to explain certain events as anything other than evidence of survival. Sometimes your allies are down right dishonest in their attempts to "win" a debate; which to me speaks to a need to irrationally defend a belief; albeit it one belonging to a very different world view tha ours.
Finally, Dreamer, there is so much in human life that defies rationality, but makes life worth living. For example Love. Where would we be without the belief in Love?
Ultimately, your complete reliance on "rationality" and "science" is also part of a belief system. You probably believe that rationality will ever progress us to higher quality of life, but will it? That is an unexamined proposition. The same science that brought us the refrigerator and the polio vaccine has also produced nuclear arsenals and - according to some scientists - global warming.
Posted by: no one | August 01, 2011 at 04:44 AM
"Unless disintegration implies a sort of recycling of a soul's energy to remove its "impurities"--whatever that might mean.
What do you all think? "
Hmmmm......like a cosmic delete button. The data (the soul) is reduced to disconnected 1s and 0s on the magnetic hard drive of life. I guess it could happen. How would it feel? Not too good, I imagine. probably like the athiest's concept of death.
Posted by: no one | August 01, 2011 at 04:49 AM
"Souls are centers of imagination, but some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator, so the spirit of the Group realizing that they are unworthy and unable to attain to immortality, condemns them to disintegration."
OK, that's a little hardcore for me. :)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 01, 2011 at 05:30 AM
Sorry, Dreamer, but most of us here have actually studied a good portion of the volumes of eividence and found some of it to be compelling. Perhaps you could share with us some specifics within the breadth of your studies that have led you to your conclusions?
Your evidence isn't repeatable. That's the problem. Whenever a so called medium is put to test - suddenly he looses contact with the spirits. It's the same over and over.
Posted by: Dreamer | August 01, 2011 at 08:22 AM
Sorry for intruding, i was just wondering does Kris Key still comment here, i would like to show this to him, i wrote to Richard Carrier asking him about the Transmission Theory and this is what Richard Carrier ( Keith Augustines buddy ) replied :
Greetings!
Unfortunately there is no natural hope for immortality--our only hope is technology (we need some machine to store and maintain consciousness, whether it's a brain or a computer).
Keith Augustine's critique is already spot on (it's linked at the end). Carter's rebuttle is illogical and misses Augustine's point at every step, e.g. when he addresses the animals problem Carter says "matter is not what produces consciousness but what limits it and confines its intensity within certain limits" but that means that animals are fully conscious humans, they just aren't realizing it because of their limited brains--but that means without the brain, there is no consciousness at all, so his broadcast theory can't even produce life after death. That is, if the transmitter is conscious without the brain, then the brain cannot limit it except in this world, whereas in whatever other world the transmitter is in the animal has full human consciousness, so animals are fully conscious humans--somewhere else--which is a tall claim with no evidence to back it (and wholly implausible, since why do animals need bodies in this world if they can't realize their consciousness in them?)--whereas if the transmitter is not fully conscious because it is limited by the brain, then we will not be conscious when our brains are dead, either, because then our brains will have been reduced to organs more limiting than even animal brains. In other words, no receiver, no signal. No signal, no consciousness. The broadcast theory thus cannot establish life after death any more than we can listen to a radio station without a radio. In a similar fashion Carter keeps misunderstanding what Augustine is arguing.
My own observations are these.
The speculative half of Carter's essay is only hypothesis formation. The hypothesis then has to be tested, and he's proposed no way to test it. That kills it right there. You can't say a hypothesis is true when it hasn't even been tested, not even once, and you don't even know how to test it, and don't even have any plans to test it.
Moreover, hypotheses are extremely improbable unless based on known structures (i.e. most hypotheses by far are false; only hypotheses based on known structures are less likely to be false than just any hypothesis we make up). His hypothesis is not based on any known structure--it doesn't even correspond to any established physics, e.g. are photons the broadcast medium and if not what is?; where is the transmitter, what is it made of, and can *it* be damaged or die?; when did transmitters come to exist and why do they exist and do animals have them, too? etc.
