Do you believe in past lives?

The parents are just honestly mistaken, I think. I remember seeing a TV show about this kid several years ago on ABC. One of the main points was how the mom and kid were looking at a book together when he was a toddler, and he pointed to a picture of a plane with a “drop tank,” an expendable fuel tank, under a plane, and told his mom what it was. The mom was going on about how could a kid that young know what a drop tank was, when his parents didn’t even know! He must have had a past life!

But a with a little investigoogling, I found a previous news story from a local TV station where the family lived, which mentioned how this kid loved planes from a very young age, so his parents took him to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum here in Dallas. Then I went to the Cavanaugh museum’s web page, and they have several planes, plus a few items that are plane-related but not planes. Guess what one of those items is? That’s right - a drop tank!

So the parents took their bright toddler to a museum, where he saw a drop tank and remembered what it was, then later identified it, but the parents didn’t remember seeing it, and thought that his ability to identify it was strong evidence that he had a past life.

The parents are not dishonest, just overly-credulous.

Reincarnation only makes sense if you hold that the true nature of reality is non-rational, and that space/time is an illusion. I do hold those beliefs, but couldn’t care less about any past lives I might have, sure I was a 47%er back then,too.

Right. Big difference between a millionaire meth-snorting whoremongering (alleged) murder and someone who gives scads to charity and puts herself through school for a 2nd career in geriatrics. A better point is that, regardless of how successful or impressive somebody is, it doesn’t amount to proof of a claim like this. It’d be an appeal to authority or ipse dixit kind of fallacy.

Exactly. All I have is an anecdote about this person. The really striking thing about it is that she was not the kind of person to bullshit you about things, nor did she live in a fantasy world. She had all of her ducks in a row, to a very high degree.

Well for one thing that question leads us into a debate about the nature of identity. What make you “you” now? If you really inquire into it, I think eventually you will discover that “you” don’t actually exist at all in the ordinary way we are used to thinking about it. What makes this life “yours”? Careful, that isn’t as stupid of a question as it at first appears.

Anyway, one more anecdote and I’ll quit turning this thread into my own personal past gf regression therapy session. IIRC, she believed that everyone had past lives. So I asked her, “If I have past lives, how come I don’t remember them?” The answer was, “I don’t think it would be useful for most people to remember their past lives.” To which I replied, “That sounds like a nice way of saying that my past lives sucked.” She laughed and said, “Yeah, that is pretty much what I am saying.”

People with their “ducks in a row” can believe in bullshit that isn’t real.

Sure it is. What makes you “you” are two things:

  1. Your physical body that can be traced directly to when you plopped out of the womb and
  2. Your thoughts and memories and the sum collection of your experiences.

Even if you lost your memory, you are least still the same physical person.

So given that there is no physical connection to your “past lives” and you have no memory of them, what makes them a “past life”? It’s not like your brain gets recycled like an old hard drive where it still has old bits of porn and whatnot stuck on it.

MEMORANDA

The floor manager of Farnham’s Department Store’s floral department pored over the notes on his desk in excruciating boredom. Most of the papers were interdepartmental memos, shuffled and reshuffled until everyone knew the same tedious, useless facts. The manager, David Harken, read one from the Sports Department on the sixth floor.

From:Sports Dept. Mgr.
To:All personnel
Re:In.Golf

And so it continued. The “In.”, meaning in the store’s jargon an incident’, was a shoplifter who’d been caught trying to steal a putter by sliding it down his pants leg and stiffly walking out the door. The man had been picked up by Security and the store intended to make an example of him.

Granted, it was important; any report of shoplifting in Farnham’s merited attention. It was just that Harken was sick and tired of his job in this dreary old place. Even the floral department, normally a bright spot, had lost its appeal.

At any rate, it was six o’clock. The store was closing for the day and he wouldn’t have to think about it until opening tomorrow.

His secretary, Miss Brown, came timidly knocking at his door. “Mister Harken. I’m afraid we have a problem.”

