I don't think there's anything wrong with being excessively careful and accepting nothing without hard evidence. A lot of it is me not wanting to even remotely risk saying anything that could damage my career, if ever I were to be found out on here by an employer or something years down the road. Realize that I'm training for a very stringent scientific profession, and getting caught in a place like this, saying anything that isn't up to the highest standards of critical rigor, could spell big trouble. Not only that, if I'm going to succeed in breaking the idea of reincarnation into a professional setting, this is how I have to approach it. I have to stay firmly in line with the "UVA" wing of the reincarnation field and shun everything that could be construed as pseudoscience, or I'm never gonna be taken seriously. At least that line of work is decently respected by scientists, if not accepted; the latter, acceptance as legitimate theory, is my goal, with my current plan being to use modern neurological science to establish young children's PLM's as authentic. Your reality checks are welcome, Ken, and I've always agreed with them; it's NOT going to be easy, I never said it'd be easy, I just believe I can do it if I commit. No one has to root for me, although anyone who supports reincarnation should, right? I think Carol would root for me. I just wanted a place to discuss a subject I'm passionate and excited about, so I signed up here, because such conversations irl are predictably rare. Whatever, I don't want to bog this forum down with bickering, so we can put this to rest. I stand by my answer to the OP; it is a simple and logical explanation for a layman, and does not go against any of the forum's rules or purpose.
Jack E questions
- Thread starter Jack E
- Start date
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
I have included my comments in the copied post above in [...] and will reply on the other thread you posted in about my observations associated with that post that sent me to bed with a belly-laugh.
With regard to "hard evidence", I meant that childhood PLM cases and the research done on them already constitutes enough hard evidence to conclude reincarnation must be possible, but at this stage, I have no basis to go any further than that claim. I sense a streak of anti-intellectualism running through this forum, although I suspect it is reactionary; scientists have always been hostile to reincarnation, so the regulars here are naturally distrustful of them. That's justified, and I've seen it for myself. You accuse me of bias and close-mindedness, but if I were that, I wouldn't be posting on a reincarnation site. Rest assured that in my field, I'll be called a crank and a pseudoscientist many times before hitting any breakthroughs, no matter how rigid and methodical I am about it. Going so far as to embrace PLM research at all is bold where I come from, the kind of thing that's deemed "so open-minded your brain falls out"; my professors tend to be astounded by my willingness to entertain such ideas, and not always in a good way. I'll be subjected to enough abuse and ridicule doing what I do as it is; allow me to at least keep my alibi that my line of study is actually entirely consistent with established science, and that otherwise I'm a very typical scientist and very avoidant of the kind of fringe ideology that associates with subjects like reincarnation. I'm going to need it, no matter how tightly I stick to the straight and narrow path. The concern above all is to appear conventional, as that is where respect and legitimacy originate, and moreover, I have no desire to project a different image. Essentially, here is my plea. Can I like the status quo, without being called spineless and a sellout? Can a community that believes in reincarnation get along with an establishment scientist whose goal is to discover it?
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
Jack, you seem to need to ignore me even though I have traveled the same path as you claim to want. Perhaps you have an age bias as well! My accusations, warnings and postings were intended to help you initially and correct some possible problems - why are you so thin-skinned? I love science, always have. If the place that you "come from" is different than where I am in the bible-belt you have my sympathy.
Check your posts for the accusations I addressed - ask some people here what it is like to end up in a place you do not fit or like well with when you are sixty.
Check your posts for the accusations I addressed - ask some people here what it is like to end up in a place you do not fit or like well with when you are sixty.
I knew someone would accuse me of some form of bigotry at some point; that's just where disagreement leads now, isn't it? Let me be explicit here, because apparently there's confusion: I don't think you're a troll, I do take you seriously, and for the most part, I don't really have any problems with what you're saying. I think you're taking my defenses of my stance as attacks at you; they're simply meant as defense. You've been through this phase of scientific interest in PLM's, so I appreciate and agree with your assessments of all the difficulties that would have to be overcome, no issue with that. If you have any other suggestions or tips that you think would help me find the right direction, please do not hesitate to explain, and do so without calling me thin-skinned. I never resisted or argued with you on that, at least not on purpose. Tbh, the only thing you said that I directly opposed was "everyone is reincarnated", which is a flagrant assault on both responsible science and common sense, so I'm within my rights there. The insults like "bought by the establishment" are needless, but I can take that, I'll suffer much worse. I've never insulted you ad hominem, and I wouldn't, because I don't think you're saying anything wrong, except that one single point. Somehow, my opposition to that blew up into being a close-minded, cowardly sellout who can't take advice. If you want to help me, that isn't done by name-calling. So just stop that and maybe I'd understand what you're trying to tell me.