And parsimony applies, as he admits. You are information. That information has to be stored somewhere and its organization maintained, and it has to be able to change (as you learn things) but remain stable (so the things you learn stay learned). The broadcast theory makes no sense of this. All the evidence proves the brain is all that's needed to store this information (see my chapter on this in Sense and Goodness without God), such that when it's damaged, the information contained there is lost (and conversely when it learns something, the brain is physically reorganized accordingly). And when it ceases functioning, you cease functioning (e.g. when your brain loses blood, your consciousness stops). There is no need to posit a broadcast theory for any of this any more than phlogiston theory or demonic possession theory. The known facts already are sufficient to explain all observations and indeed do so extremely well.
Because all three flaws attend to his hypothesis, it's just a bad hypothesis. We call that lousy science.
The last half is about evidence, and unfortunately all that evidence is bogus. Spirit mediums have been thoroughly debunked. Psi has never been reproduced in a lab--many flawed experiments have suggested an extremely weak psi effect, but when the flaws are corrected, the effect always goes away (in fact, that the effect is always extremely weak is exactly what is expected if these observations are statistical artifacts, whereas any real psi should be strongly observed, not on the edges of statistical noise). And on the bogus evidence of NDEs, see Keith Augustine's extensive study at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html . For more see Victor Stenger's chapter in The End of Christianity.
I'm afraid there is only one way to survive death: store the information encoded in your brain somehow and reanimate it in another medium later (like a computer or a rebuilt brain). At present, our ability to do that is limited.
Can someone please point out Dr.Carriers mistakes and errors.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: God is a Blind Watchmaker | August 01, 2011 at 08:25 AM
"Ultimately, your complete reliance on "rationality" and "science" is also part of a belief system."
Nicely argued comment, no one!
"OK, that's a little hardcore for me. :)"
Matt, I agree. I do a lot of metaphysical reading (as do we all here), and I rarely come upon claims that souls can die. Though I have seen such a claim, at least once or twice. I wish I could remember the source.
"Souls are centers of imagination, but some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator, so the spirit of the Group realizing that they are unworthy and unable to attain to immortality, condemns them to disintegration."
It's a statement that's jarring, atypical, and hard to reconcile for a few reasons.
One is the notion that "some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator". And that's because it's my understanding that souls BEGIN in the mind of the Creator. That we are, in a sense, God's dream.
And then, as the consensus agrees, the soul forgets, more and more, that it is, in fact, a part of God. The soul develops amnesia about its true nature, so that it can enjoy the thrill of ultimately recovering its beautiful truth once again.
But in all this, does the soul ever actually LEAVE the "mind of the Creator," as that statement from Beyond Human Personality implies? I don't know. And even if it did, could it ever be unable to RETURN to God?
Again--it's not a claim that I can pin down to any source that I know, much less one that I trust.
Also atypical about the BYP statement is the idea of condemnation or judgement. Over and over, from NDErs (and I suppose channeled material, though I have less familiarity with those sources), we read that spiritual beings do NOT judge and do NOT condemn.
Yet this excerpt from BYP says the "spirit of the Group" can deem a soul to be unworthy of continued existence. Not the usual insight from spiritual commentators, to say the least.
And finally, for completeness, I'll just paste what I said earlier:
The phrase "unable to attain to immortality" doesn't make sense to me. Immortality, in my understanding, is not something that has to be earned. It's a quality inherent in all spiritual beings.
So, as you may have guessed from my tone, I don't care much for the notion of soul death. :o) And I'm making a point of showing what an uncommon claim it is (though, as I've said, I have seen it at least once or twice before).
Now--whether it's TRUE or not is an entirely different matter! I'm certainly not saying that soul disintegration is false simply because I don't like it.
But as claims go, it is an outlier.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 01, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Spirit mediums have been thoroughly debunked. LMAO
Dr Evil: Riiiiigggggght.
