Past Lives - who believes?

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My head just exploded.
>
> Yet, I suppose if we can assume that we were
> basically creating out of an exploding star which
> contains all the building blocks of well anything
> then our atoms could well become just about
> anything else.
>
> Looking at things in a kind of cold scientific
> way.. It strengthens my belief that most things
> are simply in our imaginations.

Therefore, I was once a star...

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore, I was once a star...

Even better - stars died so that you can exist :P

Seriously, though - seeing as all known elements are created when stars collapse, this statement is literally true.

---

There is no second chance. Get over it and make the most out of the one shot you got at living. Not that it matters anyway.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

OK, so after leaving the thread for a while so everyone could post what they wanted, and after reading through said posts, here's my response.
*Deep breath*


loque Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the Biologist in me suspects that it's all
> bullshit. When we're gone, we're gone.

See, this is probably the main reason why most people don't believe in this - the fact it goes against science and there's no scientific proof of it, just like there's no scientific proof of what a soul is or that the soul exists. Because scientists want to be safe and think inside the box, sticking to what's definitely known. It's ironic that all of our greatest discoveries and achievements have come from doing the opposite and being "unsafe".


Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nature is very good at
> recycling .

Agreed.
I'm inclined to think our physical body is the vehicle for our soul. So, just like in our lifetime we'll probably buy a car, drive it for a few years till it wears out/wrecks and then buy another one(and keep repeating the process over and over), when our body dies our soul will just essentially transfer to a new car. That car might not always be the same make or the same type of chassis even, it'll depend on our preference at the time we decide to buy it. I think that might be in our soul's control.


chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quite open minded about this stuff. Im certainly
> one of them who thinks any answer to a previously
> unanswered question is good enough until a proven
> (by fact or mathematics) answer is the case. It's
> like right now, isn't the easiest explanation of
> the existence of the universe simply God? I
> believe it work's mathematically (though don't ask
> how you represent God :p). So that works for me
> until proven otherwise.
>
> I've always found deja vu strange. Especially when
> it's so clear. About the physic stuff, you always
> hear some interesting stories, as with hypnosis
> too! But it is certainly one thing you can never
> judge till you have experienced it for yourself.

Agreed! +1.


danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing with deja vu for me is the minute
> details of what it is.
>
> I won't feel I've been to an exact place before as
> such as some people say. It'll be a fragment of a
> situation, like the way a pen is laid over a
> certain magazine on a table. It's mostly objects
> for me, as opposed to people saying things too.
> The image I get a deja vu experience from will be
> like a polaroid snapshot of that pen and a bit of
> the magazine. It's hard to explain, and I never
> remember thinking things before; only the instant
> they happen.

I get exactly the same kind of thing happening. I see something happening for real - it can be an image, just like the pen on the magazine that you describe, or it can be a short clip of movement, like a gif. I see it and think "Wait, I've seen that somewhere before", and then suddenly realise I haven't seen it before for real at all, I've visualised it! Suddenly I see that gif playing again with my eyes, for real.
It's something that used to freak me out at first, now I've worked out what it is I quite like having it happen.


jawwad01 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you people think that we 3D people living in a
> 4D environment (3D + 1D-time) can comprehend all
> the knowledge that exists out there? I certainly
> believe that this is not possible. There are
> possibilities of more dimensions - Upto 11
> according to many theories. There is certainly
> more to our 4D life. Our Brains are not wired to
> comprehend many aspects of reality.

Brilliant point. I think there's so much out there which is unseen to the physical eye. That's why this fascinates me. I see this as a journey of discovery, and an exciting one too.


smoglessbutton4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not religous, but I believe in souls being
> 'recycled'...

+1.


Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n00binio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > is there a difference between being gone
> forever
> > and not being able to remember past lifes?
>
>
> Maybe the in-between period

This.
I think that when we get born in a new physical lifetime we have our memory of past lives "wiped" to create a superficially blank sheet. I'm not sure exactly why that would be done for us, but it could be to protect us from bad past life memories if, for example, we'd been someone evil in a past life and were someone nice in this life.
But, just like data can be recovered from a "wiped" hard drive with the right software, so I think we can learn to access past life memories if we're put into the right state of hypnosis by an expert on Past Life Regression.
Then our life itself can be seen much more as a single long continuous event(Or so the theory goes - I haven't had any Past Life Regression done yet, although I'm hoping to at some point).


Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember seeing this vid ages ago (in the old
> days of Religion & Philosophy class) where this
> girl could 'remember' how she died in a past life;
> she remembers being a man who delivered
> candlesticks and got knocked off of his bike by a
> car and died.
>
> She met the man's parents and they confirmed that
> their son died in that way. If I remember
> correctly, she also had a birthmark where the car
> caused the man's fatal injury.

This is exactly the kind of thing which I'm on about. The book I've read is full of examples not dissimilar to this. Sounds like a very believable story to me.


J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moving onto paranormal things.. Ghosts or
> whatever.. I tend to believe that's in an person's
> mind. If someone is susceptible or a believer for
> example then they are far more likely to have
> "experiences" and believe them.

It's been my belief for a long time now that ghosts are simply souls/spirits which have stayed behind in our physical world, for whatever reason, after their bodies died. Maybe they got particularly attached to a place or person during their last physical lifetime, or maybe they had a traumatic lifetime which they can't get over and move on from emotionally. But there's no doubt in my mind that they exist(I've experienced one myself).


gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just can't grasp the theory
> that once you're dead that's it.
>
> My head simply refuses to acknowledge or entertain
> the possibility that everything just ends and
> there is absolute nothingness beyond that... I'm
> sure that's the way it is, but for whatever reason
> I can't envisage such a scenario.

This is exactly how I've always felt too. I've always believed in an afterlife of some kind, whether it was the traditional Christian belief of an afterlife in Heaven(Though it's a long time since I stopped having that particular belief) or just a simple refusal to believe that physical death is final. But the idea of some kind of immortality has just always made sense to me.


Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i believe we're energy, when we die we
> transform
> > our energy into something else, will we be
> > rational?, don't know, what is that?, maybe
> when
> > we die we reach another dimension where we have
> > "everything", and we understand the full
> picture
> > and how naive we are as humans being.
> >
> > but reincarnation i don't beleive too much in
> it,
> > i mean really earth is not the center of the
> > galaxy nor the universe, why would we reborn
> here?
> > and if we do, why in a human body? are we that
> > important?, or do we think as humans that we
> are
> > "that important?" we can return to life as a
> worm,
> > bacteria or something else, no?
> >
> > implying reincarnation haves some religios
> thing
> > in it, that means "heaven" is real?, i don't
> think
> > "heaven" is just top of the sky, it's the
> > dimension where we travel, maybe, and we'll
> find
> > our previous family members not in human form
> but
> > their energy, who supposedly have been watching
> us
> > for a while. but if we return to life, then how
> > many family members will be waiting on the
> other
> > side?
> >
> > there's too many questions to debate, what i
> > believe is that we are energy and we will
> > transform that energy into something else,
> > something that will subsequently give birth to
> > other forms of energy around us.
>
>
>
> What if family and loved ones are actually just
> fragments of the same strand of energy, which
> could be why there's this connection in our world.

Gui, this is a beautiful analogy, and one I agree 100% with. There's a theory that groups of souls reincarnate together over and over again, which is why we know people in this life who we've known in other lives already. That would make us all parts of the same strand of energy, just like you say.
(And Slash, you make some great points as well, many of which I partly agree with, which is why I left your quote in. The best point you raise is the biggest one - so much is unknown, I can't answer most of what you ask because I have no way of knowing myself.)

---

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2012 08:57AM by EC83.

EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> J i m Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Moving onto paranormal things.. Ghosts or
> > whatever.. I tend to believe that's in an
> person's
> > mind. If someone is susceptible or a believer
> for
> > example then they are far more likely to have
> > "experiences" and believe them.

EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's been my belief for a long time now that
> ghosts are simply souls/spirits which have stayed
> behind in our physical world, for whatever reason,
> after their bodies died. Maybe they got
> particularly attached to a place or person during
> their last physical lifetime, or maybe they had a
> traumatic lifetime which they can't get over and
> move on from emotionally. But there's no doubt in
> my mind that they exist(I've experienced one
> myself).

