When Ryan Hammons was 4 years old, he began directing imaginary movies. Shouts of "Action!" often echoed from his room.
But the play became a concern for Ryan's parents when he began waking up in the middle of the night screaming and clutching his chest, saying he dreamed his heart exploded when he was in Hollywood. His mother, Cyndi, asked his doctor about the episodes. Night terrors, the doctor said. He'll outgrow them.Then one night, as Cyndi tucked Ryan into bed, Ryan suddenly took hold of Cyndi's hand.
"Mama," he said. "I think I used to be someone else."
He said he remembered a big white house and a swimming pool. It was in Hollywood, many miles from his Oklahoma home. He said he had three sons, but that he couldn't remember their names. He began to cry, asking Cyndi over and over why he couldn't remember their names.
"I really didn't know what to do," Cyndi said. "I was more in shock than anything. He was so insistent about it. After that night, he kept talking about it, kept getting upset about not being able to remember those names. I started researching the Internet about reincarnation. I even got some books from the library on Hollywood, thinking their pictures might help him. I didn't tell anyone for months."
One day, as Ryan and Cyndi paged through one of the Hollywood books, Ryan stopped at a black-and-white still taken from a 1930s movie, Night After Night. Two men in the center of the picture were confronting one another. Four other men surrounded them. Cyndi didn't recognize any of the faces, but Ryan pointed to one of the men in the middle.
"Hey Mama," he said. "That's George. We did a picture together." His finger then shot over to a man on the right, wearing an overcoat and a scowl. "That guy's me. I found me!"
Ryan's claims, while rare, are not unique among the more than 2,500 case files sitting inside the offices of Jim B. Tucker (Res '89), an associate psychiatry professor at the U.Va. Medical Center's Division of Perceptual Studies.
For nearly 15 years, Tucker has been investigating claims made by children, usually between the ages of 2 and 6 years old, who say they've had past lives.The children are sometimes able to provide enough detail about those lives that their stories can be traced back to an actual person—rarely famous and often entirely unknown to the family—who died years before.
Tucker, one of the only scientists in the world studying the phenomenon, says the strength of the cases he encounters varies. Some can be easily discounted, for instance, when it becomes clear that a child's innocuous statements come within a family that desperately misses a loved one.
But in a number of the cases, like Ryan's, Tucker says the most logical, scientific explanation for a claim is as simple as it is astounding: Somehow, the child recalls memories from another life.
"I understand the leap it takes to conclude there is something beyond what we can see and touch," says Tucker, who served as medical director of the University's Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic for nearly a decade. "But there is this evidence here that needs to be accounted for, and when we look at these cases carefully, some sort of carry-over of memories often makes the most sense."
In his latest book, Return to Life, due out this month, Tucker details some of the more compelling American cases he's researched and outlines his argument that discoveries within quantum mechanics, the mind-bending science of how nature's smallest particles behave, provide clues to reincarnation's existence.
"Quantum physics indicates that our physical world may grow out of our consciousness," Tucker says. "That's a view held not just by me, but by a number of physicists as well."
Little Controversy
While his work might be expected to garner fierce debate within the scientific community, Tucker's research, based in part on the cases accumulated all over the world by his predecessor, Ian Stevenson, who died in 2007, has caused little stir.
Michael Levin, director of the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University—who wrote in an academic review of Tucker's first book that it presented a "first-rate piece of research"—said that's because current scientific research models have no way to prove or debunk Tucker's findings.
"When you fish with a net with a certain size of holes, you will never catch any fish smaller than those holes," Levin says. "What you find is limited by how you are searching for it. Our current methods and concepts have no way of dealing with these data."
Tucker, whose research is funded entirely by an endowment, began his reincarnation research in the late 1990s, after he read an article in the Charlottesville Daily Progress about Stevenson's office winning a grant to study the effects of near-death experiences.
"I was curious about the idea of life after death and whether the scientific method could be used to study it," Tucker says.
He began volunteering within Stevenson's department and after a few years found himself a permanent researcher in the office, where his duties included overseeing the electronic coding of Stevenson's reincarnation cases.
That coding took years—Stevenson's handwritten case files reached back to 1961—but Tucker said the work is yielding intriguing insights.
Roughly 70 percent of the children say they died violent or unexpected deaths in their previous life. Males account for close to three-quarters of those deaths—almost precisely the same ratio of males who die of unnatural causes in the general population.
