4-year-old recalls past life 9/11 experience

[Helen of Annoy]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine a situation where going to work ended in leaping from a building on fire could possibly be described as wonderful or even releasing. Aslo, those people weren't under great life stresses wanting to end their lives, the situation was thrust upon them. They had families they would never see again. Plans they would never fulfill. Lives cut short. I would be very surprised if the majority did not feel great fear, regret, anger, a whole host of negative emotions for being robbed of their lives. I can't see them flying in any sense. Only falling. 

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that yes, you can imagine. You can imagine that the escape from death in fire brings the utter relief, even if that escape is out the window. I think you can understand my reasoning perfectly. It does not prove any reincarnation, it does not collide with the obvious fact that all those utter horrors - proximity of death, separation, absolute loss and fear - were in each mind there. 

Remember the moment of worst fear in your life. Remember your worst brush with death. That's what I'm talking about. 

Again, of course it doesn't prove, I'm just saying why it indicates - in my mind. We're all shaped a little different, fortunately. 

 

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I know what you're talking about regarding dark days. I've been there. Sherapy was actually quite some help through my dark days. I'm not going to describe what I went through, but none of it was pleasant. To me it was a last resort to just consolidate a number of painful events. 

I just don't think it's at all impossible that it's the child's version of what happened according to pictures and stories. It seems to fit Occam's razor very well. 

I agree, it's possible that the child reconstructed the perception of the event from the first person angle. And that's an amazing possibility too, in my opinion. 

[Timothy]

Just now, psyche101 said:

Did you ever dream you could fly as a child? I did.

Wasn't from experience. Was vivid though. I still remember it decades later. 

I saw Santa and reindeers flying in the sky when I was a kid and we were out one evening driving around to look at Christmas lights.

Maintained that for a few years, until I realised that Santa wasn’t actually real. 

My memory now is that I was a kid and believed Santa was real at the time, so pretended that I saw it at the time.

[Poncho_Peanatus]

3 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that yes, you can imagine. You can imagine that the escape from death in fire brings the utter relief, even if that escape is out the window. I think you can understand my reasoning perfectly. It does not prove any reincarnation, it does not collide with the obvious fact that all those utter horrors - proximity of death, separation, absolute loss and fear - were in each mind there. 

Look Albert Heim 1849-1937 he fell once from a mountain, he survived, but during the fall, following his account time went slow and he got visions of another world. Possibly just hallucinations, but if not, that may explain the girl statement of flying away.

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that yes, you can imagine. You can imagine that the escape from death in fire brings the utter relief, even if that escape is out the window. I think you can understand my reasoning perfectly. It does not prove any reincarnation, it does not collide with the obvious fact that all those utter horrors - proximity of death, separation, absolute loss and fear - were in each mind there. 

Remember the moment of worst fear in your life. Remember your worst brush with death. That's what I'm talking about. 

Again, of course it doesn't prove, I'm just saying why it indicates - in my mind. We're all shaped a little different, fortunately. 

No, that's cool, be blunt. I don't think you're being rude, I just don't agree. Although I do agree on one point, I'm not saying it disproves anything, I'm just saying to my mind, that the situation could only be interpreted as highly traumatic. Lives flashing before eyes, remembering loved ones one last time. Knowing that this is it, and you did nothing but ho to work. I work in the construction industry. A good friend of mine died done tone ago on the job. I see a lot of bad ways to die. 

7 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I agree, it's possible that the child reconstructed the perception of the event from the first person angle. And that's an amazing possibility too, in my opinion. 

When we dream, our heads organise the information (amongst other functions) we take in during the day. It's generally somewhat erratic and illogical regarding the actual experiences, which seems to me to be a very likely explanation for the claim. I'm not sure it's amazing so much in that it's very common..

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No, that's cool, be blunt. I don't think you're being rude, I just don't agree. Although I do agree on one point, I'm not saying it disproves anything, I'm just saying to my mind, that the situation could only be interpreted as highly traumatic. Lives flashing before eyes, remembering loved ones one last time. Knowing that this is it, and you did nothing but ho to work. I work in the construction industry. A good friend of mine died done tone ago on the job. I see a lot of bad ways to die. 

