> > The most scientific or reproducible method of verifying what happens after > death or in-between lives is in-between-life regression, such as that > practised by David Newton amongst others. A potential study for it would > be to have various experienced hypnotherapists try out the hypnosis with > different patients, to see if they also have in-between-life experiences > which go along with the usual trend.
It may be reproducible, but there is no evidential basis for the assumption that the experiences reported by those under hypnosis is factual in origin, as opposed to a commonly-themed artifact generated by the procedure itself. Such evidence suffers from the same flaws as those I described for justcamel's claims. Multiple people having similar subjective experiences is not a basis for considering those experiences part of objective reality. There must be some externally verifiable information flow to/from the subjectively experienced phenomenon that bypasses the person experiencing it. Otherwise the reproducibility of the results can just as well be attributed to other conditions, such as the similarity in brain structure and settings, rather than to something after death or between lives. Verifiable ESP is remote-viewing,, Russel Targ has lots of material on it. I looked him up. As I expected, his results are generally considered flawed/pseudoscientific for reasons similar to the one I described above for regression. Per Wikipedia: A variety of scientific studies of remote viewing have been conducted. Some > earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results but they > had invalidating flaws.[36] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMarks_.26_Kammann19802000_ed._ISBN_1573927988-36> > None > of the more recent experiments have shown positive results when conducted > under properly controlled conditions > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control>.[29] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ#cite_note-jordan-29>[42] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ#cite_note-Time1995-42>[43] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ#cite_note-uk_research-43> This > lack of successful experiments has led the mainstream scientific community > to reject remote viewing, based upon the absence of an evidence base, the > lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of > experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ#Reception) On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> wrote: > The most scientific or reproducible method of verifying what happens after > death or in-between lives is in-between-life regression, such as that > practised by David Newton amongst others. A potential study for it would > be to have various experienced hypnotherapists try out the hypnosis with > different patients, to see if they also have in-between-life experiences > which go along with the usual trend. > > Presumably it is also possibly given sufficient experience to meditate > yourself into a sufficient state to be able to access such personal > history. Though that would be rather subjective. > > David Newton's research does point to similar starting point as justcamel > mentioned, where the inexperienced are met with familiar or what they > expect after death, until they are ready to accept they are dead and move > onto the spirit realm, where they exist as balls of light. Additionally > there seems to be peer groups and group-guides, to help figure out life > experiences and what needs to be worked on in future. Then a future life > is plotted and reincarnation occurs. > > It is difficult to learn much new between lives due to the nature of the > spirit-world where it's all just bosonic, not much restriction or > challenge. > > In terms of "Nirvana" or "Liberation", personally I don't have any > interest in it, considering how fun life is with a body. Though there are > non-incarnational paths to learning, such as being a guide, either for a > soul-group of human incarnates or perhaps to help out on another level such > as guiding eco-systems. > > The only time people "skip" the spirit-world altogether, is if they lead > some really horrible lives, then they aren't able to rejoin with their > peer-group in a mature way, so typically either stick around as a ghost, or > accept incarnating as someone destined to be a victim of someone similar to > their past life. > > That's what I gleaned from reading David Newtons books. > My personal belief is that we continue learning forever, always growing, > and incarnating at higher levels, such as places, planets, galaxies, etc. > > Verifiable ESP is remote-viewing,, Russel Targ has lots of material on it. > > have fun, > Logan > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm sure you meant to, but you're not actually answering the question. >> How do *you, personally*, know, *right here and now*, what happens *after >> death*? How did the information about that get into your own mind? How >> can you verify the source and reliability of that information? What >> evidence could you have possibly observed? How can you reliably tell it >> apart from a hallucination or some other form of misperception? I am not >> asking you how *I* can