More cases are reported in countries where reincarnation is part of the religious culture, but Tucker says there is no correlation between how strong a case is deemed and that family's beliefs in reincarnation.
One out of five children who report a past life say they recall the intermission, the time between death and birth, although there is no consistent view of what that's like. Some allege they were in "God's house," while others claim they waited near where they died before "going inside" their mother.
In cases where a child's story has been traced to another individual, the median time between the death of that person and the child's birth is about 16 months.
Further research by Tucker and others has shown the children generally have above-average IQs and do not possess any mental or emotional disorders beyond average groups of children. None appears to have been dissociating from painful family situations.
Nearly 20 percent of the children studied have scarlike birthmarks or even unusual deformities that closely match marks or injuries the person whose life the child recalls received at or near his or her death.
Most children's claims generally subside around age 6, coinciding roughly with what Tucker says is the time children's brains ready themselves for a new stage of development.
Despite the otherworldly nature of their stories, almost none of the children exhibit any signs of being particularly enlightened, Tucker says.
"My impression of the children is that while a few make philosophical statements about life, most are just typical kids," he says. "It might be a situation similar to not being any smarter on the first day of first grade than you were on the last day of kindergarten."
Other Explanations
Raised as a Southern Baptist in North Carolina, Tucker has weighed other, more earthly, explanations to the phenomenon.
He's looked at fraud, perhaps for financial gain or fame. But most claims usually don't net a movie deal, and many of the families Tucker's met, particularly in the West, are reluctant to speak publicly about their child's unusual behavior.Tucker has also considered simple childhood fantasy play, but that doesn't explain how the details children offer can sometimes lead back to a particular individual. "It defies logic that it would just be a coincidence," he says.
Faulty memories of witnesses are likely present in many cases, Tucker says, but there are dozens of instances where people made notes of what the children were saying almost from the beginning.
"None of those possibilities would also explain some of the other patterns, like the intense emotional attachment many children have to these memories, as Ryan exhibited," Tucker says.
Tucker believes the relatively small number of claims he and Stevenson collected during the last five decades, especially from America, is partly because parents may dismiss or misunderstand what their children are telling them."If children get a message that they aren't being listened to, they will stop talking," Tucker says. "They see they aren't supported. Most kids aim to please their parents."
How exactly the consciousness, or at least memories, of one person might transfer to another is obviously a mystery, but Tucker believes the answers might be found within the foundations of quantum physics.
Scientists have long known that matter like electrons and protons produces events only when observed.
A simplified example: Take light and shine it through a screen with two slits cut in it. Behind the screen, put a photographic plate that records the light. When the light is unobserved as it travels, the plate shows it went through both slits. But what happens when the light is observed? The plate shows the particles go through just one of the slits. The light's behavior changes, and the only difference is that it is being observed.There's plenty of debate on what that might mean. But Tucker, like Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, believes that discovery shows that the physical world is affected by, and even derived from the non-physical, from consciousness.
If that's true, then consciousness doesn't require a three-pound brain to exist, Tucker says, and so there's no reason to think that consciousness would end with it.
"It's conceivable that in some way consciousness could be expressed in a new life," Tucker says.
Robert Pollock, director of the Center for the Study of Science and Religion at Columbia University, said scientists have long pondered the role observation might play in the physical world, but the hypotheses about it are not necessarily scientific."Debates among physicists that center on the clarity and beauty of an idea but not on its disprovability are common to my mind, but are not scientific debates at all," says Pollock. "I think what Planck and others since who have looked at how these very small particles behave, and then made inferences about consciousness, are expressing a hope. That's fine; I hope they are right. But there's no way to disprove the idea."
"It's much more than a hope," he says. "Having direct positive evidence for a theory can have value, even if negative evidence against it is not possible."
Ryan's Past Life
Cyndi Hammons wasn't considering any of that when her preschool son was pointing himself out in a photo from more than 80 years ago. She wanted to know who that man was.
The book didn't provide any names of the actors pictured, but Cyndi quickly confirmed that the man Ryan said was "George" in the photo was indeed a George—George Raft, an all but forgotten film star from the 1930s and 1940s. Still, she couldn't identify the man Ryan said had been him.Cyndi wrote Tucker, whom she found through her online research, and included the photo. Eventually it ended up in the hands of a film archivist, who, after weeks of research, confirmed the scowling man's name: Martin Martyn, an uncredited extra in the film.
