The Boy Who Lived Before

[cleanbluesky]

I don't understand how you can live again.. I mean, perhaps you can but it wouldn't exactly be you would it? Unless you have certain memories of your past life you are just another person on this planet.

Bear in mind that the brain is very poorly understood and often scientists claim false authority on what is and isn't possible. I don't know how or why reincarnation functions, but it seems possible.

 

[Jambo]

Slightly off topic in that my question has no relation to the boy's experience nor am I questioning whether it's true or not.

I don't understand how you can live again.. I mean, perhaps you can but it wouldn't exactly be you would it? Unless you have certain memories of your past life you are just another person on this planet.

I know what you mean. I have no idea why reincarnation can be a comfort to some. If reincarnation does happen then clearly hardly anyone can remember their previous life....... which makes it pretty irrelevant whether you have been reincranated or not.

 

[Hlebio]

Which the boy claims he did...

Jesus christ, read much?

I said that my post had no relation to the boy or the program or whether he was telling the truth or not..

Bear in mind that the brain is very poorly understood and often scientists claim false authority on what is and isn't possible. I don't know how or why reincarnation functions, but it seems possible.

I guess but this guy said what I tried to and failed

I know what you mean. I have no idea why reincarnation can be a comfort to some. If reincarnation does happen then clearly hardly anyone can remember their previous life....... which makes it pretty irrelevant whether you have been reincranated or not.

 

[cleanbluesky]

I know what you mean. I have no idea why reincarnation can be a comfort to some. If reincarnation does happen then clearly hardly anyone can remember their previous life....... which makes it pretty irrelevant whether you have been reincranated or not.

You don't need to remember something in order for it to effect you. It seems that few are able to conciously remember their past life (or choose to interpret it in other ways, if they do have vague memories - ever felt DeJaVu?)

 

[D.P.]

Bear in mind that the brain is very poorly understood and often scientists claim false authority on what is and isn't possible. I don't know how or why reincarnation functions, but it seems possible.

Define poorly understood?

rarely would a scientist claim false authority because of the whole idea of science in that they would have no support and receive heavy criticism and would fail to publish articles.

Why would reincarnation seem possible? To any logical person it would seem most impossible. For starters the human global population has flucatuated massively before, with a recent explosion to 6 billion people. Secondly it serves no purpose what so ever and is entirely pointless.

 

[D.P.]

You don't need to remember something in order for it to effect you. It seems that few are able to conciously remember their past life (or choose to interpret it in other ways, if they do have vague memories - ever felt DeJaVu?)

Deja Vu has numerous scinetific and logical explanations. The problem lies in that it is difficult to invoke deja vu in order to directly verify the theories.

There is certainly no need to invoke somekind of paranormal mumbo jumbo to explain it as there are far simpler rational explanations. E.g neuronal miss-firing, multi-level cogntive processsing errors, distrubuted processing unification erros, attentional slips, false memory invocation.
And of course they can all be combined in various ways. e.g. a neuronla miss-fire creates an error in the distributed process of multiple cognitive processes which prevents unification in conciousness resulting in attentional slips, which can create deja vu and then as one thinks about it they invokes false memories.

Basically, it is know then brain can process sensory data multiple times, either in parallel or in serial, or both, and then unifies the seperate processes in the concious thought. A tiny error may result in the same information being sent twice at different times.

 

[D.P.]

You can see one particular emmory effect in the above post. I used the word invoke once early on, subconciously later on i sued the same word as it was primed after recent firing.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Deja Vu has numerous scinetific and logical explanations. The problem lies in that it is difficult to invoke deja vu in order to directly verify the theories.

Then how can any 'scientific' and 'logical' explanation be authoritative. You also brand alternate explanations as scientific and logical as it nothing pertaining to reincarnation can be scientific. Given that science is a body of knowledge based on a certain type of observation I fail to see how alternate explanations are more 'scientific' than any other explanation.

There is certainly no need to invoke somekind of paranormal mumbo jumbo to explain it as there are far simpler rational explanations. E.g neuronal miss-firing, multi-level cogntive processsing errors, distrubuted processing unification erros, attentional slips, false memory invocation.
And of course they can all be combined in various ways. e.g. a neuronla miss-fire creates an error in the distributed process of multiple cognitive processes which prevents unification in conciousness resulting in attentional slips, which can create deja vu and then as one thinks about it they invokes false memories.

If you're willing to brand a theory as this as 'legitimate' without any evidence or reasoning for most of what you have said then I would suggest that you are peddling mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Camalot]

it is very interesting ... the child was spot on in some areas - he was insistent there was a dog and even when they couldn't find the place he was on about, he insisted that he was telling the truth. Then they found the place and he just clammed up and looked totally overwhelmed. And they found the photos of the dog too.

Very interesting stuff whether you believe it or not.

Yes, but dont you think out of all the things he remembered, he got one of the biggest things wrong, his own fathers name

 

[kitten_caboodle]

Yes, but dont you think out of all the things he remembered, he got one of the biggest things wrong, his own fathers name

the kid was what, 2,3 years old? My godson would say his dad's name was Jack Sparrow if you asked him. I certainly didn't know my mum's name til I was much older than that, as I called her Mum! Tbh I think the things he explained that he'd seen - the rockpools below the house, the dog and the planes landing on the beach were more important than the things like names etc.