glia21
Explorer
Hi Jack and all, I was in a very similar position like Jack twenty years ago. I've studied psychology in Vienna, received a masters degree, and in my research for the meaning of life I wanted to prove reincarnation - well,in case it was real -and was thinking about a design to do so. During my education there was no way of even mentioning this topic to anyone, neither professor nor fellow student, so I concentrated first on my own private investigations which were reading stevensons books and emailing with erlendur haraldson (a professor from iceland who was doing research too). I ve got to say that I have had pl memories all my life, and by now have almost reconstructed a whole past lifetime. I've had more than one pl, but the others are more or less glimpses. Jack what I personally figured out was that IMO a vast majority of humankind has been reincarnated many times. Most kids seem to remember something and tell it or behave like it too but too often it is dismissed as cute & funny kiddy behavior or imitation or "the magic age". Thing is they also mix things up, they remember and combine it with something that happened in their current life - so it is not easy to tell. I have three kids on my own and whenever the little one tells her older sister she used to look after her and when she hurt her leg once she used to drive her to a docter she is only laughed at. So she's gradually quitting to tell anyone. She started to tell me this by the the age of 19 months, may last year. Over and over again. I believe her and listen and sometimes ask a question but I don't push it. And I surely don't want to lecture anyone. I think the kids forget these memories, well, you don't really forget em I think, you rather put it in the back of your mind and bury them, but to do so makes perfect Sense. It is a burden to remember. And it makes it difficult to focus on your current lifetime. It is also a very personal journey and I think this is what the others tried to tell you. It's difficult to prove this without taking the spiritual part of it into consideration (the unscientific, you may say). Did you read Robert Monroe and william buhlmann too? Monroe did some experiments, scientific as can be, with OBEs. I found it quite interesting.
Kind regards & wish you good luck!
Kind regards & wish you good luck!
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
Jack, sorry if I stepped over the line. My last few weeks have made me a little abrupt as I'm acutely aware of my current life's shortness and duties. I spent a good deal of time thinking about you and our similarities. The choice-points and the regrets we have later from not yet having/remembering a particular experience. I felt that you would not have taken me seriously if I tried to say those thing in a "loving" way. Tough-love is not lost on me, often seen as "mean" or worse - just got off the phone with ex-wife cursing me for doing it to my grandchildren (wish me luck on this).
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
Yep, the living Earth has "scars" that, to me, seem to interfere with some sort of energy radiation that our bodies can detect via minute changes in parts of our nervous system. I find it interesting how people use various devices in their personal favorite.
For the record, I like using wires as you described. I can not understand how you overcame your disbelief keeping you tense and therefore unable to do it - that is great and thanks for sharing - I'm proven wrong!
tanker
Senior Registered
I enjoyed being proven wrong too! I even got myself some rods of my own.
Hi Jack E
I'm stepping in the middle here. I might be the Admin but I don't read everything. I can't. Teaching college classes sucks the need to read right out of me. LOLOLOL I am curious though - where did you find that only 99% of "us" have no observation, so no basis on which to form a hypothesis at all. And that there is "no observable effect." I'd also like to talk about where the idea comes from but that's for another thread. And perhaps we need to split this one and not highjack (pun intended) JenniferGrace's Thread?
Jennifer I will come back to your original post later today.
I'm stepping in the middle here. I might be the Admin but I don't read everything. I can't. Teaching college classes sucks the need to read right out of me. LOLOLOL I am curious though - where did you find that only 99% of "us" have no observation, so no basis on which to form a hypothesis at all. And that there is "no observable effect." I'd also like to talk about where the idea comes from but that's for another thread. And perhaps we need to split this one and not highjack (pun intended) JenniferGrace's Thread?
Jennifer I will come back to your original post later today.
Yeah sure Deborah, no opposition to split thread here. Apology accepted, Ken; disagreement on a point of debate does not at all mean that I don't appreciate you giving me advice. To address an earlier point, you say that investigator bias can skew an experimental outcome, which is certainly true. Are you saying that the fact that I want to discover evidence in favor of the authenticity of PLM's could lead to me wrongly interpreting neutral results as such? If so, I fear that a bit too, as doing so could badly damage my career, but that in itself should stop me before I say anything rash, as it has here.
glia21, you raised an interesting possibility that I've been thinking about for a little while as well. I think I've heard of Haraldsson; probably read his name in a Stevenson book. What I was thinking is, as a college junior, would it be possible/a good idea to reach out to Jim Tucker at this point, or should I graduate first? My university is not exceptionally far from UVA, and I'd love to meet him, maybe a little too much lol.