Tucker hadn't shared that discovery with the Hammons family when he traveled to their home a few weeks later. Instead, he laid out black-and-white photos of four women on the kitchen table. Three of them were random.
Tucker asked Ryan, "Do any of these mean anything to you?"
Ryan studied the pictures. He pointed to one. She looks familiar, he said.
It was Martin Martyn's wife.
Not long afterward, Tucker and the Hammonses traveled to California to meet Martyn's daughter, who'd been tracked down by researchers working with Tucker on a documentary. Tucker sat down with the woman before her meeting with Ryan. She'd been reluctant to help, but during her talk with Tucker, she confirmed dozens of facts Ryan had given about her father.
Ryan said he danced in New York. Martyn was a Broadway dancer. Ryan said he was also an "agent," and that people where he worked had changed their names. Martyn worked for years at a well-known talent agency in Hollywood—where stage names are often created—after his dancing career ended.
Ryan said his old address had "Rock" in its name. Martyn lived at 825 North Roxbury Dr. in Beverly Hills. Ryan said he knew a man named Senator Five. Martyn's daughter said she had a picture of her father with a Senator Ives, Irving Ives, of New York, who served in the U.S. Senate from 1947 to 1959.
And yes, Martin Martyn had three sons. The daughter of course knew their names.
The meeting later between Ryan and Martyn's daughter didn't go well. Ryan shook her hand then hid behind Cyndi for the rest of the time. Later he told his mother the woman's "energy" had changed. Cyndi explained that people change when they grow up.
"I don't want to go back [to Hollywood]," Ryan said. "I always want to keep this family."
In the weeks that followed, Ryan spoke less about Hollywood. Tucker says that often happens when children meet the family of someone they claimed to have been. It seems to validate their memories, making them less intense.
"I think they see that no one is waiting for them in the past," Tucker says. "Some of them get sad about it, but ultimately they accept it and they turn their attention more fully to the present. They get more involved in experiencing this life, which, of course, is what they should do."
Comments ( 186 )
Dr J D Bapat on 07/05/2015
The application of quantum mechanics to Prof. Tucker’s findings, some may find it debatable. However the findings cannot be rejected. In any case, science, as on date, cannot explain everything that happens around in the universe.
Hirofumi Nakatsuchi on 07/04/2015
great site. Would like Dr. Tucker’s e-mail
M. H. Clark on 05/10/2015
Thank you for such a captivating article—and thank you to your readers for such a passionate discussion.
John on 05/06/2015
Tucker has a Christian background. Has he considered Biblical authority in this subject area? Has he , for example, considered or ruled out demonic influence here. After all, the Bible says that it has been appointed to man to live only once and then receive judgement.
C. Loureiro on 04/07/2015
http://new.damn.com/a-3-year-old-boy-recalls-past-life-locates-his-body-and-identifies-the-man-who-murdered-him/?utm_source=ef&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pastlifeef
C. Loureiro on 03/28/2015
These are just a few scientists and/or physicians who have a strong view on this subject:
Dr Peter Fenwick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6kDMl6N3C4
Dr. Gary Schwartz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7RqklxNnA
Dr. Raymond Moody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLDARDErQ2U
Dr. Jeffrey Long:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR2C9cT0A8
Dr J D Bapat on 03/28/2015
If I go back asking: where does it come from?; at some point I will have to stop saying: it just exists. Some call it Almighty. Science is yet to accept that, because the scientific method does not offer a ‘proof’.
Dr Tucker has recorded the memories of past life, recalled by some individuals. The belief in reincarnation originates from the belief in imperishability of the soul and transmigration of soul. The continuity of consciousness cannot be established by the scientific methods as they are obtained today. Who knows, some day the scientific methods will be refined enough to establish that. For example we have no answer why do the physical laws exist the way they are. We have to accept, they are just there.
C. Loureiro on 03/28/2015
Where do we come from? - Heather Bollech-Fonseca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee-4Kk2IRAw
C. Loureiro on 03/25/2015
And also by Dr Peter Fenwick:
http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Comfort_for_the_dying_PDF_article.pdf
C. Loureiro on 03/25/2015
See also research article:
Google => “Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation”
C. Loureiro on 03/25/2015
Talking about “consciousness” (in or outside the physical body) I believe this scientific [I might say] article (link below) is very interesting .... And it’s just one of many more of it’s kind. Apparently, there are other people taking these subjects very seriously too.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00834/full
David F. on 03/25/2015
And no, scientists do NOT argue that consciousness dies with the brain anymore than they argue how many angels fit on the pointbofba needle. Real scientists leave such discussion to philosophers and religious scholars. Real scientists are busy enough keeping up with phenomena that can be measured, tested and predicted. While some do theorize about things that can’t yet be measured, at least they can put forth mathematically based predictions for these as yet unobservable phenomena. (Dark matter, extra dimensions, other universes.) But they don’t claim they’ve found them already.