Harken sighed to himself. Why did these things have to happen at closing? “What is it?”

“Two customers, sir. They refuse to leave the floor.”

With another sigh, Harken pushed himself out of his chair. “Where?”

“They’re in the carnation section. Security is asking if they should send up a few men.”

“Tell them never mind. I’ll take care of it.”

“Yes, sir.”

Harken knew the floral section like he knew the layout of his own apartment. He found the couple quickly enough, a man and woman. They were well-dressed and both in their late twenties, by the look of them. Wearing his best manager’s smile, Harken walked up to them. “Can I help you?” he asked in a syrupy tone of voice.

“No, we’re all right,” replied the man. He sniffed delicately at one of the myriad of carnations.

“Well,” said Harken uncertainly. “I’m afraid the store is closed.”

“Yes, we know,” said the woman. She looked at the moulding over the elevator. “Look, George, they haven’t changed since 1971.”

The man nodded. “So I see.”

Harken frowned. Neither of these two looked old enough to have even been born by '71. “I’m sorry, the store is closed.”

“Don’t worry,” said the man calmly. “We just wanted a second look, on the anniversary of the day we were killed here.”

That made Harken blink. “I beg your pardon.”

“On this day in 1971, a man and woman, my wife and I in our former lives, were shot accidentally during an attempted holdup.”

“I…see.” Harken’s mind was working furiously. The holdup, the only exciting moment in his early stockboy days, was a dim memory. “Well, haven’t you, ah, relived the moment enough?”

“Hmm? I guess so. Come along, Susan. We can’t keep the store open any longer.”

Wearing pleasant smiles, the two disappeared down an escalator. Harken was immensely relieved to see them go. He went back to his office.

The papers on his desk reminded him there was a necessary duty to perform. Even though he hated the idea of it, he would have to write a memo explaining why the closing had been delayed. Better to do it now and get it out of the way before tomorrow morning. With his habitual sigh, Harken peeled a blank memo sheet off a pad on his desk and started to write:

From:Floral Dept. Mgr.
To:All personnel
Re:In.Carnations

Yes, of course. The ‘pull’ of the appeal to authority fallacy comes from, I guess, the following kind of thinking: Say you have two engineers trying to invent an internal combustion engine back in the days before it existed. One knows lots of math and chemistry and metallurgy, while the other one is really into summoning faeries to do the work for him. The math guy succeeds in creating an engine, the faerie guy does not. Interviewing them about their methods, the math guy’s explanations are so inaccessible that you don’t even know what the heck he is talking about. Faerie guy: same thing. But one of them succeeded and the other failed, so who are you going to trust? If a person’s mind is truly centered on bullshit, can they also get results?

Why draw the line at plopping out of the womb? Sounds kind of arbitrary doesn’t it? And, your body is in constant flux. It isn’t the same as it was 10 seconds ago; nearly all its materials are replaced every 7 years or so with entirely new stuff. How is your body the same? How does that amount to an identity? And how can ‘you’ exist without your context, which is decidedly not-your-body?

Also, why should memories amount to ‘you’? They are representations of a past that so longer exists. Experiences? Maybe, but aren’t they all traceable to a gajillion separate chemical reactions? Where is there a ‘you’ in that mess? Are they one thing, or are they a gajillion separate things?

To other people, I suppose. What else can we take away and still have ‘the same person’? Make up your mind and tell me what it consists of.

Well, yeah. We are physically connected to the past (past physical states determine present physical states, perhaps alterable by acts of will to some degree), but I can’t see by what mechanism memories of past lives could be transmitted life-to-life either. OTOH, there is a way in which this is the wrong line inquiry. If you are really interested I can come back in a day or two with a better explanation for why your body does not provide you with an identity. Sans that kind of identity, well I still don’t know if reincarnation is the case but at the very least there is more to this than you think. In the context of Buddhism, Buddha didn’t really believe in a personal self either- maybe I can find some quotes about it- but at the end of the day I am not going to be preaching Buddhism at you. Whatever- I am not sure I have ever been able to convince you of anything, msmith537. Yet here we are again.

