Past-life memories research and karma

The issue of adult reincarnation recall, whether via hypnosis or spontaneous recall, comes up against that standard objection. i.e. the possibility of having acquired knowledge from some mundane source.  One way to respond to that objection is to identify verifications in obscure locations, of various kinds. One example was a woman, from Australia I think, who recalled some detail of markings on the dust-covered floor of some disused old barn or old stone building in England, a place she had never visited. Such information simply isn't available by any ordinary means.


I'm not sure of Tucker's views. I know Jim Matlock is quite dismissive of hypnotic regression. When pressed he explained that he wasn't saying that it didn't ever give valid results, only that the possibilities of the mind having created a sort of false memory or other complications meant he recommended to avoid it. I tend to think he is too harsh in his evaluation, but these things come down to individual opinion.

I agree with Matlock on this. I think the main reason why past life accounts obtained under past life regression hypnosis are so unreliable compared to young childrens' spontaneous rememberings, is that the PLT patient is a sophisticated adult with a complex mind and with a lot of experiences built up over the years, and therefore is highly capable of what is called "confabulation".

Confabulation is a type of memory error in which gaps in a person's memory are unconsciously filled with fabricated, misinterpreted, or distorted information. When someone confabulates, they are confusing things they have imagined with real memories. A person who is confabulating is not lying. They are not making a conscious or intentional attempt to deceive. Rather, they are confident in the truth of their memories even when confronted with contradictory evidence.

The confabulation process seems to be unconscious, and I think it is easily tapped into during the altered consciousness of a "successful" PLT session. The inductee will readily unconsciously tap into memory fragments and other material to build up the false constructions, influenced by inner needs and fears and even by need to conform to the commands of and to please the therapist. 

It's not that PLT regression sessions are completely unreliable and incapable of uncovering at least some past life memories, but that it is so polluted by unconsciously fabricated material it is very hard to process and verify and separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. I think that this is the main reason why Ian Stevenson was rather dismissive of past life regresson hypnosis as a tool for recovery of past life memories.

One other angle on the hypnosis topic which I'd like to mention. That is, rather than looking at individual cases, taking a statistical approach from large numbers of regressions. Because of the unwelcoming prevailing views towards hypnosis in general, this avenue remains unexplored. I quote myself:

I do think Helen Wambach's studies are interesting. I only regret that the ideas have fallen so far out of fashion that no-one is attempting replications in the present-day. I'm not sure to what extent the telepathic fulfilment of her expectations is a fair alternative explanation. I do have one of her books, but I don't think there exist any audio recordings of her actual sessions so it is rather hard to evaluate your suggested criticism.

A lost opportunity, I feel. Like much of parapsychology, it is hard to conduct large-scale testing of anything, and many areas are neglected.

One other angle on the hypnosis topic which I'd like to mention. That is, rather than looking at individual cases, taking a statistical approach from large numbers of regressions. Because of the unwelcoming prevailing views towards hypnosis in general, this avenue remains unexplored. I quote myself:


A lost opportunity, I feel. Like much of parapsychology, it is hard to conduct large-scale testing of anything, and many areas are neglected.

I actually attended one of Helen Wambach's sessions back in the 1980s, and unfortunately I was not impressed. I did come up with some apparent impressions of details of past lives in several of the past-life historical periods suggested by Wambach, but my personal reaction was that I was unconsciously confabulating the responses to conform to expectations and the desires of the therapist. The problem there was that I was already familiar with Wambach's intriguing research. My partner at the time, however, also came up with some impressions, but she did think they were authentic. She had no prior interest in the subject and had not read about any of Wambach's research. 

My working hypothesis has generally been that confabulation based on the suggestions of the therapist (some of this being immaterial telepathic influences) probably greatly affected the results of these sessions, since the details, especially of the "future lives", conformed to the popular current concerns about a future dystopia and popular science fiction fueled expectations of a polluted Earth and of a reduced population living in cities under domes, etc. Of course, there is at least the possibility that these popular worries are really justified and maybe will really come to pass. And there is the apparent conformance of the data she gathered to known historical details and archaeological estimates of population numbers in past historical and prehistorical periods, etc. I tend to see these correlations as probably  due to some sort of experimenter effect, in other words, telepathic influences from the therapist conducting the session. A problem that seems to be endemic in clinical research into the paranormal, especially when the subject(s) are induced into some sort of altered state of consciousness in which they are more likely to unconsciously confabulate. I think this is a strong factor in past-life regression hypnotherapy sessions.