David F. on 03/25/2015
And no, scientists do NOT argue that consciousness dies with the brain anymore than they argue how many angels fit on the pointbofba needle. Real scientists leave such discussion to philosophers and religious scholars. Real scientists are busy enough keeping up with phenomena that can be measured, tested and predicted. While some do theorize about things that can’t yet be measured, at least they can put forth mathematically based predictions for these as yet unobservable phenomena. (Dark matter, extra dimensions, other universes.) But they don’t claim they’ve found them already.
David F. on 03/25/2015
I welcome scientific examination of reincarnation. I’m just saying that Dr. Tucker isn’t doing science, unless you want to call it “social science.” If he was systematically interviewing people who claimed to be alien abductees I wouldn’t call that science either. When Dr. Tucker can predict a reincarnation or even measure one objectively let me know. And its Dr Schwartz who refused to engage with James Randi. Perhaps Dr. Tucker will be more willing. I hope so.
Fureyous on 03/24/2015
Exactly! You would not say “well, since we don’t know what consciousness is, I think you should go see James Randi and have him test your data”. As an aside, this article is about Dr. Tucker, not BY Dr. Tucker, so I don’t blame him for the title. However, your argument seems to be: Well there can be no scientific investigation of reincarnation (or continuity of consciousness) because reincarnation doesn’t exist. That is a bit of a tautology, don’t you think? I think your mocking tone demonstrates your bias. It is fact that many scientific ‘discoveries’ are preceded by folk knowledge. For example, people knew that coffee berries were a stimulant before caffeine was identified and chemically understood. Some of these folklore ideas became religious tenets: the early peoples of the Middle East avoided trichinosis by declaring pork unclean meat (perhaps the only thing Israelis and Palestinians can agree upon). The certainly had not identified roundworm larvae nor understood what the biology of its effects on the human body were. At some point it takes an unbiased observer to say, “hmm, the people who don’t eat pork don’t get sick” and then try to discover why. You, of course, have changed your argument, now attacking the gathering method used by Dr. Tucker rather than the actual information he is attempting to gather. Lastly, these are not ‘test subjects’ but people who come forward with information that he is trying to gather and catalogue. I am sorry, but I can find no information supporting your assertion that Dr. Tucker has refused to engage with Mr. Randi. Dr. Schwartz had developed many double blind experiments and continues to do so. All that said, I first got involved in this thread because I was offended that people were so offended by Dr. Tucker’s work. Live and let live. It’s not your money. This research has been going on for 50+ years without besmirching the reputation of the UVa or causing any detriment to ‘real science’. Here is what I believe: We do not know what consciousness is or whether it can survive death. Scientists argue that consciousness dies with the brain, but there is no scientific evidence to support that, it is just a belief. Beliefs are fragile. I always wonder why the ‘scientific community’ gets of overwrought when someone does something outside the box. I really have said all I have to say about this . . .. I presume that time (if it exists) will tell.
David F. on 03/24/2015
And by the way Furyeous, if some scientist told me he’d found the seat of consciousness, I wouldn’t say “balderdash”, I’d say “Really? Have your experimental results been independently duplicated?”
David F. on 03/24/2015
As I’ve said before, I’m not here to debate the nature of consciousness. I’m only here because the title of this article is “The SCIENCE of Reincarnation”. I don’t see much if any science going on in Dr. Tucker’s research. I suppose you could say he’s collecting data on self professed re-incarns. But other than his purported “line-up” (and any cop will tell you that line-up results can be easily influenced by the person giving the line-up) , I don’t see much experimentation. If this was real science, Dr. Tucker would eagerly be offering up his test subjects to independent controlled examination. Dr. Schwartz has been mentioned here several times. He’s another who has refused to engage with James Randi, complaining that the test would be rigged against him before even reading the rules (which include mutually agreed upon test procedures.) Psychic “cold readings” wither under the light of skeptical examination and I suspect so will Tucker’s “Reincarnation Interviews”.