Your consciousness examples show correlation, not causation.

If the brain is just the medium, then the effects you cite can be the result of damage to the medium causing distortion in the “signal”.

I have read accounts of neurologists stating that they have had patients with zero brain activity or blood flow to the brain later awake and tell them about things that had happened while they were “dead”.

Regardless of the metaphysical aspects of these stories, how can consciousness recover if for a period the brain was “dead”? Where was the consciousness while there was no electrical activity?

If these anecdotes are true, then this would suggest that brain and consciousness are separate entities.

Regarding your Windows analogy: the computer may be smashed, but Windows continues to exist on its installation CD. All it needs is to be reinstalled into another computer.

This would seem to reinforce the concept that the brain is just the medium for transmission of consciousness.

No. In order to have “past lives”, reincarnation would have to work. Since there is no “soul”, there’s just thought, there is nothing to continue after death. When you die, it’s like the flame on a candle blowing out: poof, nothing.

So you’re saying that there is a full-functioning consciousness out there somewhere, and because the brain is damaged it can’t properly communicate with the physical world? That scenario would have a very different outcome from the one we observe. With Phineas Gage and the spike through his head, his personality changed. If there was his “old consciousness” that was just not able to properly express itself, then it would be very frustrated that the channel (Phineas) was not working properly, and would be able to figure out a way to communicate this idea to us. This is not what happened.

Assuming that they were right that there was no brain activity at some time, how do they know that these memories happened during that time? If I find a bunch of random crap on my computer’s hard drive after it crashed and I had to reboot it, I don’t assume that this crap data got there while it was completely turned off - I assume that it happened while the computer was on but malfunctioning.

This consciousness is what the physical brain does. If the physical brain is not doing anything, then consciousness is not happening at that time. When the physical brain resumes its activity, then consciousness is happening again. This seems like a simple concept, and I can’t figure out why you would think that the consciousness has to “go somewhere” when the brain isn’t functioning.

That does not follow.

Give me your best example.

Sorry, I don’t have specific cites for my comments; all I can say is “I remember reading that somewhere”.

Having said that, how do we explain consciousness? If we look at the individual parts of the mechanisms of brain activity, how do they morph into consciousness?

Seems to me that consciousness is greater than the sum of the parts.

PS: I don’t claim any superior knowledge in this topic, but I do find it fascinating and am interested in other people’s thoughts on the subject.

If so, please start a new topic on consciousness.
I repeat: the OP didn’t mention consciousness. And there is no reason to involve it if you discuss memory.
Suppose I have knowledge that I didn’t acquire by means of seeing (which implies reading), hearing (which implies hearsay), smelling, feeling, or tasting. To be clear: I’m not aware that I have such, but suppose I have. In that case, it’s my conscience that makes it conscious. Why would I need outer consciousness?

When i was 8 years old,i went on hols tae Ballyjamesduff in Ireland with my grandparents,i had never been in Ireland before.
One day myself and an older cousin went to see a film in the local cinema.
Halfway through it,he was sick and told me he needed tae go home,so i said i would go with him,he said no,just carry on and watch the film,which i did.
When i left the cinema,i got lost on my way home cos i started walking in a totally different direction.
Instead of being frightened,i seemed to recognize every street that i was passing through,even though i’d never been on them previously.
2 miles later,i finally arrived back home,and yet i never felt in the least bit scared at all,maybe there is something in it after all.
I am also sure that many of us have been in a place where we have never been yet think they have been there before.

Although I often read this message board for a diversion, I never felt compelled to post until coming across this thread. I suppose it is because I usually find that both sides of a given debate are adequately developed and I don’t think that I have much to offer beyond what has already been said. On this topic, however, I do not think that this is the case, as nobody has really provided a strong, reasoned argument in favor of the validity of past lives.