However I'd be more inclined to think that somehow, stuff that's happened to your ancestors may somehow become embedded in your brain (through genes and stuff I guess), so that these memories aren't actually yours, rather someone who you have inherited genes from. When I was a really small kid I used to say things all the time to my Mum about my Grandad who died before I was born. A couple of these things she checked up on and found them to be true - but she, nor my Grandma knew of them so couldn't have told me.

 

[badgermonkey]

Yes, but dont you think out of all the things he remembered, he got one of the biggest things wrong, his own fathers name

In all fairness i wondered about this. Getting some memories wrong is perfectly understandable, people forget things all the time. However it's the big things, like his dad and how he died etc that the kid got wrong. How likely is it that miniscule memories like a "secret" entrance etc persist but you forget your own dad, or have an entirely different image of him.


Also why is reincarnation considered impossible by some people here? Reincarnation is nothing to do with the brain/memories etc. It is the departure of your spirit/soul/essence/whatever you'd call it from one dead body into a new life. Now that has no need for memories or anything, it is merely the "essence" of you. Now until you can prove to me that that doesn't have the slightest chance of existing then you "proving" to me that reincarnation is impossible because there are other alternatives then in my mind you have nothing but faith.

 

[cleanbluesky]

In all fairness i wondered about this. Getting some memories wrong is perfectly understandable, people forget things all the time. However it's the big things, like his dad and how he died etc that the kid got wrong. How likely is it that miniscule memories like a "secret" entrance etc persist but you forget your own dad, or have an entirely different image of him.

Could be possible that concepts of an 'archetype' are interfering with memories... how well do we actually know our parents anyway? There are an incredible amount of emotional issues in the way in which we see our parents.

 

[D.P.]

Then how can any 'scientific' and 'logical' explanation be authoritative. You also brand alternate explanations as scientific and logical as it nothing pertaining to reincarnation can be scientific. Given that science is a body of knowledge based on a certain type of observation I fail to see how alternate explanations are more 'scientific' than any other explanation.

None of them claim to be fact, they are theories based on hundreds of years of research using logic and empirical evidence to form ideas with a solid framework using a sound methodology. It is authoritative because the scientists who research such matters are considered the world scientific authority on such matters. They have researched it significantly and have more knowledge on the matter than you or I. I never said that reincarnation doesn't exist or does not have a place in science if it was found to exist. The fact is there is no scientific support for it, it does not make any kind of logical sense, and it serves no logical purpose.

If you're willing to brand a theory as this as 'legitimate' without any evidence or reasoning for most of what you have said then I would suggest that you are peddling mumbo-jumbo.

The theories postulated are well known and well researched. As I doubt you have any access to scientific journals of a neuro-cogntiive nature then I wont bother providing any such reference. Heck, even wikipedia will describe some of these for you. The basis behind these theories lies in the simple basic understanbding of how the brain works. The brain is massively paralllel in nature and processes data (often from different modalities or spatial-temporal scales) in parallel. It is also recurrent in that data can be cycled and re-processed. Attentional mechanisms bring certain features into concious thought (leaving most data in the subconcious). This is all basic psychology that you would learn in 1st year of a psych course.
An error in any of these processes could easily result in the phenomenon of Deja vu.
Think what happens in Folding at home- the server might send out the same data to be procesed multiple times, and will recieve multiple outputs back again. Unless it is careful the server will experience 'deja vu' and override data or throw an error etc.


Here is a link if you must: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050422-000002.html

 

[badgermonkey]

Could be possible that concepts of an 'archetype' are interfering with memories... how well do we actually know our parents anyway? There are an incredible amount of emotional issues in the way in which we see our parents.

Still.... well i cant really argue back against this as it's merely a possibility that is perfectly valid. But he was an adult when he died according to him. So how is it that as an adult he still had a warped view of his parents?


I still remain skeptical to these past memories however. I dont disbelieve them, but in everything he said it was inconsistant. Let me now proceed to "rip this apart". Id like to point out before i do that i will try and look at it unbiased.


1) When asked to describe the house, all he could say was that it was white, and had a "secret" entrance. While these were right, they are not really proof. Most kids feel they have a way into their house that is "secret" (Indeed mine was a gap in the back fence!). Saying the house was "white" doesn't yet prove anything either. He could have very easily picked any colour, it is luck perhaps that white is a common colour?

2) He only said how many floors the house had when pushed about it on film. The guy said "was it one level? Or was it two?" or something like that. The kid responded with one. Basically he just responded with the first thing the guy said, and didn't really seem particularly sure of himself.

3) The rockpools and planes landing on the beach. Well... had he already had the image of the beach in his mind, every young kid associates rockpools with beaches. The planes landing is a bit of a mystery though, as that is worryingly accurate. However so is the island of Barra. No I had never heard of that island until the program. So how did the kid come to hear about it? Did he come up with it out of the blue? If so, then his story is viable. But perhaps there's a chance that he'd heard about it, maybe even from one of his mates, at the same time learning that the planes land on the beach. Attach to that a kids imagination then all of the previous things other than the plane and beach could merely be lucky guesses or something.