Fureyous on 03/24/2015
If we push aside religious labels, what is being examined here is continuity of consciousness. If you are a scientist who tells me you have found the seat of consciousness, I will say ‘balderdash’. I recently read a headline for a story by a neuroscientist with a title that said something like “we may only think we are conscious.” Which belies the question: who would “we” be in that case?
David F. on 03/24/2015
Please tell me where you found this “first rule of science”? I suggest you study up on the Scientific Method. Its been around for a few centuries now. You can thank it for just about every technological advance in modern times.
C. Loureiro on 03/24/2015
Some of the comments above remind me of a movie I saw long time ago about a man that claimed he had come from the future. Hence, he was taken to a police station to be examined by a psychologist who applied the same 15-year-old test to determine whether or not someone could be considered delusional. The text came out negative, which means that the man was not delusional. The police psychologist tore up the test and said: this test is no longer valid. End of discussion. Really?!
The first rule of science calls for an open mind (no open mind no science), and history is full of examples of the lack of an open mind.
David F. on 03/24/2015
Mr. Ranka, bosons may not be visible bit their behaviors are predictable and independently reproducible. When Tucker devises an independently reproducible experiment that evidences reincarnation he should claim his $1,000,000 prize from James Randi and the Skeptic Society. Here:s my prediction: that will never happen.
David F. on 03/24/2015
Is psychiatry a science? Yes, at least to the degree it can predict that certain mental conditions will respond favorably to certain treatments. Is medicine a science? Same answer, Dr. Salk predicted that polio could be prevented and other scientists have proved him right. Tucker and Scwartz may hold degrees. That doesn’t make their current investigations science. When they offer independently reproducible experiments let me know. Until then they are philosophers.
MILIND RANKA on 03/24/2015
Dear David
Proofs do not necessarily come in the set formats and forms. For example there is no visible proof of Boson particles. Yet signatures are taken as proof. Similarly scientific verification of facts narrated from another timezone with accompanying environment/ actor in that event is a strong proof that could be considered reasonable to the concept. Other forms of proof are the long cherished wisdom of civilizations.Hence there is a need to conduct submissive query to gain proper knowledge.
All of us are still talking of science that is currently tryin to comprehend only facts discovered in material universe. Current science is currently not even matured enough to understand the dynamics of consciousness, the active element that makes every thing in this universe look living.
Unless you submit to higher levels of intelligence the knowledge will not be revealed. You need to hold your desire strongly for it would be tested for its tenacity and if found qualified, you will see path ahead.
MILIND RANKA on 03/24/2015
Dear Prakash Upadhyaya
It is astonishing that you are yearning to continue to attach yourself to the body that died. The soul within leaves the tool when it is done with its planned tasks. The best homage to pay and show the respect would be to be compassionate to that soul and let it lead the the life it wishes. I hope I have not distressed you further. Please continue to read and comprehend BHAGAVAD GITA AS IT IS. It will be a very comprehensive reading and providing answers to your queries.
Fureyous on 03/24/2015
David, David, David. Now you are engaging in sophistry. Is psychiatry a science? I don’t know, do you? Is medicine a science? It is certainly considered so in our country. Dr. Tucker has a medical degree, so I guess by our own definitions he is a scientist. He is certainly not the only person investigating areas that you would label ‘not science’. See, Dr. Gary Schwartz, at the University of Arizona. He is a neurologist. The is a scientist . . .no? Perhaps someday we will come up with a method that allows us to have a certain answer regarding continuity of consciousness. Who knows? But to beleaguer a hard working gentleman simply because you think he is not scientific is narrow and, well, silly is the only word that comes to mind.
David F. on 03/24/2015
“Proof” is only possible when other scientists can reproduce research results and then substantiate theoretical predictions through new experiments. Thats how Einstein’s theories were proved. He predicted that gravity would bend light near the sun. Other scientists followed up on his prediction and he was right. When Tucker makes a prediction regarding reincarnation that other scientists can independently verify, then he can claim what he’s doing is science. Until then its just religious speculation.
Fureyous on 03/24/2015
David: Well, the scientific method is not a method of actual proof, correct? It is simply a measure of the ability to replicate a result. That said, Dr. Tucker is not trying to “prove” anything. He is simply coding and following up on years of research by Dr. Ian Stevenson, and observing the patterns that coding has demonstrated. Just as you are old enough to remember certain ‘crazes’, I remember when chicken soup was seen as only a grandmotherly soother, not an actual anti-inflammatory, when a low-carb diet was only a method promoted by Weight Watchers, when no one could explain why Pacific Northwest tribes that drank Pacific yew tree tea had much lower incidences of breast cancer. Much science begins with folklore.
