A quick thought about reincarnation

A thought about the reincarnation topic popped into my head this afternoon while I was listening to the latest Skeptiko podcast.  We've heard stories of people remembering past lives, either through spontaneous memories when they are small children or through hypnotic regression (also see this link and this earlier post of mine for more information about the topic).

For those that believe in reincarnation, these stories seem like evidence of that.  But maybe it isn't.  Another interpretation of what may seem like memories of a past life can be read about on Sharon Day's Ghost Hunting Theories blog.  She says she had dreams where she saw scenes from the life of a Jewish girl back in the 1930s and 40s somewhere in Europe.  She was viewing the scenes through the girl's eyes and it seemed as if she were seeing a past life.  Yet, she doesn't think that's what was actually happening.  She said it felt more like a psychic reading.  So could that be what past life memories are?  A type of psychic reading of someone else's life at an earlier time?

So anyways, the thought I had was this:  Of all the NDE and OBE stories I've read, I don't ever recall hearing one where someone who returned from the other side reported remembering any past lives while they were on the side.  We hear about what they saw and what they felt and many report having their life "flash before their eyes."  But I don't recall anyone reporting having multiple lives pass before their lives.  If there are stories reporting having multiple lives flash before their eyes, I am not aware of them.

So with that in mind, what should we make of this?  Should we assume people who have reported having NDEs or OBEs are all 'new' souls who've only lived one life?  Or should we assume it just takes longer for any past lives a person has lived to 'download' after crossing into the other side and no one has been on that side long enough and returned to tell about it?  Or should we assume that the traditional view of reincarnation isn't accurate and souls don't actually return to a new physical body after crossing over?  My guess is it is the latter, but who knows?  Maybe it is something more complex that any of that.

Some questions just seem to lead to more questions!

Instant Induction Hypnosis and Missing Time?

I was watching a DVRed episode of a Discovery Channel show called Deception with Keith Barry that focused on the possibility of spy agencies using hypnosis as a tool for spying.  Barry, a 'mentalist' skilled in the art of hypnosis, explored some possible ways a spy agency may use hypnosis.  In one experiment, he put two hypnosis skeptics into a trance and told them the combination of a safe that had $5000 in it but told them they wouldn't remember the combination until he woke them up and gave them a trigger phrase.  When they first woke up, they were skeptical that they had even been in a trance at all, but he gave them a minute to remember the combination and open the safe and get the $5000.  The minute passed, and neither of them remembered the combination.  Barry said the trigger phrase, and they immediately remembered the combination.  Afterwards they were convinced they had been hypnotized afterall.  The purpose of the experiment was to see if someone could be hypnotized and told secret information that they wouldn't remember until given a trigger phrase.  If they had been captured and interrogated for information by someone who didn't know the trigger though, the person wouldn't be able to divulge the secrets because they wouldn't consciously know that the secret was...and they might not even be aware that they had a secret hidden in their subconscious in the first place.

Barry also experimented with the possibility creating a Manchurian Candidate type of scenario (though not to kill someone).  In his experiment, he programmed someone to go and 'drug' an assassin (actually an actor) in a coffee shop and steal some pictures from him and bring them back.

He also did a mass hypnosis experience by putting most of the people in an audience in a trance and convincing them they had seen a hilarious movie.  But the experiment that most caught my interest was one where he used a hypnosis technique he called instant induction hypnosis.  He was able to walk up to three different strangers on the street and put them in a trance in a matter of seconds without them even realizing what he was doing.  With one guy, he just had him stand still looking at his watch for 10 minutes.  Another guy he convinced to sit on the ground with a beggars sign and beg for money.  Another guy he convinced to go to a ATM and withdraw $60 and throw it in the trash (Barry went and retrieved the money though, and gave it back to the guy).  What was interesting though, is these people didn't recall doing what Barry told them to do.  They had to be shown they had done it.

As interesting as all of that was on its own, what really got me thinking was how easily Barry was able to put those strangers on the street into a trance and then have them do something without having any recollection of it.  Could this explain some of the stories people have told about experiencing missing time (where people cannot account for what happened to them during a certain period of time...here are a few examples here, here, and here)?  The strangers on the street Barry put into a trance didn't even realize he had put them in a trance.  Could something like this be one possible explanation for what has happened to people who claim to have experienced missing time?  In some cases, a missing time experience may also be part of an alien abduction experience.  If a guy on the street could put a person in a trance, then I suppose it's possible an alien could too.  But what if there was no alien?  What if the whole alien abduction experience was a false memory implanted into their mind while they were under a trance?

Why someone would want to implant an alien abduction experience into someone's mind, I don't know.  I don't know why someone would have put them into a trance in the first place either.   But perhaps being temporarily put into a trance could explain at least some of the cases of missing time some people have reported experiencing.

Qi and Prana on Nat Geo

I typically don't watch that much on the National Geographic channel because a lot of their programs are very predictable.  Nat Geo is very biased in favor of establishment materialism and atheistic thinking, so I know if the program is about something paranormal in nature or religious, the program is going to have a debunking stance.

I did watch an episode of Is it Real? the other night though, and I thought it was interesting.  They were investigating spiritual energies, including what the Chinese call qi (pronounced "chee") and what the Hindu's call it prana.  

One of the people they featured was martial artist George Dillman, who can not only knock people out using pressure points but also without even touching them by using his qi.  Dillman is no fraud or stage magician though, he is a legitimate black belt in Ryukyu Kempo Tomari-te and has even trained with Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali.  He was not only shown knocking people out without touching them, but he was also shown to be able to make a line of people move without even being able to see them (and them not being able to see him).  

Two scientists who were skeptical of his ability to knock people out with his qi were bought on the show, and they felt his ability had more to do with hypnotic suggestion than qi.  They thought the people being knocked out were expecting it to happen, so therefore, it happened.  One of the skeptical scientists even let one of Dillman's top students attempt to knock him out with his qi (I'm not sure why Dillman himself didn't try; they may have been filming the scientists in different location where Dillman wasn't present).  Dillman's student failed to knock the scientist out with his qi.  Afterwards, Dillman said if a person was holding their tongue a certain way, it wouldn't work, or if they press one big toe against the floor while raising the other big toe up, it wouldn't work.  Dillman did appear to have an impressive ability, but in the end, he sounded like he was just making excuses.

Another person featured in the episode was a clinical psychologist named Howard Hall who is also a hypnotist.  He went to Baghdad in 1998 to investigate whether or not a sect of Sufi Muslims who perform self mutilations without any apparent ill effects and then heal almost instantly were under some sort of hypnotic suggestion.  The Sufis shown had blades in their chest, head, and mouth.  According to their belief, a sheikh channels the energy and 'protects' them.  Dr. Hall did not think the faithful who were mutilating themselves were under any sort of hypnotic suggestion and was so impressed by what they were doing that he asked the sheikh if he could have 'protection' too.  The sheikh said he could, and Hall stabbed a pointed object through his cheek with no ill effect.  

After that experience, Hall began studying the Sufi religion and agreed to repeat the mutilation for National Geographic.  He and another doctor used some sort of machine that supposedly shows a person's aura (something similar to Kirlian photography, but more updated).  After Hall stabbed an ice pick through his cheek from inside his mouth, a gap was shown in what was alleged to be his aura where the ice pick had been in his cheek.  He bled very little and the wound closed up quickly.

The skeptics brought in to counter Hall's claims didn't think the machine that supposedly shows an aura could be trusted, and they had their own machine that they claimed was similar and showed why the machine Dr. Hall used couldn't necessarily be trusted (although their machine that they claimed was similar seemed to be quite different to me...I'm not sure if it was really an accurate comparison).  Another doctor said that the wound Hall inflicted on himself was small and he wasn't surprised that it didn't bleed much.  He also said putting pressure on it afterwards probably helped to close the wound up quickly.  So he wasn't impressed with how quickly the wound healed; he thought the healing seemed normal.  

The show also featured a Hindu version of a shady televangelist who was setup by a debunker with a group of people with problems that they made up.  The shady Hindu holy man, who I don't doubt was a fraud -- he was deceiving the poor and making himself wealthy (and he had a shady looking smirk on his face too) -- didn't catch on to the deception being played on him and he was considered debunked...and this case, I think the debunker was right on.

The show also featured a guy who could inflict self mutilation without ill effects who claimed it was just mind over matter.  I think the program basically just featured that guy because he didn't claim to use any spiritual energies -- in other words, they were just showing more evidence of their bias against the concept of spiritual energies.  

They also featured some yogic flyers who don't really fly, but just sit in the lotus position and then start hopping quickly across the floor.  Apparently they get really happy and just start hopping.  It looks hard to do, but I'm assuming Nat Geo took the stance that there wasn't really any spiritual energy involved and just included it as part of their bias against the belief in spiritual energies.  

But anyways, lets look and Dillman and Hall again, who were the two most intriguing people featured in the episode.  In the end, it looked like Dillman's ability may have had more to do with hypnotic suggestion than qi, and Dillman was left making excuses.  I've often wondered if hypnotic suggestion may be how televangelist Benny Hinn is able to knock people down with a light touch.  However, hypnotic suggestion still doesn't explain how Dillman was able to make a line of people move without them being able to see him.  In the end, it may have appeared that the skeptics won in Dillman's case, but I'm not thoroughly convinced.  I think it may still be possible that Dillman really does know how to use his qi to make people move (or knock them out).

In Hall's case, I don't even think the debunkers did a very good job of debunking it.  The doctor may have been correct in saying he thought the wound closed up and healed in a normal way, but it still doesn't explain how Hall was able to jab an ice pick through his cheek without feeling pain.  And even if you think the machine that supposedly can show a person's aura is hokey, it still doesn't explain how Hall could jab an ice pick through his cheek without feeling pain.

In the end, Nat Geo took the position that the abilities had less to do with spiritual energies and more to do with the power of the mind and the belief in an ability.  And although I agree that the mind and belief can be very powerful, I'm not convinced that spiritual energies don't exist.  I think there is ample evidence to suggest that spiritual energies do exist, even if little of that evidence was present in that particular Nat Geo program.

Some 'What if' questions of what we are a part of

I've been putting this post off for a few days because I haven't been sure how to word it or organize it.  Sometimes it can be hard to put some of my thoughts into words.  It makes sense in my mind, but sometimes it's difficult to find the right words to convey my thoughts.  It's not necessarily that the words don't exist, it's just that it might be necessary for others to understand  a certain point of view or have knowledge of certain things related to the subject first.  A point of view and a person's specific knowledge can be gained over time and from different experiences, so sometimes it can be difficult to just sum everything up and still properly convey the message to someone else.  Sure, you could try to write about every aspect of your thoughts and what you base it on, but that could get very time consuming and wordy.


So the contents of this post mainly consist of some of my mind's ramblings over the past few days.  I don't really have a singular point I'm trying to make.  A lot of these thoughts are just questions, and shouldn't necessarily be considered  'beliefs' or even theories.  This post is of a rambling nature, but hopefully the questions will at least make sense.

____________________

Why is it that we are so concerned with seeking "life as we know it" somewhere "out there?"  Because we want to know that we, the billions of us living now plus all of our ancestors before us, are not 'alone' in the vast universe?  So far, not much has been found.  Sure, it's been claimed microbes have been found and even water on the moon and mars, but so far, we haven't found plants or animals or people like us anywhere else.

But why should we be so focused on finding "life as we know it?"  How should we define life anyways?  Plants are not sentient, yet they are life.  Most people don't think of the sun as a lifeform, but if you consider that a plant is a lifeform, why not the sun?  Stars are born.  They live for a while (a very long while).  They 'grow' into red giants and red dwarfs and white dwarfs and towards the end of the life, they go supernova and 'die'.  I guess a black hole could be considered the death of a star too, but technically, it still exists, albeit in a form so dense it is not even measurable.  In a way, maybe they don't really 'die' at all.  But they do appear to have some sort of life cycle.  So is the sun not alive?  Consider this; would you be alive if the sun wasn't there supplying light and life giving energy to the earth?

As Heisenberg said, "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."  But so often do we try to view everything through a particular lens. If you viewed the Mona Lisa through a microscope without ever stepping back to see the bigger picture, would you ever really know what it is? Sure, you could analyze the paint particles you see. You could do an in-depth analysis of what colors they are and maybe even conclude what chemicals were combined to make that color. But is that what the Mona Lisa really is? Is it just paint particles and a chemical analysis? Or is it a picture of a woman? If all you did was look at the painting through the lens of a microscope, you'd never see that is actually a picture of a woman.

So is this how we view our reality? Through the lens of a microscope or a telescope? What if we are a part of a much larger whole? We can see what matter is made up of through a microscope. The atoms we see consist of an atomic nucleus with electrons clouds orbiting it. Is it that much different from the moon orbiting the earth or the planets orbiting the sun or the stars spiraling in a galaxy (granted, an electron's orbit may not be elliptical like we are used to seeing with planets, but it is nonetheless orbiting around something). So what is this common theme of orbiting objects? Why is it when you look through a microscope you can see orbiting objects, and yet when you look through a telescope you also see orbiting objects?  If the atoms we see through a microscope make up matter, then what do the stars and planets we see through a telescope make up?

And what of consciousness? Biologist Rupert Sheldrake considered the possibility that the sun may be conscious. Now of course if you go along with scientific establishment's current thinking that consciousness is entirely a manifestation of the brain, then that would sound absurd.  The sun has no brain, so how could it be conscious?  But if you consider that consciousness is not just a manifestation of the brain, then I suppose you could ask the question of "why not?"  If the brain is merely an instrument for consciousness to control the physical body, then that means consciousness can still exist without a physical brain.  So if consciousness can exist without a brain, then why couldn't the sun be conscious?  If it were conscious, would we even be able to grasp a consciousness so vast?

What of our cellular structure?  Our bodies are made up of many individual cells.  Each cell has a purpose it serves.  Some cells are part of the makeup of our skin, some cells are part of the makeup of our organs.  Some cells are dead, making up our hair and nails.  But do these cells understand what they are?  Do they understand what they are a part of?  Do they understand they are a part of a conscious being?  Do they know what consciousness is?  Sure, a cell serves it's purpose, it forms part of the makeup of life as we know it, but does it really understand what it is?

What if we too are just part of the makeup of something bigger?  What if the cells of our body are to us what we are to the earth?  What if the earth itself is a lifeform?  If something much larger than us observed the earth through a microscope, could it not consider that the earth is alive?  The earth is teeming with life of different types.  The lifeforms on earth completely rely on the life giving resources of the earth and its star.  If the earth itself was 'dead', then how would life exist on it?  If the sun was 'dead', then how would one of its planets have life on it?  And shoot, if were going to toss out the question as to whether or not the sun might be conscious, why not the earth too?  Maybe it would help explain some of the mysteries of the world that we still don't understand.  When a person is dreaming or under hypnosis, the dream world or memories seem real, as if they were really happening.  Perhaps an earth mind could have a similar effect on the reality that we live in.

But then again, perhaps it is a ridiculous thought to consider that the earth or sun could be conscious.  I can point out that life on earth may just form part of a bigger whole in much the same way that our cellular structure forms part of a much bigger whole that make us what we are, but I suppose a key difference between the two is that I am able to actually question what it is that we are a part of.  I can question what I am a part of, but does a cell really question what it is a part of?  So is it even a good analogy at all?

Nevertheless, I still wonder what all it is we are a part of.  And I'm glad that I can wonder that.  I'm glad to be able to say that I AM.

Reality that you can't see

Reality is only what your mind perceives it to be. What you consider to be existence occurs in your mind. Your eyes don't really see, they just transmit light signals to your brain. Your ears don't really hear, they just transmit sound waves into your brain. Everything is interpreted in your brain. What's interesting is that our view of reality can be shaped by what our mind is told to think. For instance, hypnotists can hypnotize people and tell them that upon waking up, they won't be able to see someone. In some cases, the hypnotist will tell them they won't be able to see him/her (the hypnotist). Here is an example:

Here is another example. In this one, the girl not only seems to think the hypnotist is invisible, he has also convinced her that a stuffed monkey is alive and talking to her.



In one case I've heard about, a hypnotist told a man that his daughter would be invisible. When he woke up, he not only couldn't see his daughter standing in front of him, but he could read the inscription on a watch being held behind her back. Pretty amazing huh? Like I said in my recent article A Quest for Truth, the subconscious mind will believe whatever it is told. If it is told that someone is invisible, then the mind will no longer process the light waves bouncing off that person. Instead, it will process the light waves coming behind that person. So the reality around you does exist, but reality as you know it is only how your mind perceives it. So the next time you want a break from reality, just remember, the reality you think you know is all in how your mind perceives it anyways!