Damn right it's traumatic. Just thinking about it, hearing about it is traumatic, let alone witnessing or experiencing it. 

The contradictory part is that when you experience the ultimate fear and then the ultimate release from that, it is not anymore traumatic for you. You've been released. Free as a bird, to make it on topic. (That was my personal experience so it must be similar with anyone else.) It remains traumatic for those around you. They can't see you bask in the absence of pain, all they can see is your non-responsive or worse body. 

With or without afterlife, there's the point on dying journey after which there's no fear anymore. There's the relief, the absence of pain, absence of weight... maybe the child overheard such description, maybe the child intuitively but correctly described it, maybe it's a real memory (in my opinion shaped by my experiences a plausible sounding memory), maybe by reincarnation, maybe by some process we do or don't even suspect about... 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

When we dream, our heads organise the information (amongst other functions) we take in during the day. It's generally somewhat erratic and illogical regarding the actual experiences, which seems to me to be a very likely explanation for the claim. I'm not sure it's amazing so much in that it's very common..

If you ask me - yeah, it's always a mistake   - it's absolutely a-ma-zing! and yes, it is absolutely common, which makes it even more amazing. We can, even the dullest, stupidest among us, we can store and process information and we can also organize it and reorganize it and - construct something entirely new out of these parts! 

I mean... going around the brain junkyard, putting a whole train of thought together. Wrecking it promptly, assembling it back again, backwards, naturally... damn, are we amazing or what? 

And then these compositions bear resemblance to actual objective reality's facts, or we argue if they do... did I mention how amazing I think it is?   

 

Thank you for a pleasant exchange of different opinions. I hope I wasn't too tiresome    

 

[+OverSword]

Have not watched the video but do believe in reincarnation.  It's what makes life fair.

[Stiff]

58 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's what makes life fair.

I thought that was drugs and hookers?

Or is that just me? 

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Have not watched the video but do believe in reincarnation.  It's what makes life fair.

Life isn’t fair. It’s probability.

[+OverSword]

35 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Life isn’t fair. It’s probability.

it is if you live enough lives to experience most of everything.

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Damn right it's traumatic. Just thinking about it, hearing about it is traumatic, let alone witnessing or experiencing it. 

The contradictory part is that when you experience the ultimate fear and then the ultimate release from that, it is not anymore traumatic for you. You've been released. Free as a bird, to make it on topic. (That was my personal experience so it must be similar with anyone else.) It remains traumatic for those around you. They can't see you bask in the absence of pain, all they can see is your non-responsive or worse body. 

With or without afterlife, there's the point on dying journey after which there's no fear anymore. There's the relief, the absence of pain, absence of weight... maybe the child overheard such description, maybe the child intuitively but correctly described it, maybe it's a real memory (in my opinion shaped by my experiences a plausible sounding memory), maybe by reincarnation, maybe by some process we do or don't even suspect about... 

I suppose I can see that even from my point of view. The way I understand the death process is that it incorporates a burst of activity just before the major fade which could certainly be experienced as euphoria.

Still not convinced though  lol. 

Quote

If you ask me - yeah, it's always a mistake   - it's absolutely a-ma-zing! and yes, it is absolutely common, which makes it even more amazing. We can, even the dullest, stupidest among us, we can store and process information and we can also organize it and reorganize it and - construct something entirely new out of these parts! 

I mean... going around the brain junkyard, putting a whole train of thought together. Wrecking it promptly, assembling it back again, backwards, naturally... damn, are we amazing or what? 

And then these compositions bear resemblance to actual objective reality's facts, or we argue if they do... did I mention how amazing I think it is?   

I'm not going to argue that one.

It's not just fascinating that we can organise that data, but use it to see where we are in this amazing universe. An incredible privilege for the short time we are in this earth for. 