verify what you are saying, in the future. I am >> asking you how *you *have *already *verified what you are saying. >> Because I don't see how you could have, at least not in a way that would >> have been satisfactory to me were it me in your shoes. >> >> This isn't about me opening my mind to possibilities. If you had >> verifiable evidence that clearly supported your assertion, I would accept >> it as a possibility right this second, without hesitation, because my mind >> is already open and I put evidence before assumptions, even if that means >> revising my worldview. I am asking you about the mechanics of the situation >> - the flow of information from outside your mind to inside it, the basis >> for your transition from ignorance to knowledge regarding this subject. I >> am asking you to point out to me a mechanism by which you personally could >> have attained supporting evidence in a reliable manner for the claims you >> are making. >> >> This is the very first stage in convincing me. If you can show me how you >> yourself came into this knowledge *in a reliable manner*, I would be far >> more inclined to give your claims enough credence to consider exploring >> their potential veracity for myself. But until you can at least do that >> much - that tiniest of first steps - it just seems like a waste of time, >> and I lack any motivation to waste my time exploring something with such >> low expected returns (from my perspective). >> >> On the other hand, if you cannot even explain to me how *you *could >> possibly know what you are saying is true with some degree of certainty >> based on evidence, I would highly recommend you revisit your worldview with >> that question in mind. >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:01 PM, justcamel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> How do you know that your child does not die when Super Mario dies? >>> >>> You observe the child (which resides on the same level of reality as >>> your embodiment) and you observe Super Mario jumping into the lava pit (he >>> resides in the virtualized reality) >>> >>> It's the same with physical death. >>> >>> You - or rather your developed consciousness - observes the >>> consciousness (which resides on the same level as your consciousness) as it >>> detaches from the victim of that car accident (body resides in the >>> virtualized reality) >>> >>> Basically two things can happen once you die. If you die consciously >>> (that implies you conquered your subconsciousness and that you can stay >>> conscious during sleep for example) you no longer need to reincarnate >>> within this learning environment (you still CAN). There is no more need for >>> another learning lesson on overcoming attachments and clinging to the >>> learning environment. >>> >>> If you die unconsciously then you will end up in a special temporary >>> virtual environment. The environment people who experienced "near death >>> experiences" talk abut. It's designed to calm the not-so-much-developed >>> consciousness down. You will meet the consciousness of loved ones and you >>> will interpret that experience as meeting real people ... as you are only >>> used to meeting real people. Once you understand the evolutionary purpose >>> of the learning environment (the "wheel of life") you will pick a new >>> learning iteration and reincarnate within an environment with high >>> probabilities of inducing genuine personal growth ... so you can further >>> develop your consciousness towards "liberation". (Which is really hard >>> given our culture. Contemporary science is almost solely focusing on >>> explaining the game world ... which is fun but pretty much irrelevant. >>> Playing Super Mario Land does not become more profitable only because you >>> can finally explain how mushrooms pop out of bricks.) >>> >>> If Super Mario dies a child will hit the CONTINUE button a 100 times. >>> Until the child is no longer attached to breaking blocks and beating Bowser >>> ... until the child has outgrown the learning environment. >>> >>> William Buhlman describes the "afterlife process" quite nicely in his >>> recent book "Adventures in the Afterlife". He has "personally" guided >>> plenty of consciousnesses through that very process he describes. Mind you: >>> he needs to use analogies and metaphors. No sentence can convey the >>> non-physical. There is a nice talk of him on YouTube about some aspects of >>> this as well ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OR6Kiwlohw ... but >>> you will probably have a hard time watching it to the end. Reading >>> Campbell's book and accepting it as a possibility helps a lot with >>> overcoming our cultural indoctrination. >>> >>> Many Buddhists have observed thousands of reincarnating souls. It's a >>> natural thing every person can do. Once a child stops playing Super Mario >>> Land it can also observe dying people on CNN on a reality level "above" >>> Super Mario Land. It's not "magical" ... it just requires a shift of >>> focus/consciousness. >>> >>> On 22.10.2015 17:49, Aaron Hosford wrote: >>> >>> This is where you lose us - or me, at least. How on earth do you know >>> this? How *could* you know this? >>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
