In the 1981 Peter Ramster documentary located in this subsection, a female subject was regressed back to a previous life in Germany. There are lots of evidential pieces to the story, but the one I wanted to focus on here has to do with whether she needs to use her glasses to see.
As background- my research has lead me to the conclusion that matter is quite likely the result of our non-physically based experiences, and not an objectively real thing. This has been touched on before in our discussions and I would assume we will “go there” again in this new iteration of the forum, but that’s not the central topic here.
Back to the matter at hand,,,
During the regression, the subject, who normally wears corrective glasses to see and read, and who was not her wearing glasses during her hypnosis, was asked to stay in her hypnotic state but to open her eyes and point out on a map, a particular point of interest in Düsseldorf, her home during her previous life.
At 54:07 in the video she opened her eyes, studied the map, and pointed to the location. She did this without any apparent difficulty despite not using her glasses. No mention was made of this detail in the video. At the time I thought,,, OK she must use her glasses to see distant objects,, no big deal.
At the end of the regression session, the team was discussing with her some detail about her previous life and she was again presented the map so that she could respond to a question, and she looked at it and then paused and asked for her glasses so she could see the map.
I think we can all agree that it has been long established that seeing is not a purely physical process. Even materialists would agree that there is MUCH more going on in vision than just focusing photons, sensing them and "displaying" the image. A ton of apparently mental gymnastics is needed in order prepare, assess, modify and interpret the image, real-time. But I would like to particularly look at the front-end process of simply grabbing the image. To most people, certainly a devout materialist, no interpretation of any kind can occur unless an image is physically seen with enough clarity to assess and interpret.
Of course one possibility is that she really doesn’t need glasses in the first place but wears them out of habit.
Or that this was all a ruse for the documentary
I’m assuming neither of these is behind the mystery.
So that leaves us with the possibility that her vision is actually different in her two different hypnotic states. To me, the implications of this is significant.
I mean, can someone’s “mental” state change the physical alignment of the eye’s various components, and change its ability to focus? And how would that work?
Alternatively: do we perhaps process the visual data in some way, perhaps non-physically and/or mentally, and make’s the process of physical focus irrelevant?
Our do we occasionally (or perhaps always?) use an alternative sense of vision that doesn’t rely on the physical aspects of our body at all?
Of course we have all heard stories where the blind can see, 360 deg vision, etc etc, in the context of NDEs and other paranormal states. But we are talking about "real life" here.
I would like to hear what others have to say about this.
As background- my research has lead me to the conclusion that matter is quite likely the result of our non-physically based experiences, and not an objectively real thing. This has been touched on before in our discussions and I would assume we will “go there” again in this new iteration of the forum, but that’s not the central topic here.
Back to the matter at hand,,,
During the regression, the subject, who normally wears corrective glasses to see and read, and who was not her wearing glasses during her hypnosis, was asked to stay in her hypnotic state but to open her eyes and point out on a map, a particular point of interest in Düsseldorf, her home during her previous life.
At 54:07 in the video she opened her eyes, studied the map, and pointed to the location. She did this without any apparent difficulty despite not using her glasses. No mention was made of this detail in the video. At the time I thought,,, OK she must use her glasses to see distant objects,, no big deal.
At the end of the regression session, the team was discussing with her some detail about her previous life and she was again presented the map so that she could respond to a question, and she looked at it and then paused and asked for her glasses so she could see the map.
I think we can all agree that it has been long established that seeing is not a purely physical process. Even materialists would agree that there is MUCH more going on in vision than just focusing photons, sensing them and "displaying" the image. A ton of apparently mental gymnastics is needed in order prepare, assess, modify and interpret the image, real-time. But I would like to particularly look at the front-end process of simply grabbing the image. To most people, certainly a devout materialist, no interpretation of any kind can occur unless an image is physically seen with enough clarity to assess and interpret.
Of course one possibility is that she really doesn’t need glasses in the first place but wears them out of habit.
Or that this was all a ruse for the documentary
I’m assuming neither of these is behind the mystery.
So that leaves us with the possibility that her vision is actually different in her two different hypnotic states. To me, the implications of this is significant.
I mean, can someone’s “mental” state change the physical alignment of the eye’s various components, and change its ability to focus? And how would that work?
Alternatively: do we perhaps process the visual data in some way, perhaps non-physically and/or mentally, and make’s the process of physical focus irrelevant?
Our do we occasionally (or perhaps always?) use an alternative sense of vision that doesn’t rely on the physical aspects of our body at all?
Of course we have all heard stories where the blind can see, 360 deg vision, etc etc, in the context of NDEs and other paranormal states. But we are talking about "real life" here.
I would like to hear what others have to say about this.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