---
Oh for sure they exist, as in everyone's perception of reality must exist otherwise they wouldn't have that perception let alone imagination. I think basically the brain is a biological computer, one which is still greatly unexplored. But do these things exist in outer reality or simply a select groups perception of reality?

I tend to err towards the "it's in your mind" point of view because I've never had a experience (and I've seen some strange things like anyone else) which I could honestly put my hand to my heart and call paranormal or ghostly etc. I've always been able to find a rational and plausible explanation based on logic. I've been in plenty of places that people assure are haunted (quite nastily so in some cases) yet I've never had a problem, I've ocassionally had a damn right weird experience regardless if anyone claimed a place to be haunted but only ones I can put down to my state of counciousness i.e whilst dreaming. As soon as my mind rationalises such things, they don't bother me.

So my point of view is that do souls, spirits, ghosts etc exist? Yes they do, but I percieve them to exist in our imaginations more than in outside reality. I think that things like ghosts are as much hulliciantions as they are actual paranormal happenings probably more so.

This has been a enjoyable topic to discuss!

EC83 schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------

> loque Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But the Biologist in me suspects that it's all
> > bullshit. When we're gone, we're gone.
>
> See, this is probably the main reason why most
> people don't believe in this - the fact it goes
> against science and there's no scientific proof of
> it, just like there's no scientific proof of what
> a soul is or that the soul exists. Because
> scientists want to be safe and think inside the
> box, sticking to what's definitely known. It's
> ironic that all of our greatest discoveries and
> achievements have come from doing the opposite and
> being "unsafe".

seems to me like an argument from ignorance . [en.wikipedia.org]

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

n00binio écrivait:
------------------------------------------------------------
> seems to me like an argument from ignorance .
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> ce

It's an argument emphasising the importance of openmindedness when discussing a subject like this(Not aimed at Loque per se, but at the scientific opinion on the subject in general). That's about as different from ignorance as it gets.

---

EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n00binio écrivait:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > seems to me like an argument from ignorance .
> >
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> > ce
>
> It's an argument emphasising the importance of
> openmindedness when discussing a subject like
> this(Not aimed at Loque per se, but at the
> scientific opinion on the subject in general).
> That's about as different from ignorance as it
> gets.


It is a mean name for what it stands for, it's not that bad :p.

Guimengo schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EC83 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > n00binio écrivait:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ----------
> > > seems to me like an argument from ignorance .
> > >
> >
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> >
> > > ce
> >
> > It's an argument emphasising the importance of
> > openmindedness when discussing a subject like
> > this(Not aimed at Loque per se, but at the
> > scientific opinion on the subject in general).
> > That's about as different from ignorance as it
> > gets.
>
>
> It is a mean name for what it stands for, it's not
> that bad :p.

this.

@ EC83: why do you feel scientists are not open minded enough when discussing topics like the one at hand? in my experience thinking outside the box is pretty much the whole point of doing science. i also wonder if any of the great discoveries you have in mind are not scientifically proven?

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ EC83: why do you feel scientists are not open
> minded enough when discussing topics like the one
> at hand? in my experience thinking outside the box
> is pretty much the whole point of doing science. i
> also wonder if any of the great discoveries you
> have in mind are not scientifically proven?

My point is this: There was a time once when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat, and anybody who thought it was spherical was not taken seriously. This is the same kind of idea.
When an idea which seems alien to people with accepted beliefs to the contrary is being explored, it's important to not write off that apparently alien idea - it might just turn out to be correct.

Why do I feel the way I do about scientists regarding this topic? Because they have a tendency to dismiss ideas about the soul/spirits/the supernatural without having any good reason to. In that respect, no, they're not openminded enough.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2012 05:56AM by EC83.

Maybe, but any good scientist will tell you that ultimately they don't know. Science is after all theories based on the available evidence and observations.

Back before some clever spark looked at earth from a different observational perceptive it'd be quite rational to say that the earth was flat. Just imagination that we didn't know the things we do today and someone insists to you that the world is a giant sphere, well open minded or not you'd probably look out your window and go "lol no".

Science doesn't ultimately prove anything, all scientists know that but with it's experiments and obversations it goes a long way to supporting a theory.