Quote

Thank you for a pleasant exchange of different opinions. I hope I wasn't too tiresome    

Lol not at all, may I return the thanks as it takes two to have a good conversation. It's great to discuss a subject with an intelligent person and not have to commit to one side. Many posters seem to think discussion must be one or lost. I think like a fine wine, it's best shared. 

[+ouija ouija]

Sorry to take so long to reply.

On 3/17/2021 at 2:50 AM, psyche101 said:

Why do spiritual people fear scientists?

I would like to think that you have some basic understanding. As in you do realise we are made of atoms I hope. 

We understand atomic structure. Pretty bloody well actually. There might be more to learn, even so, that won't change what we do know. 

That's what we are made up of. Atoms. (approximately 7 x 10 to the power of 27 of them in an average 70kg person). Even the brain. That's where it all happens. Consciousness. Which is basically structured responses developed over millions of years. A defence mechanism to live on land with. For further information regarding understanding consciousness please refer to Michael S. A. Graziano's paper regarding The Attention Schema Theory. LINK. Suffice to say, consiouness isn't the mystery some make it out to be. All animals have various degrees depending on brain development and structure. It's just nature.

As I say, we know how atoms work. There's no external force acting on them. Atoms aren't ghostly or intangible. We know this because we can detect external forces. Incredibly weak forces as well as the very strong ones. We actively look for them. 

So. We can say we are made of atoms. We can say we know how they work. We can say they don't have an external force. Why? Because it's just not there. The brain is very complex, and that's why there's no life after death. There are about 100 billion neurones in our head. They make about 10 to the power of 15 connections. Which by any standard is extraordinarily complex. Our brain is made to handle those connections. If a force existed that could maintain that many connections, which is essentially what is "you" we would be able to detect it as we do the other forces in nature. If we couldn't it would not be strong enough to maintain that complexity. 

So, we know the brain is made of atoms, we know that consciousness is a product of the brain, we know how atoms work and we understand the decomposition process the body goes through upon the event of death. There is nothing that exists that can maintain that complexity. When we die, the brain degrades first. Those connections unravel. What is essentially "you" is lost. 

Questions? 

Do spiritual people fear scientists?  I think it's more that they fear the incomplete conclusions they sometimes come up with, claiming that they are unchangeable facts, for ever, and make claims that affect us all, based on these part-truths.

Yes, I have some basic understanding. Yes, I have been told we are made up of atoms.

"We understand atomic structure. Pretty bloody well actually. There might be more to learn, even so, that won't change what we do know". 'Pretty bloody well actually', but not perfectly and completely. If there is more to learn, how do you know it won't change what we already know?

I haven't yet read the article in the link you provided (it's quite long), but I will when I've finished this reply. "Consciousness isn't the mystery some make it out to be", well, I suppose that's how it would appear to those who are confident everything is known about it. Me, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to learn.

"There's no external force acting on them(atoms)". Now that made my ears prick up! Are you honestly saying that nothing affects them?! My Goodness! That makes them veritable gods!

I can see that we are never going to agree as long as you believe only in the physical and I believe in there being something else as well: that which is unseen and immeasurable.

"The brain is very complex, and that's why there's no life after death". I'm sorry, but this actually made me laugh. " When we die, the brain degrades first. Those connections unravel. What is essentially "you" is lost." Or, perhaps, the brain 'degrades' and 'unravels' because the unseen force that is truly 'you', is gradually withdrawing, retreating to it's greater self . . . no longer supporting the functioning of the physical/material brain.  

 

On 3/17/2021 at 9:56 AM, psyche101 said:

Did you ever dream you could fly as a child? I did.

Wasn't from experience. Was vivid though. I still remember it decades later. 

No, I didn't have dreams about flying. I did have dreams about being almost crushed by many, many bricks(like a bombed area), when I was small. Even when my parents woke me up I could still see all the rubble around me. It's perhaps the most upsetting dream I ever had.

Okay, I'm going to read the article in your link now.