David F. on 03/24/2015
By the way, all these comments claiming quantum physics backs up consciousness affecting reality are misguided. Its OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT that can affect physics not “consciousness”. A non-sentient mechanical sensor capable of observation, measurement and recordation will cause wave collapse too. No ” consciousness” required.
David F. on 03/24/2015
People are free to believe what they choose. And to “research” what they choose. Just don’t pretend its science. Scientific research requires adherence to the “scientific method”, a system which yields measurable, predictable, and independently reproducible results. Anecdote and hearsay may be interesting or even convincing to some. But its not science. I’m old enough to remember the alien abduction craze of the 70’s and the cold fusion craze of the 80’s. Reincarnation may be real. But Tucker has proved nothing.
Pam on 03/24/2015
As a follow-up comment, I do think that I’ve figured out the reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt, who’s very good at politics despite little experience in the field, and a former member of the US Senate who was instrumental in getting President Obama to withdraw from Iraq. I think I’ve also found the reincarnation of President McKinley, one of the Senator’s former aides, and involved in the military and press before that.
Personally, I feel a strong connection to the Civil War and the Rutherford Hayes administration, as well as Sandusky Ohio, despite never living there in this life. And I should point out that Hayes and McKinley were both in the Civil War, in fact Hayes was responsible for getting McKinley’s political career going. Teddy Roosevelt was too young to be in the Civil War, although when he wanted to rebel against his Southern mother during the Civil War, he’d get down on his knees and ask God to bless the Union Army.
I think the reason so many of us are alive right now is that it took all of us to get those Middle Eastern wars wound down. I only helped to get that Senator elected because I had some media resources at the time, but he had the political sophistication to get elected and position himself to have that influence. It took a pretty big “team” of people willing to engage in leadership, at least on a temporary basis. And we probably needed some spares for people like “Jefferson reincarnated” who apparently didn’t go into politics in this lifetime.
Pam on 03/24/2015
I was trying to learn more about the Edgar Cayce reading on the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, and happened upon this page. After reading the comments here on Thomas Jefferson, I should point out that there is an Edgar Cayce reading on a boy from Charlottesville, Virginia who Cayce said was the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson in one of his past readings. I know someone from the Cayce crowd who said that he (now an older man) lives in the Charlottesville area and his friends call him “TJ.” One thing I’ve read online about him is that he supposedly toured Monticello and felt a strong connection to the place.
Cayce’s readings are full of information about reincarnation, and he found a few places in the Christian Bible that referred to reincarnation. Cayce was quite the biblical scholar despite his short formal education, because he re-read the full book each year.
Personally, I’m somewhat interested in the field and can feel a connection to the Civil War. I’ve noticed that a lot of people of my generation and that before mine seem to have come from the Civil War, and now I’m noticing some from the American Revolution like “TJ,” even a few from the era after the Civil War (Teddy Roosevelt’s crowd). I’m guessing that’s because we’re the type of “soul group” (Cayce’s term) that enjoys fighting for human rights good causes, and we may have lined up to try to keep bad forces in check, like those causing wars in the Middle East.
Fureyous on 03/22/2015
I am confused. Chris Beck, and Alison with one ‘l’, are we only supposed to study that which we already know exists, or that we can derive from what we know exists? Perhaps this is why we are always playing “catch up” in our science, announcing something as ‘ultimately true’ only to have a new theory displace the old one. It seems to me, and admittedly I am not a scientist, that curiosity must play a part. Here is pattern, what are possible explanations? These children say things that may be explained by a widely accepted belief from another part of the world, or by other explanations more acceptable to the scientific community. Does that mean we ignore it? Label any effort to understand it pseudoscience? Hmm, I recall someone being imprisoned for being ‘gravely suspect of heresy’. What was his name? Oh, yeah, Galileo. In this day and age we don’t imprison people, we just label their work as pseudoscience, suggest that they are biased (yes, I am talking to you David Fairweather, great name by the way, glad you’re not my friend), and feel appalled not once but twice. Perhaps, Mr. Becke, you should send back your diploma, since the University you so revered doesn’t live by your standards. As for Dr. Tucker, thank goodness his work is endowed, so he is apparently safe from sanctimonious prigs. Good luck, Dr. Tucker! Oh, and in case you scientific inquisitors don’t feel appalled enough, you might look into the work of Dr. Gary Schwarz at University of Arizona (a neurologist, so maybe a better credential for the critics herein), that work will likely give you ulcers if this work makes you feel appalled!
