I think people make a mistake by defining the problem too narrowly. Only
those facts or observation that involve physical processes are
considered. Everything else is pushed aside as being religion,
mysticism, or imagination. Granted, if each metaphysical observation is
viewed in isolation, such an approach looks very reasonable. However, if
the whole field of such phenomenon is examined, a consistent picture
emerges. The psi effects and other extraphysical mental abilities, the
observations of ghosts and other such occurrences, reincarnation, and,
last but not least, the abilities of certain men such as Sai Baba, all
of these well studied and documented effects lead to a significant and
logical conclusion. The conclusion is that a reality exists that is
superimposed on the physical one we know and love. This reality is
detected occasionally by the brain as well as by scientific instruments.
In the past, such studies and occurrences have been the red meat of
religion, with all of the confusion and superstition this approach
provides. I suggest open minded people now have enough information
available to them that is not contaminated by the self-serving needs of
religion so that they can start to see a new reality. Since we all are
interested in the physical reality, I would hope this new one would
create at least as much interest and open minded discussion, without
religion being involved. After all, long ago mankind moved from using
religion to explain the physical reality. Why can't this improved
approach be applied to this new reality?
Ed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives
are not remembered.
True, it's a big one; it's based on the small amount I've read about
brain science plus some major guesses.
So far, as we continue to learn more about brain function, everything
seems to be explainable in terms of the actual physical brain
structures. Simulating or mapping an entire human brain is still 'way
beyond anything anyone can do at this time, but simpler brains have been
mapped and simulated, and effects caused by the "ghost in the machine"
haven't turned up. That /suggests/ that the stuff which a brain has
learned, and which its owner can remember, does indeed come from
interactions with the outside world, through the apparent physical
pathways rather than through any alleged extraphysical path.
Supporting this view are impromptu studies of people whose interaction
with the external world is limited. The most dramatic was the classic
(and accidental) experiment on "H.M." (hope I got the initials right) in
bilateral hippocampectomy which showed pretty conclusively -- and rather
horribly -- that additions to your memory are mediated by the
hippocampus and do require that physical structure to take place. Remove
the physical switching center and further additions to memory are
impossible. Sorry, I couldn't scare up a good link on this one just
now. Summary, for those who haven't heard of this, based on my somewhat
hazy memories from long ago when I first learned of this case: The
patient, H.M., had some problem or other (seizures, depression,
something someone thought could be cured using a knife) and had the bad
luck to encounter a surgeon who speculated that a bilateral
hippocampectomy was just the ticket to cure him. Well, as I got the
story, the surgery did indeed cure the condition, but it also made it
impossible for H.M. to learn anything new, ever again. From that day
forward, every day he awoke was, to him, the day after the operation ...
decades later, it was still the day after the operation for him. Lucky
for him, he was optimistic about the surgery and awoke in good spirits
afterwards, because he repeated the experience many, many times. His
short term memory was more or less OK, by the way -- it was migration of
memories from short term storage to long term storage that was blocked.
(After a number of years had gone by, it was observed that H.M. became
agitated upon looking in a mirror -- the aged face looking back at him
wasn't at all what he expected to see.)
Anyhow what all this suggests to me, as I already said, is that the
contents of our memory are based on the physical brain structures, with
those structures being formed using a genetic blueprint overlaid with
lots of "training"; I don't see a place for extraphysical memories to
work their way in. But perhaps I'm just being too hard-headed (is that
like being "solid-brained"?).
On the other hand, as an aside, it seems to me that a strong argument
can be made on probabilistic grounds in favor of reincarnation -- but I
won't go into that here, at least not just now. Ironically, if memory
is truly physical, then we can never know if reincarnation is fact or
just fantasy.
(And an interesting argument can be made, again purely on the basis of
probability theory with some simple assumptions, that the end of the
world is nigh -- and perhaps both arguments are correct, and that plus 3
bucks will get you a ride on a bus. Whatever. At least the
end-of-the-world argument can [and will] be tested.)
I suggest you read the books by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD). Prof.
Stevenson spent his career at the University of Virginia investigating
reincarnation using a scientific approach. Naturally, his extensive
investigation has been largely ignored because, as you point out, it
defies physical and conventional understanding. Nevertheless, evidence
exists for past-life memories, especially in children. This life might
not be a waste after all.
Thanks; I will take a look at it. If nothing else it has the potential
to be more optimistic than the bulk of what I read these days, which
sometimes leaves me feeling pretty bummed about the world.
Ed