[+Desertrat56]

When I was a teenager I baby sat my cousins since they were 6 weeks old and when they were 3 one of them got up one  morning and told me "yesterday our house burned down.  We all burned in the house, my mamma and my sister all burned.  But it's ok, I have a new mamma now." Then she ate her cereal and went out to play like usual.   The next morning she told me "My ship sank and I drownded.  I was a bad man and the navy ships shot my ship and it sank.  I drownded."   Again that was it, and she never remembered saying anything about it.   And after that, no  more stories first thing in the morning.

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Sorry to take so long to reply.

That's alright. It's a big subject. Take your time.

Quote

Do spiritual people fear scientists?  I think it's more that they fear the incomplete conclusions they sometimes come up with, claiming that they are unchangeable facts, for ever, and make claims that affect us all, based on these part-truths.

Yes they do fear them. Incomplete conclusions aren't anything to do with it. Spirituality is based on made up stuff like 'rhe non material' so incompleteness really isn't a problem. That's the nature of man made imaginative concepts. The main fear is driven by the fact that science erodes beliefs and myths.

I don't know what part truths you are referring to. Facts are facts. They have withstood vigorous scrutiny. Facts have to be repeatable upon demand, they must offer predicatbility and there are supported by other information. They aren't guesses, and there's no ruling body that decides if a fact is a fact. It must perform on its own. 

Quote

Yes, I have some basic understanding. Yes, I have been told we are made up of atoms.

Do you have any questions regarding that fact?

Quote

"We understand atomic structure. Pretty bloody well actually. There might be more to learn, even so, that won't change what we do know". 'Pretty bloody well actually', but not perfectly and completely. If there is more to learn, how do you know it won't change what we already know?

I never said there was no more to learn. I said what we do know is correct.

Try putting it in a mathematical perspective to better understand the concept. 

2+2 will always equal 4. Now and in a billion years. Nothing is going to change that basic. We might learn more about how to use that basic in complex equations but I think we can agree that now, and in a billion years, on every planet 2+2 will always equal 4. 

Now apply that principle to physics. In a billion years, water will still be 2 molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. 2 positive charges and one negative charge. There might be more contamination in the water in the far future adding to those molecules, but water will still be what it is today. 

This applies to the very basics of physics that I have outlined above that refute a continuation of life. We might learn more about them, but what they are and what they do is solid. Like 2+2, it's not changing.

Quote

I haven't yet read the article in the link you provided (it's quite long), but I will when I've finished this reply. "Consciousness isn't the mystery some make it out to be", well, I suppose that's how it would appear to those who are confident everything is known about it. Me, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to learn.

Yes. It very much appears that way to people who have devoted entire lifetimes to the subject, learning how every part fits together.

If you read the paper on the Attention Schema Theory, you will learn more. It's not some wild idea without any evidence behind it. It traces our origins to the first creatures who walked on land. How those pioneers had to learn a completely new environment, and how to survive in learning how smells and sounds tell us what is good to eat and what is a predator. Millions upon millions of learned responses over millions of years. One big long learning process. 

Quote

"There's no external force acting on them(atoms)". Now that made my ears prick up! Are you honestly saying that nothing affects them?! My Goodness! That makes them veritable gods

No, I'm saying the brain processes are stand alone. There's no strange force connected to them.

Quote

I can see that we are never going to agree as long as you believe only in the physical and I believe in there being something else as well: that which is unseen and immeasurable.

Rather than insist the non material exists, how about explaining how it works. How it came to be, why did it evolve as part of us? 

I haven't ever heard any satisfactory explanations ad to what the non material actually is. Just vague imaginative ideas. The opposite of matter is known, it's anti matter. We have produced it.  

Quote

"The brain is very complex, and that's why there's no life after death". I'm sorry, but this actually made me laugh. "

Why exactly would it make you laugh? What information do you have that challenges that statement?

When people say derogatory things like that, it seems to me that the person does not want to discuss the subject at all. They want to have their ideas validated or destroy one who is skeptical of their claims. Learning or discussion is not wanted.

That's why I asked you if you actually really want to know. From your statement, it would appear not. Can you confirm if that is the case here? Do you wish to discuss the subject or do you just want to say you were right all along regardless of any information?