EC83 schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n00binio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > @ EC83: why do you feel scientists are not open
> > minded enough when discussing topics like the
> one
> > at hand? in my experience thinking outside the
> box
> > is pretty much the whole point of doing science.
> i
> > also wonder if any of the great discoveries you
> > have in mind are not scientifically proven?
>
> My point is this: There was a time once when the
> accepted belief was that the Earth was flat, and
> anybody who thought it was spherical was not taken
> seriously. This is the same kind of idea.
> When an idea which seems alien to people with
> accepted beliefs to the contrary is being
> explored, it's important to not write off that
> apparently alien idea - it might just turn out to
> be correct.
>
> Why do I feel the way I do about scientists
> regarding this topic? Because they have a tendency
> to dismiss ideas about the soul/spirits/the
> supernatural without having any good reason to. In
> that respect, no, they're not openminded enough.

so do you think that if scientists were more open minded evidence for these things could indeed be found?

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

I wonder how many years will take until our very respected theories are regarded the same way we regard certain things from the 1500-1700s, where we may have a reasonable base but so much done around them is just way off. I do agree with the Big Bang theory but I believe it was a reaction from something else. Whether it has to do with dark matter or dark energy, there's just no way something just suddenly exists and collapses onto itself to generate the universe.

God, to me, is the energy/force/forces that generated our universe. We cannot comprehend 95% of our universe, perhaps even less than that 5%. My idea of god is based on my understanding of science and what is unknown. When all that is taken into account, it is easy to understand why so many people rather settle with a supreme life force that causes events. They prefer to settle and utilize said divinity as the easy explanation to anything that demands questioning or critical thinking.

My girlfriend brought up an awesome study result that born-again Christians - as in people who weren't religious but chose to follow it in their teenage or adult years - have their brain slightly shrink. The area of the brain that shrivels up? The area responsible for questioning, critical thinking. Choosing to believe one being is responsible for everything basically removes any insatiability, any will to pursue true knowledge. That said, while I am against religion I do respect most people who follow one. But the moment they attempt preaching it to others who are non-believers or of other faith, they lose my respect.

Here comes my favourite infuriating question:

If God created the universe, who or what created God? (and so on).

I've a few questions regarding evolution... I know that's the way the world works, but how did breathing animals evolve from microscopic organisms? How were organisms created in the first place? How did the whole fertilisation process begin in animals? Obviously there are perfectly plausible reasons but again, my head simply can't visualise them.

@gav:

Yesterday I had a great very long conversation with a friend (who studied psychology at uni and is getting his masters on it) and his major argument for not excluding anything from being true - bar religious fanatism and certain specific points about religions - was exactly what you just wrote there. He can't accept that evolution only happens at this very slow, dragged format; that evolution could indeed drag but something major always has to happen. Neither of us disagreed with each other, it was just a great car ride sharing our thoughts and expanding off each other (not a pun ).

one should never forget that what we are able to understand or are willing to accept has absolutely no bearing on reality.
we will never be able to visualise processes that take millions or billions of years when our brain regards the last ~5 seconds as "present". same goes for processes on subatomic scales. we're just not equipped in a way that enables us to experience these things.

Guimengo schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder how many years will take until our very
> respected theories are regarded the same way we
> regard certain things from the 1500-1700s, where
> we may have a reasonable base but so much done
> around them is just way off. I do agree with the
> Big Bang theory but I believe it was a reaction
> from something else. Whether it has to do with
> dark matter or dark energy, there's just no way
> something just suddenly exists and collapses onto
> itself to generate the universe.
>
> God, to me, is the energy/force/forces that
> generated our universe. We cannot comprehend 95%
> of our universe, perhaps even less than that 5%.
> My idea of god is based on my understanding of
> science and what is unknown. When all that is
> taken into account, it is easy to understand why
> so many people rather settle with a supreme life
> force that causes events. They prefer to settle
> and utilize said divinity as the easy explanation
> to anything that demands questioning or critical
> thinking.
>
> My girlfriend brought up an awesome study result
> that born-again Christians - as in people who
> weren't religious but chose to follow it in their
> teenage or adult years - have their brain slightly
> shrink. The area of the brain that shrivels up?
> The area responsible for questioning, critical
> thinking. Choosing to believe one being is
> responsible for everything basically removes any
> insatiability, any will to pursue true knowledge.
> That said, while I am against religion I do
> respect most people who follow one. But the moment
> they attempt preaching it to others who are
> non-believers or of other faith, they lose my
> respect.