This thread gave me the opportunity to post something that's been in the back of mind as a possible thread subject, namely the pertinence of the notion of karma to the data regarding "reincarnation cases", but almost broadly survival data in general.

I remembered Ian Stevenson explaining how the data in his work did not match the expectations of Hindu or Buddhist philosophies on karma.

I went back to the source book I quoted, though, Cases of the Reincarnation Type Volume I: Ten Cases in India (Charlottesville, University Press of VIrginia, 1975), and Stevenson makes it clear he's referring to "retributive karma": " the idea of some kind of justice-dispensing process that guides a discarnate person to the conditions and circumstances of the next life according to the summed accounts of his good and evil actions". (p. 66)

In a psi encyclopedia article, KM Wehrstein discusses the topic and indicates Jim Tucker also investigated this:


However,  it is interesting that Stevenson in the same book finds that the data does fit with something we could conceptualize as what he chooses to call "developmental karma":


Going back to the article by Wehrstein above, she indicates that James Matlock also conceptualizes the same idea as what he calls "processual karma".


One thought I have reading this is that, amidst the varied religious and philosophical movements born out of India, I'm not so sure some of them aren't speaking in fact about this type of karma, rather than the retributive one. In Advaita Vedanta, it's happiness or unhappiness that is the result of your good or bad state of mind and actions that follow, and that gets carried over (at the empirical level of reality).

Note that the samskaras are imprinted in the "causal body", which is the unconscious in Advaita Vedanta (the unconscious being that which Matlock sees as preserving the personality habits).

In that sense, I wonder if this is a more subtle, psychological reading of "retributive karma" that finally harmonizes with "developmental" or "processual" karma. And that Stevenson (and Tucker's) reading of Indian retributive is perhaps naively materialistic, e.g. someone was bad in a past life and therefore they don't deserve material wealth (!), as opposed to that person perhaps landing in a wealthy family but with the same unhappiness-producing mind/personality.

Anyhow, that's just ideas brewing in my mind these days.

But I wonder in general if other paranormal data, such as NDE science, can inform us about what if any types of ideas of karma are potentially correct or incorrect. Thoughts?

Personally, I do hope there is some kind of karma, and that it is fair and justified. So many really deserve some kind of hell, so if the next life is seriously difficult or disabled because of what they did or didn't do, good.
But, that kicks open the door for fate and planned lives. If all things unfold with some purpose, that would also include destiny and some predetermined existence, not free will or choice.
The removal of decisions and actual free thought, all of that being replaced with some world of puppets that simply think they have a choice. We should have the choice to opt out of this cesspool if something like this exists. 
Being forced creates this dictated cesspool of garbage that becomes super complicated to unravel.
Being forced means you are a prisoner.
The whole process becomes this farce. 
This is more likely wishful thinking and a means to force compliance in societies where fear was used to control the population, very similar to other religions that use fear tactics to control members.

Personally, I do hope there is some kind of karma, and that it is fair and justified. So many really deserve some kind of hell, so if the next life is seriously difficult or disabled because of what they did or didn't do, good.
But, that kicks open the door for fate and planned lives. If all things unfold with some purpose, that would also include destiny and some predetermined existence, not free will or choice.
The removal of decisions and actual free thought, all of that being replaced with some world of puppets that simply think they have a choice. We should have the choice to opt out of this cesspool if something like this exists. 
Being forced creates this dictated cesspool of garbage that becomes super complicated to unravel.
Being forced means you are a prisoner.
The whole process becomes this farce. 
This is more likely wishful thinking and a means to force compliance in societies where fear was used to control the population, very similar to other religions that use fear tactics to control members.

You seem to be a confirmed skeptic if not a pseudo skeptic. As Ninshub mentioned on another thread, the place for skeptic assertions and arguments is the Skeptic Vs. Proponent Discussions subforum of Psiencequest.

[Laird]

You seem to be a confirmed skeptic if not a pseudo skeptic.

Wait, what? Durward has in many of his initial spate of posts clearly (in my interpretation) indicated that he believes certain anomalous/paranormal/parapsychological phenomena are valid. I don't understand where you get the idea that he is a skeptic from.

Let's clear this up once and for all though:

@"Durward"#545, do you identify as a "skeptic" in the sense of rejecting all of parapsychology as pseudoscientific nonsense, all paranormal phenomena as contrived, illusory, and delusional, and anything spiritual as (merely) woo-woo mumbo-jumbo?