Posted by: Paul | August 01, 2011 at 09:47 AM
The actual quote is as follows:
"Souls are centers of imagination, but some are unable to enter the mind of the Creator, so the spirit of the Group realizing that they are unworthy and unable to attain to immortality, condemns them to disintegration. That is why I called my first book "The Road to Immortality" and not "The Road of Immortality", because some fall by the way: but nothing is wasted, nothing lost. Though the soul has been disintegrated its memories and experiences are retained by the group-soul and are of value to the members of that community."
Posted by: zerdini | August 01, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Myers also said:
“I do not write as one having authority. This little sketch of the soul's journey in relation to earth, is written out of my own experience and knowledge. It cannot, by any means, be said to be the last word on the subject. I am prepared to admit errors if I meet any souls of a wider experience than mine who can demonstrate effectively and beyond a doubt that the transcendental materialism of the early Theosophists is a sound and true doctrine, that the recurring cycle of births and deaths for one soul, goes on and on through many centuries, perhaps for a very long time.”
Posted by: zerdini | August 01, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Myers also added:
"There is no set law concerning reincarnation. At a certain point in its progress, the soul reflects, weighs and considers the facts of its own nature in conjunction with its past life on earth. If you are primitive, this meditation is made more through instinct&emdash;a kind of emotional thought&emdash;that stirs up the depths of your being. Then the spirit helps you to choose your future. You have complete free will but your spirit indicates the path you should follow and you frequently obey that indication.
"Bear in mind that the power behind each human being is imagination. It preserves the past in the form of memory, and unless temporarily fixed in a mould of its own making, is creating in the present, adding to itself, taking away from itself."
Posted by: zerdini | August 01, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Zerdini quoted:
"Though the soul has been disintegrated its memories and experiences are retained by the group-soul and are of value to the members of that community."
Thanks for posting that Zerdini. Though that addendum strikes me as similar to the common atheist refrain that although we die, we live on in the hearts and minds of those who knew us.
Pretty weak tea for my taste.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 01, 2011 at 11:08 AM
It is usually a waste of time to try to get someone to change their mind by debating them.
All that is necessary for someone to maintain their beliefs in the face of contrary arguments is a possible hypothesis consistent with the data.
However, to change someone's beliefs and convince them your position is correct, you have to disprove all their hypotheses.
How are you going to disprove every hypothesis they can come up with? They will just say "what if xyz", and then you have to do research and/or provide references to disprove it. It is an asymetric conflict.
If someone is truly interested learning about the subject they will not be debating you on the internet, and they will not be studying exclusively the works of those who's beliefs they share.
If someone is truly interested in learning about the subject they will be studying the written works of those who have done the research on the subject.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 01, 2011 at 11:36 AM
"Whenever a so called medium is put to test - suddenly he looses contact with the spirits. It's the same over and over."
It's clear you've done little reading in this area. Mediums like Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborne Leonard, and Eileen Garrett were tested under controlled conditions for years with consistently excellent results. Modern tests conducted by Gary Schwartz, Julie Beischel, and Patricia Robertson and Archie Roy have obtained good evidence also.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 01, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Can someone please point out Dr.Carriers mistakes and errors. I think he sums it up pretty well except for the hypothesis that the brain can be reduced to a conventional computer. That's certainly wrong. Otherwise honestly - Have you ever yourself met someone who convincingly could talk to the spirits? No I assume. But I bet you still have a hope someone else can - a human desire for someone else to profit on.
Posted by: sbu | August 01, 2011 at 12:34 PM
God Is A Blind Watchmaker, I'm afraid you don't understand the transmission theory at all. And it's incorrect that Carter supplies no way to test his hypotheses. He's written a whole book on the subject of empirical testing of afterlife claims, and has another on the way.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 01, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Whoops, I misunderstood. It was Dr. Carrier you were quoting there. Well, anyway, he doesn't understand the transmission theory. The idea is not that there is no distinction between animal souls and human souls, or indeed between one human soul and another. The idea is simply that the total range of our consciousness is restricted by the limitations of the brain.