I would encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to look at the work of Ian Stevenson. A good starting point, aside from viewing his Wikipedia page, is his book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation.

As for a little background on the man; already an accomplished psychiatrist in the conventional sense (he was the chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine from 1957-1967), he had an intense interest in past life research. With regard to the OP’s direct question about fire, he theorized that phobias, child prodigies, and even intense life interests that begin at a very young age and continue throughout life, can all be tied to our experiences in previous lives.

He was able to pursue his own research in this area when $1,000,000 was donated to the university specifically for this purpose. Stevenson subsequently spent decades traveling the globe in search of case studies, specifically children, who had vivid memories of previous lives. He would attempt to “confirm” these cases by validating details that the child could not possibly have learned in his or her current incarnation.

As critics point out, his methodology was flawed – he could not impose any sort of controls to his case studies. How could he? But what he may have lacked in terms of controlling variables and influencing factors (say, from parents), he made up for in terms of volume. He amassed about 3,000 case studies over his career, and “confirmed” a great many of these.

Some of the more spectacular examples involve xenoglossy, which is the spontaneous ability to speak fluently languages that the child has not had significant exposure to in this incarnation.

There are countless examples where a child would speak of his or her former family and be able to provide precise details of their former hometown’s topography, as well as about the family itself. When Stevenson would contact these families, they would confirm what the child reported remembering, such as the names of family members and their personality characteristics. There are cases of children looking at family photographs provided by these families, and easily identifying family members.

And, contrary to what people have posted several times above, it is about as rare as one would expect that the person’s former incarnation was of someone famous or in any way remarkable. The vast majority of these lives are mundane.

With case studies like these, I do think it is unfortunate that people entirely dismiss the possibility out of hand. At the very least, it is worth consideration.

I personally believe in this, not because of this research, but because of past life regressions that I have performed on other people. This began as a bit of a fun game, to see what would happen, after reading about such regression therapy. However, I soon discovered that the friends I did this hypnosis on, were coming up with fascinating life stories – again, not fascinating because they were famous people or performed extraordinary acts – but because the lives were so ordinary, but rich in detail, with certain running themes that carried significance in the current life.

For instance, there was a friend of mine who did not believe in past lives whatsoever, but she was willing to undergo this silly charade out of curiosity. She happened to be an extremely visual thinker, so the process was natural for her (there is a definite correlation there, in my limited experience). Anyway, we went through two separate lives, basically from start to finish, stopping at moments of particular significance. An important fact, in her current life, is that she has always had a severe distaste for her mother’s wedding dress. Whenever she would see it, there was something about it that really bothered her – something about the fabric, but the complaint was inarticulable. If she was really pressed on the matter, she could say nothing except that she simply did not like it.

In both previous lives, the same sort of fabric and patterned design came up in significant ways. In the first life, in the Victorian period, she was part of a wealthy, well-to-do family. She recalled an incident as a teenager where she was unable to pursue a love interest due to a disparity in family prominence and wealth. She recalled ripping a fine tablecloth off a table in a fit of anger, and this cloth reminded her of the wedding dress in her current incarnation.

In the second life, she was a young African American boy in the recently desegregated south. I remember how puzzled she seemed as she was describing herself, as she looked “himself” in the mirror – how odd it was to feel as though she was this young man, who appeared so different from her in her current life – an attractive, white, blond woman. She recalled hating her hair in that life, how it didn’t look like the other kids’, and overhearing a fight between her parents in the living room about not being able to afford new shoes for the kids. This is just the sort of mundane detail that I referred to earlier.

Anyway, she recalled going to a school dance where she, again, could not pursue a love interest; this time due to the racial divide. At the dance, where the punch was being served, was another table cloth that reminded her of the wedding dress in her current incarnation. Again, it represented an obstacle to accessing a potential loving relationship. The balance is interesting, as in the first life, she was on one side of the barrier, but in the second life, she was on the other, in terms of societal prestige.

It is also interesting that her parents, in this incarnation, were divorced, and so, this wedding dress, where the cloth should represent a loving relationship, instead it represents a failed attempt in that regard.

Of course, we did not go into these past life regressions with the mission to figure out why she hated her mother’s wedding dress. It just so happened that, in the Victorian life, she saw the tablecloth, and that was immediately what came to mind. We did not go into these lives with any other intent than curiosity, and had no predetermined expectations.

So, is it possible – even probable – that what these friends of mine reported was nothing more than contemporaneous imaginings, invented as we spoke, like someone narrating a dream? Yes, yes it is, and I concede that wholeheartedly. The brain is remarkable at confabulating reasonable explanations for biases, beliefs, and interests, post hoc. However, I’ve performed this experiment with others, and have read the work of people who regularly engage in this sort of past life regression therapy (Brian Weiss, for example), and, to me, it is convincing.

What is particularly interesting about all this though, even assuming that these visions are completely fabricated by the mind, in the moment, is that going to the “root” of these problems, or at least convincing somebody that they have done so, is an effective therapy in and of itself. Brian Weiss writes a lot about this; in particular, his first patient had an irrational fear of choking among other anxieties(if I remember correctly) that was not explained in her current incarnation, but once he brought her back to a previous life where she died in this manner, the fear was completely ameliorated. She understood (or believed she understood) the cause of the problem, and so this somehow made the problem go away. I do not know of any broad studies of this phenomena, under controlled settings, but it would be interesting to see such a study carried out. It would not necessarily prove or disprove past lives, but it would show that this therapy works, which is fascinating on its own.

If I had the means, I would love to be able to research this topic on a larger scale, and attempt to confirm cases as Ian Stevenson did. As it stands, it is just a hobby of mine to explore when the topic comes up with a close friend. The results have always been worth the effort.

As an aside, I have never undergone a regression myself. I have tried, but I cannot visualize, and so I cannot follow the induction technique. This is a subject for another thread entirely, but, as I alluded to earlier, those who can visualize vividly have a predisposition to be able to jump back to past lives quickly and easily.

There isn’t one. You can make an argument, but you can’t say it’s strong or reasoned when there is no evidence it can happen and no means through which it’s supposed to happen. The general argument is ‘person who claims to have had a past life could not have known or couldn’t have made up , therefore the knowledge comes from a past life.’ There’s an awful lot of ‘this couldn’t possibly be a coincidence’-type thinking, which is never a good sign. People are very good at making things up and free associating, and they’re very good at picking up on suggestions. When their “knowledge” from past lives is put up against facts, it never comes out looking very good. Even when spiritualism and seances were in vogue, people recognized the cliche of mediums summoning or invoking past lives as Native American maids.

That’s a wonderful summary of the evidence for past lives: “the research was flawed and unscientific, but there sure was a lot of it!”

lol:D

Of course I do – 30 years ago I was a totally different person. Party all night and wake-up like nothing happened.

So my past life was “young” and now…it isn’t.

:::sigh:::

You have made some valid points; but, for the sake of argument:

What would you consider convincing and definitive evidence for reincarnation?

What experiments would you perform to definitively prove or disprove the existence of the phenomenon of reincarnation?

I don’t think I can imagine any. Show me how it would be possible in the first place and maybe we could talk about how it happens.

Evidence(NOT proof):1. Solid evidence that the person who was supposedly reincarnated actually existed.
2. The claimant would have to come up with verified intimate information about the person who was reincarnated that she/he couldn’t normally acquire through travel, speaking to others that have that knowledge, or the internet.
3. The claimant would have to give an accurate account of life at the time the supposed reincarnated lived-anachronisms from different eras, areas and even inaccurate movies and television shows have shown up the accounts of many a claimant in the past.
edited to add: 4. Speaking the actual language of the supposed reincarnated, as it was spoken at that time, and not just a badly done accent would help.