Wait, what? Durward has in many of his initial spate of posts clearly (in my interpretation) indicated that he believes certain anomalous/paranormal/parapsychological phenomena are valid. I don't understand where you get the idea that he is a skeptic from.

Let's clear this up once and for all though:

@"Durward"#545, do you identify as a "skeptic" in the sense of rejecting all of parapsychology as pseudoscientific nonsense, all paranormal phenomena as contrived, illusory, and delusional, and anything spiritual as (merely) woo-woo mumbo-jumbo?

That sounds like the oath of the heretic before they hang him. 

I have already been informed that you can't challenge or attack posts in the ECP section, and I may not challenge or attack the thoughts or ideas here. Neutral space. So lesson understood, leave it at that. 

So, seriously none of anyone's business, but I am not a skeptic. 
I am a critical thinker and try to never make ASSumptions.
I am interested in finding truths, and we have plenty of evidence for much of psi phenomena.

Critical thinking and experiments will continue to show the blatantly obvious difference between real phenomena and woo woo without my input, your input, or this forums comments.

And I don't think it is the job of some forum to be on the attack when it should be about communication and debate, discussion and discovery. To try and manipulate or control others using coercion or other tactics is seriously offensive behavior. 

We all have opinions, how about respecting that?

Society used to point fingers and hiss at people before hanging them, usually because they did or said something that offended the mob, hoard, crowd. Nice to see nothing has changed since my last incarnation.

Is this a forum of haters looking to hang people when something doesn't align with what they believe?

That a critical thinker is forced into skeptic or no-skeptic with some forumla like the Inquisition shows some serious BS issues going on here. Where are we? In a pub?

Rather immature, and not something the whole forum needs to concern themselves with.

That sounds like the oath of the heretic before they hang him. 

I have already been informed that you can't challenge or attack posts in the ECP section, and I may not challenge or attack the thoughts or ideas here. Neutral space. So lesson understood, leave it at that. 

So, seriously none of anyone's business, but I am not a skeptic. 
I am a critical thinker and try to never make ASSumptions.
I am interested in finding truths, and we have plenty of evidence for much of psi phenomena.

Critical thinking and experiments will continue to show the blatantly obvious difference between real phenomena and woo woo without my input, your input, or this forums comments.

And I don't think it is the job of some forum to be on the attack when it should be about communication and debate, discussion and discovery. To try and manipulate or control others using coercion or other tactics is seriously offensive behavior. 

We all have opinions, how about respecting that?

Society used to point fingers and hiss at people before hanging them, usually because they did or said something that offended the mob, hoard, crowd. Nice to see nothing has changed since my last incarnation.

Is this a forum of haters looking to hang people when something doesn't align with what they believe?

That a critical thinker is forced into skeptic or no-skeptic with some forumla like the Inquisition shows some serious BS issues going on here. Where are we? In a pub?

Rather immature, and not something the whole forum needs to concern themselves with.

And thanks for the opportunity to defend myself Laird.

And thanks for the opportunity to defend myself Laird.

I guess I was mistaken. Apologies.

[Laird]

I have already been informed that you can't challenge or attack posts in the ECP section, and I may not challenge or attack the thoughts or ideas here. Neutral space.

Since you're not a skeptic, you are in fact perfectly welcome to challenge or attack posts in the ECP section, given that your aim is not - as it is with the skeptic - to issue blanket denials of the possibility of paranormal/parapsychological/anomalous phenomena altogether. The rule is there because that's all that "type"* is interested in doing: denying the very existence of the interesting stuff that we like to talk about in the ECP forums, thus obstructing, diverting, or otherwise hindering our conversations.

Ordinary members are not required to believe everything though, and thus are, as I say, perfectly welcome to challenge or attack particular posts in the ECP section without generally trying to "debunk" absolutely everything.

We don't, though, want to deny skeptics - of whom there aren't any active at the moment - the right to make their arguments and press their cases, so that's why the SvP forum is "no holds barred". There, skeptics can deny, deny, and deny to their hearts' content, without obstructing the more productive conversations the rest of us like to have. Those of us who wish to do battle with the skeptics can choose to do so in the SvP form, and those who don't can simply avoid that forum.

Does that make sense?

* I know, generalisations like that are tedious but in this case it's accurate enough to be of pragmatic use.