4) The family name. He got a surname, that lived in a house matching his description bang on. He got first names and causes of death way off. These contradict each other so much it's hard to pick at them.

5) The last thing i noticed was he said he sat at a particular window watching his brothers and sisters playing on the beach. From the window he highlighted, you couldn't see past the grassy bank just outside to see down to the beach. Perhaps the landscape changed slightly over time.



So um.... theres evidance for and against. And we're back to where we started

 

[D.P.]

In all fairness i wondered about this. Getting some memories wrong is perfectly understandable, people forget things all the time. However it's the big things, like his dad and how he died etc that the kid got wrong. How likely is it that miniscule memories like a "secret" entrance etc persist but you forget your own dad, or have an entirely different image of him.


Also why is reincarnation considered impossible by some people here? Reincarnation is nothing to do with the brain/memories etc. It is the departure of your spirit/soul/essence/whatever you'd call it from one dead body into a new life. Now that has no need for memories or anything, it is merely the "essence" of you. Now until you can prove to me that that doesn't have the slightest chance of existing then you "proving" to me that reincarnation is impossible because there are other alternatives then in my mind you have nothing but faith.

A lot of his memories are very vague. Secet entrace could be interpreted in numerous ways. And I dont see how the gate was particularly secret.

It was interesting to note that even the specialist in this sort of thing wasn't overly impressed in the end since major mistakes were made. And similar the child psychologist pointed out that such memories are common in chilkdren, the difference being he genuinely felt they were real. But then that is easily explained by numerous other psychriatric problems such as schitzotypal personality disorder (not the psychriatric illness- schitzophrenia), which coincedently is known for causing false memories and weird thinking. I would perhaps suggest a trip to a psych to get some testing done.

 

[D.P.]

...

Most houses are white in any case, especially in those parts of scotland.

People aren't a fan of painting houses black. Indeed his own house was white.


and point 2- this was my point earlier. flase meories are rampant and so one has to be very careful when questioning in this way. The specialist already planted information in his head. What if asked if it was 3 or 4 levels, would the boy said "no, its only 1 floor." I doubt it but we'll never know, so that whole chunk of evidence can no longer be used in the argument.

As for Barra and the planes. He could have watche a program on it in BBC2 scotland. A detail that sounds interesting but one that we will never know. + watching some documentary on Barra he may have seen white houses with children playing on the beach.

 

[badgermonkey]

None of them claim to be fact, they are theories based on hundreds of years of research using logic and empirical evidence to form ideas with a solid framework using a sound methodology. It is authoritative because the scientists who research such matters are considered the world scientific authority on such matters. They have researched it significantly and have more knowledge on the matter than you or I. I never said that reincarnation doesn't exist or does not have a place in science if it was found to exist. The fact is there is no scientific support for it, it does not make any kind of logical sense, and it serves no logical purpose.


[/url]

This is an old tired argument but hundreds/thousands of years ago the earth was flat. Supposedly. That is because there was no logic or research that could say anything else. Of course it was flat, otherwise we'd fall off!!

Then it was known that the Earth was centre of the universe. Isn't it obvious? You see everything in the sky rotate around us, we MUST be the centre!

Science constantly changes and evolves, constantly disproves itself, comes up with new theories, and disproves these too. You talk about "hundreds of years" of research. Well reincarnation has been fact to some people for MUCH longer than that. For longer than science has existed. So by your argument reincarnation is more viable than science

(Please let it be known I have a good interest in science... i even did physics at A level )

 

[kitten_caboodle]

Still.... well i cant really argue back against this as it's merely a possibility that is perfectly valid. But he was an adult when he died according to him. So how is it that as an adult he still had a warped view of his parents?(

I must have missed that bit - I didn't hear him talking about his own death

I think it's very strange that he got the name of the people that lived in the house and also the fact that they had a black and white dog bang on. That's a hell of a coincidence for a child of that age.

There are no 'real' explanation as to where the factual bits of the story came from. Surely in such a small child we have to expect that the story will be embellished - after all a class party at a nursery class ends up being one with Peter Pan and elephants and all kinds to a little child's imagination. But there were things that are too close imo to explain.

 

[badgermonkey]

I must have missed that bit - I didn't hear him talking about his own death

I think it's very strange that he got the name of the people that lived in the house and also the fact that they had a black and white dog bang on. That's a hell of a coincidence for a child of that age.

Yeah he said he was big and then he was little again. That he went through a "porthole" or "portal" or something.

Unless im mistaken and that was the other kid, if so i apologise

 

[kitten_caboodle]

Yeah he said he was big and then he was little again. That he went through a "porthole" or "portal" or something.

Unless im mistaken and that was the other kid, if so i apologise

yeah that was the american kid I think. THe one that believed he was his own grandad.... He said that a few times - then God gave him a card to come back to earth and now 'I'm a kid again!!'