David Fairweather on 03/21/2015
I have no problem with reincarnation belief. But how can it be tested experimintally via scientific method when the child’s “memories” are limited and self-selected? Even James Randi admits that certain “supernormal” claims aren’t eligible for his $1,000,000 because there’s simply no way to test them. Any historical fact the child claims to remember could have been researched by him or others coaching him. Any statements that the child allegedly made outside the presence of the researchers is anecdotal hearsay and should not be considered scientific evidence. Perhaps it is still possible to test this child with some scientific rigor, but Tucker should NOT be the person doing the test because of his obvious bias. If someone can devise a double-blind protocol to test this child’s claims, I’d love to be convinced. But please don’t try to pass off Tucker’s “research” as science. Now excuse me while I get back to reading Whitley Strieber.
David Fairweather on 03/21/2015
I’m only here because Tucker and Ryan were on NBC Nightly News tonight. I am here to ask, how is this considered “News” or “Science”? Where is the scientific method in this case that seems almost completely based on anecdote and dubious methods easily influenced by research bias? (Like the photo lineups conducted by Tucker,( I’d like to see that kid independently interviewed by James Randi - away from both his mother and Tucker. But even though Randi offers a $1,000,000 prize, I doubt he’ll ever allow such an independent investigation to occur. He’s got too much to gain from book sales.
Lynn Ferguson on 03/19/2015
This is the kind of qualitative and quantitative research that would interest me. I have memories of past lives and have been trained by Ramtha (RSE) to be able to access this information in the subconscious Mind. This is a valuable and promising area of study that deserves to be funded and supported by serious and credible academic institutions. I would help to investigate this phenomena just to assist the children and families grasp an aspect of Consciousness and the quantum world that typically is only graced by the spiritual people on our planet. I am glad to be counted among them. If those people who are appalled or have trouble understanding the ‘science’ behind it, there are ways to remedy your ignorance. I’ll follow the development of this work with scholarly interest.
Mark A Rivera on 03/18/2015
I have a master of science degree in physics and have worked as a scientist and engineer for 30 years. Those of you who make general comments about this research being pseudoscience and a misunderstanding of the relevance and applicability of quantum mechanics don’t know what you’re talking about. This is absolutely fine research and I support and applaud Prof. Tucker for seriously and scientifically investigating it!
Celso Loureiro on 03/16/2015
Another amazing documented case of reincarnation
http://www.today.com/news/return-life-how-some-children-have-memories-reincarnation-2D80550946?cid=par-huffingtonpost
C Loureiro on 02/16/2015
See your answer and much more in the book below
http://www.allankardec.com/Allan_Kardec/Le_livre_des_esprits/lesp_us.pdf
PRAKASH UPADHYAYA on 02/16/2015
We lost our son and are grieving endlessly. How to find out where his soul inscarneted.
Sharlene on 02/11/2015
It takes a very brave, and dedicated man to stand against everything he’s been taught and put belief into a new theory. What did people say when Columbus claimed the earth was round? Were people appalled by the Wright Brothers inventions, and few stood behind Galileo’s “heretical theories” as well. That doesn’t mean any of them were wrong, it simply means they knew something the world had yet to discover! Subsequently being deemed crazy.. The research, and accounts presented by Dr. Tucker are extraordinary no matter how you look at it. You’ll see often enough that ideas like these are never accepted at first. It’s only when they cause a scientific revolution that people take notice.
“Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so.”