This is not a hard thing to grasp, so I have to assume that those who profess not to understand it are being deliberately obtuse.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 01, 2011 at 12:43 PM
"Otherwise honestly - Have you ever yourself met someone who convincingly could talk to the spirits? No I assume. "
I have. I went in skeptical and came out convinced.
I believe our friend here, Zerdini, has had ample experience witnessing communication with souls.
Posted by: no one | August 01, 2011 at 01:45 PM
I believe our friend here, Zerdini, has had ample experience witnessing communication with souls.
So he says...
Posted by: sbu | August 01, 2011 at 02:07 PM
So he says... - you can say that about just about anything anyone else reports that you haven't witnessed yourself.
Posted by: Paul | August 01, 2011 at 02:22 PM
Michael(and others) - can you say something about reasons Enoch put above explaining why he strongly dislikes Oversoul concept?But isn't his opinion just speculation,and not nescesseraly reflection of how Oversoul really works?If we accept Oversoul hypothesis,it seems to be complex one,and is expected to be designed so that no soul will surrer without the reason.Thank you
Posted by: Alexander1304 | August 01, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Sbu wrote:
"I believe our friend here, Zerdini, has had ample experience witnessing communication with souls.
So he says..."
....Indeed I do
And, what's more I tape recorded the conversations ......
Posted by: zerdini | August 01, 2011 at 04:46 PM
SBU, "....a human desire for someone else to profit on."
This is an interesting addition to the larger comment,
"That's certainly wrong. Otherwise honestly - Have you ever yourself met someone who convincingly could talk to the spirits? No I assume. But I bet you still have a hope someone else can - a human desire for someone else to profit on".
I get the gist of what SBU is implying. It is meant to be derogatory in that "paranormal adepts" are just charlatans looking to cash in on foolish desperate people that can't handle the harsh reality of....well, of reality; a place where, presumably, real hard-nosed scientists live.
Funny, because I have trouble seeing how is "science" or "materialism" different. Scientists create all sorts of marginally beneficial new exdpensive drugs that may or may not have some marginal benefit over existing products just so a new profitable patent can be obtained. The marketing prays on desperate sick people. Sometimes it even scares relatively healthy people into thinking they are sick and need the drug - to the detriment of their wallets. The military industrial complex is rife with top notch scientists that profit when the people demand an expanded military budget because they have been made to believe that this or that terrifying threat will destroy civilization if they don't get the leg up on the ability to destroy it first and better. Scientists that create all sorts of new seemingly benign products and market these products, soley for profit, based on scaring people into beleiving they won't be cool - or something like that - if they don't own the newest model......I could go on with examples of the profit motivated charlatism of scientists, but there just isn't enough bandwidth. Then there is the well known phenomenon of scientific data and results manipulation for the purpose of obtaining and/or maintaining funding.
Then there are the skeptics like Randi who definitely have a profit motive to their schticks.
$ Hundreds of Billions $ on the line with well documented instances of fraud or deception for profit on the part of scientists; not to mention the media, academic and corporate behemoths that employ them and contract the involvement of slick greedy marketing agencies and grant writing groups they employ.
but, hey, look out for those mediums and the modicum - if any - profit they stand to make.
Sure.
Posted by: no one | August 01, 2011 at 05:15 PM
"Michael(and others) - can you say something about reasons Enoch put above explaining why he strongly dislikes Oversoul concept?"
I posted some excerpts from "beyond human personality" above.
They indicate that the soul itself reincarnates and is *also* part of an oversoul with multiple souls.
I think that takes care of most of Enoch's complaints. It also reconciles a lot of the different bits and pieces of the evidence that we have been discussing here - which to my mind, adds to it's credibility - it has greater explanatory power than simpler theories.
The book does say that occasionally a new soul will take on the karma of another soul in the group. But, as Enoch says himself, just because he doesn't like it, doesn't make it false.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 01, 2011 at 07:18 PM
"Michael(and others) - can you say something about reasons Enoch put above explaining why he strongly dislikes Oversoul concept?"
Before I understood what was being said in "Beyond Human Personality" I would have agreed with much of what Enoch wrote. However, I also understood a big problem with that view is that it is not really possible for us incarnates to understand the relationships between the souls and the oversoul and the souls to each other. Our idea of identity and personality might not be the same as what the spirits experience. All those complaints make sense to an incarnated human but they might not really apply once you were a spirit again.
Posted by: jshgfcre98ijyds | August 01, 2011 at 07:28 PM
No one,
Great post about the greed of scientists.
The unspoken definition of "science" in skeptical parlance is "perfect science." We are not talking about warts and all.
Science can never be discredited or impugned, since we are only talking about the part of it that is distilled to 100% purity.
Thus, Big Pharma convincing you to take drugs you don't need is not "science," yet all of the correct information we have about drugs is. Isaac Newton's speculations on the occult (which seem to have occupied 80% of his time) are of course not "science," nor are any of his scientific errors, but everything that he did that is considered correct today is "science."
Thus, by definition, "science" can do no wrong and is a meet tool to beat believers over the head with.
It actually is a very nice fallacy, an equivocation between science as messy process and the ultimate truths we derive from that process. Skeptics are subtle enough to recognize that science does not get everything perfect the firs time around, but in the end it always does, by definition.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 01, 2011 at 11:57 PM
Well said, Matt. And like "scientists" don't sit around speculating too. They see a phase shift in the light of some distant star. Next thing you know, we have quarks and black holes and worm holes..........
Anyone here ever seen a quark? A black hole?
Posted by: no one | August 02, 2011 at 01:19 AM
“I have to say, the notion of condemning a soul to disintegration doesn't tie in with other sources that I'm aware of.” –Bruce
So, Bruce, what did you think when you read what Nancy Danison said about some humans having no souls at all (no soul fancied them at conception or birth)?
I could almost believe it.
Posted by: Ben | August 02, 2011 at 01:30 AM
"So, Bruce, what did you think when you read what Nancy Danison said about some humans having no souls at all (no soul fancied them at conception or birth)?"
Is that in Backwards, Ben? If so, could you point me towards it?
Thanks!
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 02, 2011 at 01:40 AM
That sounds bizarre regarding humans having no souls. It's also at odds with every other communication we have received. Could this be somewhat of a distortion?
All communications are distorted to some extent according to Seth, including his own.
It's impossible to remove the beliefs of the receiver completely from the communicator. This is because both minds are apparantly merged in some way for the duration of the communication - hense the mix-up.
This is why I like Seth, as he was honest enough to admit this and to warn everyone always to question any communications, including his own.
Posted by: Douglas | August 02, 2011 at 02:33 AM
Bruce/Douglas,
It's so long since I read the book -not sure if I still have it (and I'm at work) - but this is online:
http://nancidanison.blogspot.com/2010/04/humans-without-souls-march-25-2009.html
Ben
Posted by: Ben | August 02, 2011 at 03:41 AM
Interesting link, although not sure what to make of it.
It's worth noting that not all her information comes from the initial NDE. She also received an additional 'download' in the early 2000s, which provided her with more information.
Posted by: Douglas | August 02, 2011 at 03:52 AM
Funny, because I have trouble seeing how is "science" or "materialism" different. Scientists create all sorts of marginally beneficial new exdpensive drugs that may or may not have some marginal benefit over existing products just so a new profitable patent can be obtained. The marketing prays on desperate sick people. Sometimes it even scares relatively healthy people into thinking they are sick and need the drug - to the detriment of their wallets.
Sure the world is full of Sylvia Brown like scientists.
If you want to make money claim you have Psychic abilities or that you had an NDE and write a few books about it and you have money enough to retire. The hordes will come forward and buy your stuff. It doesn't really matter what you write and if it conflicts somehow with what your 'competitors' are writing as long you make sure to promise everybody an afterlife in the end.
Posted by: sbu | August 02, 2011 at 04:36 AM