Quote

When we die, the brain degrades first. Those connections unravel. What is essentially "you" is lost." Or, perhaps, the brain 'degrades' and 'unravels' because the unseen force that is truly 'you', is gradually withdrawing, retreating to it's greater self . . . no longer supporting the functioning of the physical/material brain.  

Why would that be the case?

The body itself is dying. The organ that creates thought it degrading rapidly.  Why would a set of evolved responses, which is consciousness, not degrade with it? 

Thoughts are chemically based. We have even filmed a mouse brain chemically storing a thought. 

The force you seen to be referring to is the one you obtusely questioned earlier. So you did understand what I was saying didn't you? 

Quote

No, I didn't have dreams about flying. I did have dreams about being almost crushed by many, many bricks(like a bombed area), when I was small. Even when my parents woke me up I could still see all the rubble around me. It's perhaps the most upsetting dream I ever had.

And you still remember it.

That's my point. Regardless is what happens in a dream 

Quote

Okay, I'm going to read the article in your link now.

If you have more questions you know where to find me. 

Talk soon hey.

[+ouija ouija]

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, psyche101 said:

That's alright. It's a big subject. Take your time.

Yes they do fear them. Incomplete conclusions aren't anything to do with it. Spirituality is based on made up stuff like 'rhe non material' so incompleteness really isn't a problem. That's the nature of man made imaginative concepts. The main fear is driven by the fact that science erodes beliefs and myths.What can I say? I still disagree with you.

I don't know what part truths you are referring to. Facts are facts. They have withstood vigorous scrutiny. Facts have to be repeatable upon demand, they must offer predicatbility and there are supported by other information. They aren't guesses, and there's no ruling body that decides if a fact is a fact. It must perform on its own.Some things that are currently claimed as 'facts' will, in the future, be seen to have components that we are not currently aware of.That is how it has always been. Over time we gain new knowledge and have to adjust what we previously thought.

Do you have any questions regarding that fact? No.

I never said there was no more to learn. I said what we do know is correct.But that doesn't make sense. It is only 'correct' within the parameters of current knowledge and man's capacity to understand/recognise. Which may change at any time.

Try putting it in a mathematical perspective to better understand the concept. 

2+2 will always equal 4. Now and in a billion years. Nothing is going to change that basic. We might learn more about how to use that basic in complex equations but I think we can agree that now, and in a billion years, on every planet 2+2 will always equal 4.No, I don't agree, I'm keeping an open mind.

Now apply that principle to physics. In a billion years, water will still be 2 molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. 2 positive charges and one negative charge. There might be more contamination in the water in the far future adding to those molecules, but water will still be what it is today.Who knows what invisible(immaterial, even) things may make up water. I know it's comforting to some people to be able to say to themselves "I know what this is and I will always know it stays the same", but Life has proved, over thousands of years, that we keep on discovering new 'facts'. . . . and the old ones have to ditched sometimes.

This applies to the very basics of physics that I have outlined above that refute a continuation of life. We might learn more about them, but what they are and what they do is solid. Like 2+2, it's not changing. I'm staying open minded.

Yes. It very much appears that way to people who have devoted entire lifetimes to the subject, learning how every part fits together. If that's how it 'appears' to them, well good for them. A different view has appeared to me.

If you read the paper on the Attention Schema Theory, you will learn more. It's not some wild idea without any evidence behind it. It traces our origins to the first creatures who walked on land. How those pioneers had to learn a completely new environment, and how to survive in learning how smells and sounds tell us what is good to eat and what is a predator. Millions upon millions of learned responses over millions of years. One big long learning process.I hope you're not suggesting that the learning process has ended?. 

No, I'm saying the brain processes are stand alone. There's no strange force connected to them. My experiences lead me to believe differently.

Rather than insist the non material exists, how about explaining how it works. How it came to be, why did it evolve as part of us?I wish I did know how it works or how it came to be! Currently, my thinking is that it evolved as part of us because it was useful to us, obviously, to have the ability to communicate over distances telepathically, but also because it's what connects all life forms and at the same time gives them their individuality. 

