> Your "gut feel" may feel good, but it is not a
> reliable indicator of fact or truth. Period.
> Witness all the people with a "gut feel" that
> mormonism is true...
I completely agree that 'gut feel' is not a truth indicator. Now then if I had felt a 'burning in my bosom' (which I have not regarding MN) then we would have to talk. ;-)
> Numerous objective, proper scientific studies have
> shown that people under "hypnotism" do not produce
> reliable data. Some "lie," some relate imagined
> things, and a majority try to please the
> hypnotist, so if any "leading" questions are
> asked, the response the hypnotist wants is given.
> There is no evidence anything said is factual or
> real in the vast majority of cases.
> "Scientific consensus is that the memories are the
> result of cryptomnesia, narratives created by the
> subconscious mind using imagination, forgotten
> information and suggestions from the therapist.
> Memories created under hypnosis are
> indistinguishable from actual memories and can be
> more vivid than factual memories. The greatest
> predictor of individuals reporting memories of
> past lives appears to be their beliefs..."
> (follow some of the referenced papers at the end)
Thanks for the links. I agree that much of what is "recalled" under hypnosis is probably imaginary BS. Two thoughts, which you can easily reject: 1) MN asserts that he is not using a 'regular' hypnosis process, but rather deeper than usual state of 'superconscious' awareness he discovered by accident. He prepares the subject with a 'regular' past life regression to determine their ability/susceptibility to hypnosis, and follows up on a different day with the deeper LBL process. (He wrote a book describing his process 'Life Between Lives: Hypnotherapy for Spiritual Regression'); 2) He wrote about his awareness of the pitfalls of asking 'leading questions' which he consciously avoided. You can read his questions and determine for yourself if he was 'leading the witness'.
Did MN cherry pick his data to support a foregone conclusion? Well, we get to decide whether to believe him when he claimed to see a recurring background tapestry of Spirit World ambience details. It would seem that random imaginings would show frequent recurrences of Jesus figures, which he reported did not happen. In fact, per my OP, he reported the conspicuous absense of Jesus/Buddha characters. I think these 'sightings' might be more common to regular NDE reports (my conjecture).
If the many hundreds of data points are random imaginings, one could expect a wider variation of background context than MN is reporting. If recollections are lost fragments of memory, why do so many report similar lost fragments of memory? Including so many details that are not part of the Judeo/Christian imaginary paradigm. If The Veil is not hermetically sealed, is it possible for fragments of pre-birth or post-death memories of a non-physical life to show some consistency if we all originated from and return to the same Spirit World?
> Uncorroborated/unproven "data" remains
> uncorroborated/unproven whether you have one
> instance or 10,000 instances.
> See above about people under hypnotism being
> susceptible to suggestion and trying to "please"
> the hypnotist with the "right" answer. That data,
> by the way, all came to light after hypnotic
> regression was used to "prove" cases of childhood
> molestation, and after objective testing it was
> found to be worse than useless for that task.
We must define 'uncorroborated'. I will agree that hypnotic regression data is intrinsically unreliable. But when you have a large data set that is internally consistent and cannot (by definition) be corroborated by any normal earthbound data sources, you might attempt a theory to explain the observed consistency, or show the consistency exists only in the mind of the beholder (MN).
> It's evidence that his subjects apparently said
> similar things. It's not evidence of any
> "witnesses of the same Spirit World." Did he
> report on subjects that *didn't* have similar
> experiences? Or did he leave them out because
> they were inconvenient? Were his questions
> leading? Is there any evidence outside of stories
> under hypnotism to back up what could simply be
I've already addressed the issues of 'cherry picking' the data and 'leading the witness'. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't suspect that MN did either to make his point. Regarding evidence outside of stories under hypnosis, is that a fair question? It's like asking a scientist to replicate experimental results without doing the same or similar experiment. If the 'recalled' memories are random imaginings, one needs to explain why so much of the recollections appear to come from the same imaginary stage.
> By the way, the form of "It's
> supernatural unless you can prove it isn't" is
> fallacious and a bit silly.
I agree with your statement. I am basing my enthusiasm for MN's findings on what I interpret as a compelling set of data. If you determine a priori that the data is BS, then no further investigation is needed. If there's a baby in the bath water you toss out, there goes another perfectly useful baby. If no baby, then you saved yourself time and energy.
> "Peer review" doesn't mean getting people who
> agree with you to write about them agreeing with
> you. It means submitting your data and findings
> to an objective group of people knowledgeable in
> the field in question, and having them review your
> data for errors, biases, etc. He hasn't done
OK. Let's try this on for size. How would you assess the following hypothetical 'peer review' experiment: 1) Select one of MN's subjects he wrote about; 2) Have the same subject be hypnotized by several therapists; 3) See if the subject reports the same Spirit World recollections to all of the therapists?
This experiment is worthless on its face for obvious reasons. The only way to gather potentially meaningful data is to use 'virgin' subjects untainted by a previous hypnotic regressions. That is what MN did, and his student therapists replicated the process on more 'virgin' subjects.
You get to decide how to interpret everything contributing to MN's conclusions. If you dismiss the data as contaminated, then your investigation is done. If you dismiss the investigators as dishonest or deluded, job over.
> Great. Share away. Be prepared to accept
> criticism where warranted, though. And I'm just
> going to point out that your OP didn't present
> this as simply something to consider, but was very
> enthusiastically describing it as all true.
> Evidence doesn't support that enthusiasm.
Fair enough about my OP describing it as all true. I plead guilty to my overstatements. I don't know if it's true or if MN is a convincing liar, or honestly deluded. I once told lots of people that I KNEW beyondashadow of a doubt that Joseph's Myth actually happened as described in one of the First Vision accounts. So we already know I am gullible. I make an effort to not get sucked into every good sounding BS that comes along. I admit that MN's BS sounds pretty good to me and that the supporting data seems compelling.
At this moment in time, I don't think it's BS and hope it's not BS. I think it's very cool that there is an actually possibility that I can personally experience my own data point on topic. My intention is to make that happen. How often do we have the opportunity to replicate a curious experiment personally?
One could argue that I am pre-tainted by exposing myself to MN's work. Hopefully I will be able to report back on RfM what happens (or not) for me personally. I'm a willing Guinea Pig ... motivated enough to travel and spend lots of money if I have to to make it happen.
> > Life can be an incredible adventure. Discovery and
> > creation is so much more fun than sacrament meeting.
> There we agree completely :)
Nice to find a toehold of common ground.
Thank you, ificouldhietokolob, for your thoughtful and stimulating comments.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2015 05:39PM by beyondashadow.