Also, your point about a lot of kids saying something relating to PLM's strikes me as counterintuitive, but not impossible. I've said before that I do believe PLM's are heavily underreported, in Western countries especially. In India the rate is said to be about 1/500, but it seems more like 1/5000 in the West, which probably means only about 10% of Western cases ever see the light of day due to prejudice and/or not being noticed. Any more than that is a stretch though; as I've said before, if it was too common, it'd be much more well known than it is. I'd guess it couldn't possibly be any higher than an even 1% or so. I'm gonna be observant for these things in my own kids when I have them, of course, so if I have multiple kids say weird things they shouldn't know, maybe I'll rethink the rates. I just know I never did (I have very consistent memory from age 2-4 and was very introspective at that age, but I have asked a parent just for certainty), and I'd never heard of such a thing before reading about Stevenson and James Leininger, so I am not counting any chickens. I think I'd want my kids to have PLM's, because it's just plain awesome to have, but I'd certainly never encourage them to make anything up if they don't.
glia21, you raised an interesting possibility that I've been thinking about for a little while as well. I think I've heard of Haraldsson; probably read his name in a Stevenson book. What I was thinking is, as a college junior, would it be possible/a good idea to reach out to Jim Tucker at this point, or should I graduate first? My university is not exceptionally far from UVA, and I'd love to meet him, maybe a little too much lol.
Also, your point about a lot of kids saying something relating to PLM's strikes me as counterintuitive, but not impossible. I've said before that I do believe PLM's are heavily underreported, in Western countries especially. In India the rate is said to be about 1/500, but it seems more like 1/5000 in the West, which probably means only about 10% of Western cases ever see the light of day due to prejudice and/or not being noticed. Any more than that is a stretch though; as I've said before, if it was too common, it'd be much more well known than it is. I'd guess it couldn't possibly be any higher than an even 1% or so. I'm gonna be observant for these things in my own kids when I have them, of course, so if I have multiple kids say weird things they shouldn't know, maybe I'll rethink the rates. I just know I never did (I have very consistent memory from age 2-4 and was very introspective at that age, but I have asked a parent just for certainty), and I'd never heard of such a thing before reading about Stevenson and James Leininger, so I am not counting any chickens. I think I'd want my kids to have PLM's, because it's just plain awesome to have, but I'd certainly never encourage them to make anything up if they don't.
Erlendur Haraldsson is co-author of a book (I Saw A Light And Came Here) with James Matlock. Did you try to contact Matlock yet? He is very approachable, and the emphasis is on serious research.
I just started reading Matlock's blog posts on his website, and he's saying everything I've been trying to say the whole time I've been on here. He knows the case data and patterns immaculately, and has basically the exact same theoretical standpoints I have. Moreover, he expresses it in ways that are very easy to understand, and I think if more people here would just read what he's saying, they'd have a much better grasp of how reincarnation actually works and clear up a lot of misconceptions. For anyone here who gets confused by all the incessant references I make to case data, I think you should check Matlock out, perhaps you'll find he says the same things more clearly. I'd love to get his books if I can find them, and I can't wait to join his Facebook group, I have a feeling it may be much more to my liking than here.
BTW, apologies for the belated reply, but the source for >99% is, of course, case data. What else? Stevenson and associates have taken tallies of approximate incidence rates of cases in several different countries, but in none of them did it even reach 1/100. Of course, underreporting is something he stresses often as well, but I believe he took that into account in his estimates. Overall, we have no reason to suspect PLM cases are unduly common, but in many locales, particularly India, they don't seem prohibitively rare either; he wrote that often when he would go to investigate a case, several others would subsequently come to his attention in the vicinity. This seems restricted to pro-reincarnation cultures, however; even accounting for reporting discrepancies, it appears that there truly are far fewer cases in the West than in Asia and other societies that have reincarnation beliefs. So for most of us here, the rate is not only less than 1% but probably a lot less.
BTW, apologies for the belated reply, but the source for >99% is, of course, case data. What else? Stevenson and associates have taken tallies of approximate incidence rates of cases in several different countries, but in none of them did it even reach 1/100. Of course, underreporting is something he stresses often as well, but I believe he took that into account in his estimates. Overall, we have no reason to suspect PLM cases are unduly common, but in many locales, particularly India, they don't seem prohibitively rare either; he wrote that often when he would go to investigate a case, several others would subsequently come to his attention in the vicinity. This seems restricted to pro-reincarnation cultures, however; even accounting for reporting discrepancies, it appears that there truly are far fewer cases in the West than in Asia and other societies that have reincarnation beliefs. So for most of us here, the rate is not only less than 1% but probably a lot less.
Yes, I also referenced Matlock in more detail in a different thread: