Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

[Ninshub]

Then the issue becomes whether the persistence of such buried memory information actually constitutes continuity of the individual complex self.

I tend to the opinion that it doesn't, since these memories are not consciously available to the person, and are therefore not any conscious determining factor in their behavior. Consciously, the person's personal self is still limited to his/her memories from childhood, personality characteristics, and body identity.

I'm not too sure I'm on board with this.

There's the memories, but what is described by Malock, etc., is also the behavioural habits and everything that underlies them - like beliefs, you could think of maybe subtle-energy emotional senses (like someone who's undergone attachment trauma and feels always "alone and incomplete"). The person may not have conscious memories of what happened, but the emotional and unconscious consequences of those acts that person carries. So it's not hard to conceive that this continues into the next lifetime.

I'd suggest viewing the video in the other thread about what "samskaras" are and can contain. And speaking from the point of view of psychology, we all underestimate the extent to which there are strong limits to our actually being the captain of our ship - the unconscious plays a large part (senses of self, emotional reactivity, buried or just unaware emotional convictions and beliefs about self and other).

I cannot disagree more!!!!  Is this isolated personal self - isolated from the minds of both physical and immaterial environments?  Cut-off from the love and wisdom they contain as moral influence?

Some people report their souls do remember pre-life instructions as well as post-life moral review.

But, as noted, people don't appear to really benefit from remembering past life mistakes so as to avoid repeating them in the present life. Making the buried memories ineffectual and therefore not a practical part of their self in this life. At least that is the way it looks to me based on the evidence. 

Yes, past-life hypnotic regression therapy sessions may sometimes come up with apparent memories of between-lives decisions as the soul, to reincarnate into certain families with certain major challenges planned from the start. However, this "information" is extremely unreliable due to the strong tendency of people especially in altered states of consciousness to unconsciously confabulate based on expectations, desires, and suggestions and thoughts of the therapist. Michael Newton's research for instance.  I once had such a session with a PLT therapist trained by Michael Newton, and didn't come up with much of anything. I attribute this to my general resistance to suggestion.

Yes, past-life hypnotic regression therapy sessions may sometimes come up with apparent memories of between-lives decisions as the soul, to reincarnate into certain families with certain major challenges planned from the start. 

Reincarnation is not a process I think is going on.  I am sure about pre-life previews are real.  

 These recollections differ from a past-life recall in that past-life recall are memories of previous lives on earth as humans, sometimes recently and sometimes of hundreds or even thousands of years ago. The pre-birth experience seems to "remember" an existence in the same or similar plane of existence described by NDErs.

Those who say they have had this amazing experience recall being in a spirit world, are aware of life on earth, and can sometimes choose their next life or communicate with their future parents. Some people even get a glimpse or a sense of the pre-birth realm during an NDE.

https://www.liveabout.com/life-before-birth-2594548

But, as noted, people don't appear to really benefit from remembering past life mistakes so as to avoid repeating them in the present life. Making the buried memories ineffectual and therefore not a practical part of their self in this life. At least that is the way it looks to me based on the evidence. 

Yes, past-life hypnotic regression therapy sessions may sometimes come up with apparent memories of between-lives decisions as the soul, to reincarnate into certain families with certain major challenges planned from the start. However, this "information" is extremely unreliable due to the strong tendency of people especially in altered states of consciousness to unconsciously confabulate based on expectations, desires, and suggestions and thoughts of the therapist. Michael Newton's research for instance.  I once had such a session with a PLT therapist trained by Michael Newton, and didn't come up with much of anything. I attribute this to my general resistance to suggestion.

It would be much easier if things were spelled out, such as; "you need to be generous and kind this time around." That would be helpful.
Past-life hypnosis and hypnosis in general are extremely unreliable and very unscientific unless you can prove or disprove the information.
Then we need the source of the information, and proof that it is genuine, and that it actually applies to the person, etc.
Without better science, we allow too much speculation to rule the whole process and the results. The results are then woo woo data, not science.
You would have to do the same procedure with different hypnotists, the same individual, and see how many different versions of things you end up with.
If it is the same memory recall, proof must be found that the person is recalling their own actual previous life, and not just seeing someone's life, anyone's life.
We have so much baggage when stepping into any form of hypnosis. Our knowledge of the subject matter and our beliefs, possible telepathic data, possible psychic data where reading history becomes a possibility. Quantum connections, and more. We can likely determine more if we would look at the fMRI and EEG data to see when actual recall happens, and what part of the brain / body is connecting, and to what.

I just don't see hypnosis as anything scientific unless the data can be tracked down for accuracy and be proven.

I would be open to a test where we have people going in blind to what it is for, and people that have been prepped or fed data, use different hypnotists, etc. 
As soon as we have different versions of the last life from the same person, all of it should be null and void.

[Ninshub]

Yes, past-life hypnotic regression therapy sessions may sometimes come up with apparent memories of between-lives decisions as the soul, to reincarnate into certain families with certain major challenges planned from the start.

For me, however, the fact that so many mediums come up with something similar makes me believe this is likely so more than not.

I feel I must have come across NDErs relating getting similar knowledge, but I can't remember for sure.

For me, however, the fact that so many mediums come up with something similar makes me believe this is likely so more than not.

I feel I must have come across NDErs relating getting similar knowledge, but I can't remember for sure.

That might open up some ideas for testing. 
Is anyone aware of cross referenced data between reincarnation, NDE, mediums and other reports?

I feel like I am in danger of making enemies every time I answer a post but I have some "hot buttons" that keep getting pressed and it is difficult to avoid adding my two cents (or 2 penneth, to stay faithful to my roots).

Sorry you feel like that.
I wasn't here for 24 hours and felt the attack mode as well.
And this is the skeptic vs. proponent side where we should feel like we can express opinions, go figure.

Since reincarnation tries to use memory or dream recall as evidence, and then find out if the memory or dream matches the deceased person's life enough to merge them (whether this is true or not), or go looking for a match using this data... it is already on a weak foundation.
I can make people see things, dream things... does my knowledge of history provide these "memories" to another person. It certainly could.

The very basics are: If you have other possible sources of data that you can't rule out, you can't state that some source is a fact. No matter what it feels like to a 5-year old child. We could explain this as psychic, as a medium, as telepathic, as reading some akashic record, or multiple other things to include being messed with by demonic entities that are telling you stories.
So coming to a conclusion with no facts or evidence as to the source is wishful thinking, steering, and not critical thinking or scientific.
Thus, my vote is for the skeptic here, it can only be for the skeptic until they rule out telepathy or psychic ways of gleaning this information, and with no real proof of the previous life scenario except memories and sometimes the impressive scars, I'm personally not there yet.
That being said, I feel like the evidence wasn't just presented for the purpose of observation. That makes it crap science.
Theories and conclusions, hypothesis, have to be backed up with how things work. Who, what, when, where, why, how. Not just I think, or I believe.
So, I have to side with the skeptic because the whole fuzzy logic and filling in the blanks is too convenient for actual science or fact.

[Laird]

I wasn't here for 24 hours and felt the attack mode as well.

There was some initial misunderstanding about your position and thus motives, but that's all been cleared up now, so I don't expect you to experience attack mode going forward - of course, not unless you get involved in some unrelated and particular disagreement that brews into a conflict, but you seem pretty chill, so that seems unlikely.

Sorry you feel like that.
I wasn't here for 24 hours and felt the attack mode as well.
And this is the skeptic vs. proponent side where we should feel like we can express opinions, go figure.

Since reincarnation tries to use memory or dream recall as evidence, and then find out if the memory or dream matches the deceased person's life enough to merge them (whether this is true or not), or go looking for a match using this data... it is already on a weak foundation.
I can make people see things, dream things... does my knowledge of history provide these "memories" to another person. It certainly could.

The very basics are: If you have other possible sources of data that you can't rule out, you can't state that some source is a fact. No matter what it feels like to a 5-year old child. We could explain this as psychic, as a medium, as telepathic, as reading some akashic record, or multiple other things to include being messed with by demonic entities that are telling you stories.
So coming to a conclusion with no facts or evidence as to the source is wishful thinking, steering, and not critical thinking or scientific.
Thus, my vote is for the skeptic here, it can only be for the skeptic until they rule out telepathy or psychic ways of gleaning this information, and with no real proof of the previous life scenario except memories and sometimes the impressive scars, I'm personally not there yet.
That being said, I feel like the evidence wasn't just presented for the purpose of observation. That makes it crap science.
Theories and conclusions, hypothesis, have to be backed up with how things work. Who, what, when, where, why, how. Not just I think, or I believe.
So, I have to side with the skeptic because the whole fuzzy logic and filling in the blanks is too convenient for actual science or fact.

I feel like this needs an addition.
I feel that in order to test this, we need a method that bridges the gap between death and rebirth. The death scars are impressive and come close to this. The markings of certain cultures on the deceased that show up in the next life are impressive. But we can't rule out intent and other forms of creating these in a child, yet. And we don't have this as a certain condition, it doesn't always show up, all the time, in everyone equally.
What we need to do, is to come up with testing and methods that rule things out. Test for other possibles. Are the parents somehow psychic, mediums, or have they been steering the child? Is the child psychic, medium, etc.
As soon as we have a "yes they are psychic", we also have "other" means of gleaning this information that have nothing to do with this being an actual past life of this person.
We can also have ALL different possible scenario situations. To lock this down as nothing but past lives and reincarnation is also limiting our science and is not critical thinking.
We can't have past lives without reincarnation. But we can discuss whether that makes this a prison or a choice under the assumption that these might be real.
We can get this knowledge as a medium or psychic. We can read the minds of people and it feels like our own memories, telepathic. We can be reading some Akashic record of lives lived, also impressive. And all of these can be happening at the same time, and we try to shove them into the past life group, whether they belong there or not. This is steering and manipulation, and has nothing to do with science, except that science loves to do this, and gets paid to do this, while juggling funding and ethics.
What we have are an interesting collection of reports of "possible" historical data findings, supplied mostly by children, some as adults or under hypnosis.
What we have failed to do is to supply any facts concerning the source of this information, WHILE IGNORING all other possible sources, WHILE IGNORING that we have more proof of telepathy, psychics, mediums and other forms of getting information like this. 
That process just turned it into wishful or magical thinking, not critical thinking. 
You can hypothesize, but to do that you need a structure with the how and why, what and when.
Memory is very fragile. Memory is not to be trusted. We know this from many tests.
So why would memory survive, then get passed forward in a select few only, and then why would we trust this to be accurate when we don't trust it while we are alive? And why these particular (mostly banal) memories? 
So, until we know more and can find the answers, some things will forever remain in a FRINGE zone where all we can do is speculate until somebody figures out how to test it properly and comes up with actual undisputed facts. Making assumptions and assignment of fringe to fact is what got most of the parapsychology studies laughed at and defunded.
We can't afford to add to that fire with magical thinking, religious beliefs, or ignoring all the possible avenues.
Of course, in everyone's personal sphere, your personal life, believe what you wish and follow what you wish. Just be prepared to adjust your knowledge when the facts show up. If you can't adjust and change, and are stuck, or maybe are suffering from fundamentalist or magical thinking that can't be flexible, be aware that these conditions have been proven to cause brain damage. Damage that happens when people get so stubborn and twisted that they will foam at the mouth and get crazy when these thoughts or beliefs are challenged with new data.
As the old Jesuit Priest told me 40 years ago, stop bitching and prove it, or just stop bitching.

Sorry you feel like that.
I wasn't here for 24 hours and felt the attack mode as well.
And this is the skeptic vs. proponent side where we should feel like we can express opinions, go figure.

Since reincarnation tries to use memory or dream recall as evidence, and then find out if the memory or dream matches the deceased person's life enough to merge them (whether this is true or not), or go looking for a match using this data... it is already on a weak foundation.
I can make people see things, dream things... does my knowledge of history provide these "memories" to another person. It certainly could.

The very basics are: If you have other possible sources of data that you can't rule out, you can't state that some source is a fact. No matter what it feels like to a 5-year old child. We could explain this as psychic, as a medium, as telepathic, as reading some akashic record, or multiple other things to include being messed with by demonic entities that are telling you stories.
So coming to a conclusion with no facts or evidence as to the source is wishful thinking, steering, and not critical thinking or scientific.
Thus, my vote is for the skeptic here, it can only be for the skeptic until they rule out telepathy or psychic ways of gleaning this information, and with no real proof of the previous life scenario except memories and sometimes the impressive scars, I'm personally not there yet.
That being said, I feel like the evidence wasn't just presented for the purpose of observation. That makes it crap science.
Theories and conclusions, hypothesis, have to be backed up with how things work. Who, what, when, where, why, how. Not just I think, or I believe.
So, I have to side with the skeptic because the whole fuzzy logic and filling in the blanks is too convenient for actual science or fact.

To address the first of your objections: you go on a fishing expedition for any and all "possible" alternate explanations for apparent past life recall information coming out in the utterances of small 2 1/2 - 5 year old children (for example), no matter how implausible. You even don't absolutely rule out coincidence, even though the chances or probability of this is vanishingly low. But anyway, assuming the case was "solved" by the investigators and a candidate past life was found matching this information on the past personality, you suggest that the bare possibility no matter how slight of there being an alternate explanation or explanations for the correlation, constitutes sufficient evidence that the skeptic position that there was no reincarnation phenomenon, but some sort of paranormal information transfer, is the case. In following this path, you ignore the abductive reasoning approach to the best explanation very successfully used in criminal forensics, for instance, where multiple lines of evidence, for example including the evidence of a person's fingerprints and murderous modus operandi and even witness testimony all point to this particular person as being the murderer, are used as sufficient evidence for a murder charge. Following your approach, the police would indefinitely keep looking for other candidates, because other "possibilities" still theoretically exist that, for instance, the fingerprint evidence was planted (in the absence of any evidence of that), and the modus operandi was that of a copy-cat (in the absence of any evidence of that), and the witness testimony was simply mistaken or bought-off, also in the absence of any evidence of that. 

In addition: in doing this with the apparent reincarnation cases, you ignore the factor that the apparent past life memories were incorporated into the child's personality as personal memories of a past self, and sometimes accompanied by other abilities that are only accomplished by long practice and enculturation, like aptitude for and enjoyment in playing the piano, or aptitude for and enjoyment of cooking, for example. These phenomena are exhibited as part of the child's persona, not as snippets of information plucked out of the Akashik records for example. In this suggestion you don't cite any hard evidence for even the existence of an "Akashic Records". In order to take this route of skepticism you need to show how mere information can plausibly be transformed into intimately integrated personality characteristics, without their being in truth personality characteristics of the persistent self of the child entity.  

I submit that this appears to be an example of semi-closed-minded selective hyperskepticism. Of course you're free to dispute this.  

(Edit: See "On the Fallacy of Selective Hyperskepticism", at https://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocu...ticism.htm:

The fallacy is rooted in the problem that if radical skepticism is universally applied, it ends in self-referential absurdity, through corroding confidence in ALL claims; thus, itself as well. That is, subtly, it contradicts and so refutes itself.)