I haven't ever heard any satisfactory explanations ad to what the non material actually is. Just vague imaginative ideas. The opposite of matter is known, it's anti matter. We have produced it.  

Why exactly would it make you laugh? What information do you have that challenges that statement? I don't know why it made me laugh. I just read it and spontaneously burst out laughing. 

When people say derogatory things like that, it seems to me that the person does not want to discuss the subject at all. They want to have their ideas validated or destroy one who is skeptical of their claims. Learning or discussion is not wanted.

That's why I asked you if you actually really want to know. From your statement, it would appear not. Can you confirm if that is the case here? Do you wish to discuss the subject or do you just want to say you were right all along regardless of any information? I would have thought it was obvious that I do want to discuss the subject . . . I've put a lot of thought into my replies. As with so many discussions here at UM, both parties can accuse the other of the same thing. Can you honestly say that you are making an effort to understand where I'm coming from, or do you simply want me to say you are right?

Why would that be the case? I don't understand.

The body itself is dying. The organ that creates thought it degrading rapidly.  Why would a set of evolved responses, which is consciousness, not degrade with it? If it is something more than a set of evolved responses.

Thoughts are chemically based. We have even filmed a mouse brain chemically storing a thought. This makes no sense to me. There could still be something beyond thought.

The force you seen to be referring to is the one you obtusely questioned earlier. So you did understand what I was saying didn't you? Where did I question obtusely? What bit of what you were saying did I understand but pretend not to?

And you still remember it.

That's my point. Regardless is what happens in a dream. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

If you have more questions you know where to find me. 

Talk soon hey.

Weej

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

What can I say? I still disagree with you.

What can you say? How about providing a working example. Religion is one I can offer. The god Yaweh, whom so many believe in did not make man out of clay, he did not make the earth in 7 days, there was no great flood that covered the earth, no god "let there be light" the ark is not a viable structure.........

The list goes on and on. There's plenty of working examples to refer to. Soon what particular basis for you disagree?

As I noted previously, the opposite of matter is not the non material, it's anti matter. We have actually produced it. So what the heck is this non material idea that people refer to then? Where does anti matter leave that concept?

What part in particular do you actually disagree with?

Quote

Some things that are currently claimed as 'facts' will, in the future, be seen to have components that we are not currently aware of.That is how it has always been. Over time we gain new knowledge and have to adjust what we previously thought.

You are getting "changed" and "added to" mixed up there. Again, what example can you provide over the last hundred years where science has been shown to be wrong as opposed to expanded upon? 

Quote

 No.

Do you actually intend to discuss the subject or are you one of those posters who tries to best skeptics as some sort of personal entertainment?

Quote

.But that doesn't make sense. It is only 'correct' within the parameters of current knowledge and man's capacity to understand/recognise. Which may change at any time.

It actually makes perfect sense and is supported by countless examples like evolution and the periodic table.

Again, can you provide an example of science being wrong as opposed to expanded upon?

Quote

No, I don't agree, I'm keeping an open mind.

No you're not keeping an open mind. Not by any means. 

I've just put the situation into the most basic form I can and you just blindly rejected it instead of discussing it. If you want to explain how 2+2 will equal something other than 4 in a few hundred years then you would be showing why physics could be (not is mind you) wrong. 

All you are saying is you refuse to accept that some basics in physics are as stable as basic maths. Not how or why, just blind refusal. That is anything but an open mind. 

Quote

Who knows what invisible(immaterial, even) things may make up water.

I honestly hope this was a joke.

Quote

I know it's comforting to some people to be able to say to themselves "I know what this is and I will always know it stays the same", but Life has proved, over thousands of years, that we keep on discovering new 'facts'. . . . and the old ones have to ditched sometimes.

We do know some things. You're not at all across science. That's all that's happening here. It upsets you that it holds answers that refute you're beliefs so you are attacking and rejecting it. That's very common amongst believers.

Quote

I'm staying open minded.

Be refusing to understand how well established basic physics are?

OK then. I mean, what can one say to such a condescending and dismissive reply? And you think science is arrogant? Hoo boy.

Quote

 If that's how it 'appears' to them, well good for them. A different view has appeared to me.

And you're more brilliant than all the combined minds over the last five hundred years of so?

Do you ever consider any view other than your own constructs? Aren't you claiming that you are open minded? Doesn't this sentence directly contradict that very claim?

Quote

.I hope you're not suggesting that the learning process has ended?. 

I did not even hint or indicate that in the slightest.

You didn't read the link like you said you would did you?

Quote

My experiences lead me to believe differently.

And you could not possibly be wrong, having an open mind and all?

Quote

I wish I did know how it works or how it came to be! Currently, my thinking is that it evolved as part of us because it was useful to us, obviously, to have the ability to communicate over distances telepathically, but also because it's what connects all life forms and at the same time gives them their individuality. 

You don't really understand evolution either do you? 

We aren't X-Men. 

What species on earth has developed telepathy? Where does it fit into the pattern of our development? What triggered it? What aspect of our DNA hints that it's an actual possiblity for our species? 

Quote

 I don't know why it made me laugh. I just read it and spontaneously burst out laughing. 

I think Ive shown reasonable manners and I've tried to help you understand the advances in science that you do not seem to be aware of. I've been polite, so why would you be so outright rude for no good reason? Why do you feel my efforts deserve your contempt? You did approach me you know. 

Quote

I would have thought it was obvious that I do want to discuss the subject . . .

No. It's not at all obvious. The very opposite seems far more apparent. 

Quote

I've put a lot of thought into my replies.

You have replied with laughter and the bland nothing statement that you claim to be open minded. Where's the discussion? 

Quote

As with so many discussions here at UM, both parties can accuse the other of the same thing. Can you honestly say that you are making an effort to understand where I'm coming from, or do you simply want me to say you are right?

Yes I can say I've made an effort. Why do you think I am asking you questions? Ive answered yours as best I can, which does show I'm trying to work with you not against you. I can say you seem to be exhibiting the same. 

I would like you to discuss the subject as opposed to dismissing it out of hand based on superstitions. You did after all initiate the discussion. 

Quote

I don't understand.

I'm simply asking why is the construction of the brain different to everything else in our bodies? 

Quote

If it is something more than a set of evolved responses.

Why would that be? Is there any good reason to think that is the case? Or are you conveluting our information for the sake of personal aesthetics? 

Consider evolution. Have you ever taken a look at the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe? It's an evolutionary map. 

Quote

This makes no sense to me. There could still be something beyond thought.

How does it not make sense, and considering we have actually filmed a memory being chemically stored why would a mammalian brain have more to it than organics? 

Quote

The force you seen to be referring to is the one you obtusely questioned earlier. So you did understand what I was saying didn't you? Where did I question obtusely? What bit of what you were saying did I understand but pretend not to?

The connections in your brain that make you essentially and uniquely"you".

Quote

And you still remember it.

That's my point. Regardless is what happens in a dream. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

That vivid memories and dreams stick with us. We can recall certain incidents for life. Very vivid dreams could well offer a narrative that never happened like an instance such as provided by the OP. In short, it's hardly a miraculous tale. 

Quote

Weej

I hope your not just another wind up. Perhaps you should read the exchange between Helen and I to grab some tips.

[+joc]

On 3/17/2021 at 4:59 AM, Helen of Annoy said:

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that yes, you can imagine. You can imagine that the escape from death in fire brings the utter relief, even if that escape is out the window.

Helen, Sweet Helen,

You can 'imagine' it...but darlin'...it never happened...it cannot happen.  It is impossible to feel relief by jumping out of a window.  

Here is an experiment I'd like for you to consider.  Stand up...fall flat on your face into the floor.  Can't do it can you.  Neither can you fall straight backwards onto your back.  It is a subconscious defense mechanism of the brain.               

