How is it possible to remember Past Lives? A Reply to the Sceptics

[JimJam]

I don't think there will ever be any way to "prove", to someone else, that a person has past lives. Even if they got all the facts correct, what if they are just tuning into someone else's life in history, whether they think it's their own or not. How could one possibly "prove" who's memory it is or where the information is coming from? There is no way to measure that or "prove" it, one way or the other, no matter how many case studies are done.....is there?

Seems to me past lives are in the realm of personal experience or personal opinion.....the mental or spiritual realm.....not in the realm of science where people try to "prove" their theories in some sort of concrete, measurable form.

Well...I am not sure why the title of this thread uses the phrase "A reply to the sceptics".
It is not a real reply if there is no attempt to address the issues the skeptics have.

[Student of Trinity]

Sokal's famous "paper" is considered by some (including me) to have debunked some things, but I don't think past lives are among those things.

(You can google 'Sokal hoax' if you want the story. It was a paper with a serious purpose, by a real theoretical physicist, but it was not really about physics at all. TLDR version: This physics professor got a bunch of meaningless gobbledegook published in a supposedly reputable journal of literary theory, in particular the kind of literary theory that reveres French deconstructionism and leftist politics. His point was that too much of that whole academic enterprise was pure pretense. It was arguably unfair, since the journal in question didn't have the big editorial staff and huge list of peer reviewers that science journals have. Its editors were just a couple of lit profs who assumed that Sokal was a sincere non-expert in their field, and made the call that his oddball paper might possibly provoke worthwhile discussion. My view, though, is that even when you make all possible allowances, the fact that Sokal's pretentious nonsense was accepted even just for the sake of argument remains a damning indictment of that whole field.)

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Speaking as a skeptic (we use the "k" in the U.S. rather than the "c"), none of those links would convince any skeptic.
The reason being is they make reference to anecdotal stories, usually with very little info for a person to research further.

There may be some clinical study that really tries to test the hypothesis that people claiming to recall past life memories is just that. But I am not currently aware of any.

I know organisations like the IIG and James Randi Educational Foundation both offer money and publicity for any reproducible proof of paranormal abilities or similar...and proof of past life would qualify.

It would change the world if it was ever proven.

I also prefer the spelling sKeptics for clarity. I have a great deal of respect for healthy skepticism, but when I come up against JREF my allergy to Bullshit really flares up.

Now, if you or I have trodden in bull shit, we're pretty much satisfied by the odor, mess and appearance that it is a piece of bull shit. To qualify as a true JREFer, apart from having seen and smelt it you are also required to feel, taste and listen to it in order to be 50.5% certain that it is, in fact, bull shit.

As far as memories go, given the immense data-density of the human brain it would remain impossible to encode one entire lifetime let alone several and one must therefore cast aside the idea that any part of the brain is devoted to memory archives. I do not deny that the brain (or part thereof) is used to encode and recover memories, I'm just saying that it isn't the storage medium.

Therefore, if that storage medium is non-corporeal, there is no reason why past-life access should not be equally possible. I use the word "possible" with great caution. It would seem that there are certain mechanisms in place to maintain "past life amnesia" and I can't say whether that's good or bad. If each life is a "lesson" and we're repeating that same lesson over and over again until we get it right, it seems to me that access to past life "failures" would be helpful in getting it right this time but, if we've closed our Geology texts and moved on to Textiles and Design it makes equal sense to leave those previous text books closed.

[JimJam]

I also prefer the spelling sKeptics for clarity. I have a great deal of respect for healthy skepticism, but when I come up against JREF my allergy to Bullshit really flares up.

Now, if you or I have trodden in bull shit, we're pretty much satisfied by the odor, mess and appearance that it is a piece of bull shit. To qualify as a true JREFer, apart from having seen and smelt it you are also required to feel, taste and listen to it in order to be 50.5% certain that it is, in fact, bull shit.

You appear to not care for the JREF, but have given no reason why. Not liking bullshit isn't really a reason when no examples of bullshit are offered.

As far as memories go, given the immense data-density of the human brain it would remain impossible to encode one entire lifetime let alone several and one must therefore cast aside the idea that any part of the brain is devoted to memory archives. I do not deny that the brain (or part thereof) is used to encode and recover memories, I'm just saying that it isn't the storage medium.

Therefore, if that storage medium is non-corporeal, there is no reason why past-life access should not be equally possible. I use the word "possible" with great caution. It would seem that there are certain mechanisms in place to maintain "past life amnesia" and I can't say whether that's good or bad. If each life is a "lesson" and we're repeating that same lesson over and over again until we get it right, it seems to me that access to past life "failures" would be helpful in getting it right this time but, if we've closed our Geology texts and moved on to Textiles and Design it makes equal sense to leave those previous text books closed.

This all rests in the premise that a form of consciousness survives biological death, and that reincarnation of this consciousness occurs.
Neither of which have been proven in any way, but are merely taken as faith by believers.

[WildKat]

I don't think there will ever be any way to "prove", to someone else, that a person has past lives. Even if they got all the facts correct, what if they are just tuning into someone else's life in history, whether they think it's their own or not. How could one possibly "prove" who's memory it is or where the information is coming from? There is no way to measure that or "prove" it, one way or the other, no matter how many case studies are done.....is there?

Seems to me past lives are in the realm of personal experience or personal opinion.....the mental or spiritual realm.....not in the realm of science where people try to "prove" their theories in some sort of concrete, measurable form.

Agree - I don't think this is something that will ever conclusively be proven.

But I think the idea of "tuning in" to the records of the past may have some validity. It can explain how more than one person might "remember" being Cleopatra, for instance. (Either that or there are just many people in Scientology with huge egos who like to recall that they were famous people because it makes them feel special and floats the needle - lol!)

At any rate, there is something called "Akashic Records" and I'm no expert on that theory either, but it kinda makes sense to me. If we are all "an aspect of God", so to speak, we could all tune into anything from the past if we had the ability to turn the dial.

Proving anything to the satisfaction of a skeptic - especially the JREF ..... not so easy.

[Smilla]

The lives themselves aren't of importance. What is of importance is the pattern of cause & effects which result from decisions made. Events from past lives & present lives both can illuminate patterns of thought & decision-making of which an individual may not be otherwise readily aware. Any endeavor which sheds light on such patterns is useful, past life techniques among them.


Mark A. Baker

It's perfectly possible to work on issues a person is having in the present without making any reference to the past. In many cases referencing the past can make people worse - particularly if they have been through heavy trauma.

[Panda Termint]

Agree - I don't think this is something that will ever conclusively be proven.
<snip...>

Maybe when Hubbard comes back to clean up his mess?

[Mark A. Baker]

It's perfectly possible to work on issues a person is having in the present without making any reference to the past. In many cases referencing the past can make people worse - particularly if they have been through heavy trauma.

Whatever works for the individual, past lives included.


Mark A. Baker

[WildKat]

It's perfectly possible to work on issues a person is having in the present without making any reference to the past. In many cases referencing the past can make people worse - particularly if they have been through heavy trauma.

I sense great truth in that statement. I think I know of a couple of those cases.... A bit delusional to start with, then a load of significance added on top. The person ends up with more baggage than when they started and problems they never knew they had!

[ClamSource]

Memory is based in the brain tissue, as demonstrated by countless instances of brain trauma corresponding to memory loss. Also alzheimers.

Anyone believing in past life memories is kidding themselves.

Past life memories are no different from recovered memory - false memories coaxed into existence by suggestive therapy.