great post

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

Cheers, N00b! :p

I told him that to me, evolution is mutation that works better with the environment. I made an argument that the evolution of complex living organisms can't be that incredibly rapid because the massive scale of cells/atoms/molecules and that you can't just expect an offspring to present very significant changes from its progenitor. There's the limited amount of gestation time, the brief time the gestation period has to impact the offspring (something that is very noticeable on some species if certain conditions aren't met throughout the embryo period, like insects or lizards) via any variations on the environment, and lastly the extremely short amount of time for any significant changes in the environment to happen. He had a great question regarding the first living organism though. How did that come to be? That was a significant change from nothing. A virus becoming a bacteria all by itself, for example.

Guimengo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @gav:
>
> Yesterday I had a great very long conversation
> with a friend (who studied psychology at uni and
> is getting his masters on it) and his major
> argument for not excluding anything from being
> true - bar religious fanatism and certain specific
> points about religions - was exactly what you just
> wrote there. He can't accept that evolution only
> happens at this very slow, dragged format; that
> evolution could indeed drag but something major
> always has to happen. Neither of us disagreed with
> each other, it was just a great car ride sharing
> our thoughts and expanding off each other (not a
> pun ).

the world has suffer major catastrofes (is that the right word?) ever since it was created, it was that, what helped bring life to this planet, eventually we will be extincted and a new from of life will continue, i doubt we will live 5 thousand million years, it's impossible.

but evolution is all about living forms adapting to their enviroments.. the planet changes every thousands of years and we adapt, recently i saw a documentary where they found a type of fish that used to live in the sea but due to contamination and the extinction of the enviroment where he lived in, such as corals and so... the fish found a way to move to rivers and live in the river.

at first that doesn't say much, but if you think about it, it's like humans adapting ourselves from breathing oxygen to caron dioxide., eventually that fish will evolve and probably expand himself to other forms due to it's capabilities to adapt to different enviroments, in a few years that fish species is going to be completley different, it might find a way to breathe oxigen and so on.

it's only the organism capable to adapt that survive and evolve.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've a few questions regarding evolution... I know
> that's the way the world works, but how did
> breathing animals evolve from microscopic
> organisms? How were organisms created in the first
> place? How did the whole fertilisation process
> begin in animals? Obviously there are perfectly
> plausible reasons but again, my head simply can't
> visualise them.

bacteria, i think that's the main cause of evolution, they adapt to survive and we adapt to stop them, but we change, it takes millions and millions of years but that's the beauty of life. it's all a big survival contest, who can last longer.


there's a book that changed my views on the world completley, COSMOS by Carl Sagan, that will explain EVERYTHING in the most simplistic way, that was his talent, find it, you won't regret it.

i'm sorry if i'm not using the correct terms but my english is not that good when it comes to these topics lol.

i believe

Spiritism

"Spiritism is a loose corpus of religious faiths having in common the general belief in the survival of a spirit after death. In a stricter sense, it is a religion whose beliefs and practices are based on the works of Allan Kardec and others. Formed in France in the 19th century, it soon spread to other countries, but today the only country where it has a significant number of adherents is Brazil.

Spiritism is based on the five books of the Spiritist Codification written by French educator Hypolite Léon Denizard Rivail under the pseudonym Allan Kardec reporting séances in which he observed a series of phenomena that he attributed to incorporeal intelligence (spirits). His work was later extended by writers like Leon Denis, Jean-Baptiste Roustaing, Arthur Conan Doyle, Camille Flammarion, Gabriel Delanne, Ernesto Bozzano, Chico Xavier, Divaldo Pereira Franco, Waldo Vieira, Johannes Greber and others.

Spiritism has adherents in many countries throughout the world, including Spain, United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, England, Argentina, Portugal and especially in American countries such as Cuba, Jamaica, and Brazil, which has among the largest proportion and greatest number of followers."

[en.wikipedia.org]

----signature--------------------------------------------------------

RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..