Now, consider you are in a tall building on fire and the heat is too close.  Again, your brain's subconscious defense mechanism kicks in...you MUST escape the fire.  The only escape is the window.  You jump...not because you reason it is a better alternative...but because your body MUST escape the fire behind you...it is instinctive...it is a non-overridable defense mechanism.  The nano-second you jump...the fire isn't an issue...now the brain's subconscious is panicking because it is scrambling to find a solution for free-falling.  There is no solution and so the spasm of panic takes over.

There is no sense of relief...only panic.  At that moment...panic is the default defense mechanism.  Your arms and legs will be trying to grab something, anything.  You will not have a sense of utter relief...or any other sense at all...only panic.  The entire fall...nothing but utter, sheer panic.  

[Ernest Yeap]

Imagine you were reborn as a dog. And you still remember your past life

[+Desertrat56]

17 hours ago, Ernest said:

Imagine you were reborn as a dog. And you still remember your past life

Someone made a movie about that called Fluke.    Really, a decent low budget movie with a twist at the end and comic relief from a squirrel.

[qunaquna]

If I had to decide, I'd say it's just memories of dreams falsely labelled as reality memories by the still developing brain.

[Timothy]

On 3/18/2021 at 8:50 AM, OverSword said:

it is if you live enough lives to experience most of everything.

We get one life, not a bell curve life!

[Rolci]

On 3/15/2021 at 2:41 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rolci

Not sure that is as strong an argument as it once was, Eldorado posted this in a thread so if it is not good enough for the cops then I'm good with that

"The use of hypnosis to investigate crimes has been ended by The Texas Department of Public Safety after an expose by The Dallas Morning News showed that the science was "dubious".

A spokesperson for the department said that the practice of using hypnosis to investigate crimes had ended in January of this year, more than four decades after the start of the programme.

The move to leave hypnosis behind was made less than a year after a Dallas Morning News expose entitled "The Memory Room" raised questions about the effectiveness of the practice."

Full report at MSN

jmccr8

Are you saying you have an explanation for how Snow just "knew" during the hypnosis session all that stuff that he recovered from the 17,000 pages years later? All 28 facts? Helluva coincidence, eh? You might want to share your alternative explanation with the homicide detective captain, apparently you know something he doesn't. Tell the turned ex-hardcore-sceptic he can go back to the safehaven of being a sceptic, it's all good, you have an explanation for all that transpired.

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

We get one life, not a bell curve life!

Yep. You’re only here once as you.

[+Desertrat56]

On 3/14/2021 at 8:41 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rolci

Not sure that is as strong an argument as it once was, Eldorado posted this in a thread so if it is not good enough for the cops then I'm good with that

"The use of hypnosis to investigate crimes has been ended by The Texas Department of Public Safety after an expose by The Dallas Morning News showed that the science was "dubious".

A spokesperson for the department said that the practice of using hypnosis to investigate crimes had ended in January of this year, more than four decades after the start of the programme.

The move to leave hypnosis behind was made less than a year after a Dallas Morning News expose entitled "The Memory Room" raised questions about the effectiveness of the practice."

Full report at MSN

jmccr8

Good, it is a bad practice and using it in law enforcement is even worse.   If you have a good hynotist and no one else saying anything during the session maybe  you can get decent recall, but usually someone plants a leading suggestion inadvertantly or not that skews the results.  It is too easy to do that.

[jmccr8]

5 hours ago, Rolci said:

Are you saying you have an explanation for how Snow just "knew" during the hypnosis session all that stuff that he recovered from the 17,000 pages years later? All 28 facts? Helluva coincidence, eh? You might want to share your alternative explanation with the homicide detective captain, apparently you know something he doesn't. Tell the turned ex-hardcore-sceptic he can go back to the safehaven of being a sceptic, it's all good, you have an explanation for all that transpired.

Hi Rolci

Why would I have to explain anything the link I gave pretty much sums it up as to how law enforcement is looking at this. I have had a hypnotist try on me twice and couldn't put me under so personally I don't put a lot of stock in it to start with and am well aware of how cops worked back home and don't put a lot of stock in them either.

jmccr8

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, OverSword said:

Yep. You’re only here once as you.

Is the way you see reincarnation religiously orientated?