- J.B.S. Haldane, 1963
C. Loureiro on 02/09/2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943568/Five-year-old-boy-convinced-reincarnated-black-woman-Chicago-called-Pam-died-fire-1993.html
‘When I woke up, I was a baby and you named me Luke’: Mom claims her five-year- old son remembers his past life as a Chicago woman who died in a house fire
Luke Ruehlman, from Cincinnati, Ohio, made claims about his past life
Mother says he ‘remembered’ being Pam, 30, before he was born
Later pieced together than he was referring to real woman from Chicago
Pamela Robinson died when the Paxton Hotel caught fire in 1993
Said he recalls meeting God and being ‘pushed back down’ as baby boy
According to his mother, Luke’s story can be verified by the facts
PK on 01/28/2015
Excellent research. The dawn of a new era and understanding. After all if we have reincarnated before then the who world and its diversity has been part of us at some point in our lifetimes. As an African, as a European or Asian we have lived in several bodies and cultures but remain the eternal soul hopefully washing away the ignorance that cover the soul with each lifetime till we attain perfection. A good read Autobiography of a Yogi. It was the farewell gift that Steve Jobs gave to all who attended his funeral.
esther on 01/26/2015
this makes me believe in reincarnation a little bit
Matthew on 01/19/2015
I must say that this is an interesting idea, and one that needs more research. I do agree with those who are upset about this article. It is not scientific, as there is no way to scientifically research what this man specifically states to be “derived from the consciousness.” However, I do believe that there is some truth in this “reincarnation” phenomenon, as the level of detail these children remember cannot be dismissed as coincidence.
I am atheistic, but I do believe in the occurrence of paranormal activity, as there is enough evidence to prove in the existence of some non-biological beings. I do not pretend to understand any of this. But I do know that there are things we have yet to explain in this world, and that we have much to learn about ourselves and both the worlds that we see and do not see.
John Lebowski on 01/08/2015
For those who are appalled, you cannot be helped. There are those who are willing to ride the principles of science deep into uncertainty; then there are those sad, ignorant few who cling to old knowledge as if something else can’t possibly be conceived. If you’re appalled, don’t worry about a damn thing. You’re not going to remember your past lives, and they won’t be of any consequence to you. For the rest of us, we wish to know and go beyond what is known. Science is one of many ways to get there. Unfortunately, it takes fucking years for some knowledge to be accepted as science, because of closed-minded snooty folk like some of you. I say press on with positivity, love and science! Just because it isn’t science YET doesn’t mean you get to demean it. You don’t like it? You’re appalled?! Get out there and disprove it! Don’t just sit here and make offhand comments about how you’re offended. No one gives a shit; you’re just in the way.
Eric on 12/26/2014
So much animosity and name-calling above…I don’t think it promotes listening and understanding…
1. SCIENCE (FYI, I am an experienced neuroscientist and skeptic): I think scientists should not turn away from investigation extraordinary claims. A great, and illuminating, triumph of the scientific method came as a result of the investigation of an extraordinary claim (the horse named “Clever Hans” – see Wikipedia page for more on that). I think good scientists should be skeptical, but open-minded and focus on the existing data, and on what studies/data it would take to convince you to accept a new idea. And I think that if someone says “nothing could convince me of X”, then they have closed their mind and are no longer being good scientists. For example, I don’t believe that “Bigfoot” exists as commonly described, but admit that, if someone could produce a living or dead complete specimen that, upon examination by a panel of independent credible anatomists and molecular biologists (to look at )DNA, could be documented to not match humans (or bears), then I would have to revise my belief.
2. TUCKER & QM (I’ve studied QM in grad school, but am not an expert) I am a bit disappointed that Tucker offers what seems like a “hand wave” explanation. It is not specific or testable, and, I think, overinterprets what is meant by “observation” in QM: “observation” means an interaction with the rest of the universe (e.g., a beam of light influencing a detector, or reaching a wall etc.), and does NOT require the involvement of some conscious being. Although some may believe it, it is not axiomatic that “the consciousness creates the material world”. One can argue about what is “consciousness”, but in this context he clearly means some kind of activity accessible to human brains – I think the universe moved along just fine in the billions of years before anything approaching such consciousness.
3. TUCKER’S WORK (FYI – I’ve not read his books): I do think it is perfectly appropriate to ask the question “How can we explain these seemingly inexplicable reports?” Good, well-documented, scientific investigation such as he intends to conduct, promises to either 1) refute the extraordinary claims (i.e., the stories are poorly-documented, or the actual data don’t match, or there is evidence of “cheating”, or it’s not that extraordinary”), or 2) uncover something that requires us to expand our understanding of the universe. There’s probably and option 3), but I don’t know what that might be.
4. TUCKER @ UVA: (FYI, I am A&S ‘73, GSA&S ‘79) I think it is courageous of UVa to take the “political risk” of housing Tucker in order to bring good science to bear on these reports. If he is able to come some convincing support for either point 1) or 2) (or 3?) above, it should reflect positively on our alma mater. My only wish would be for him to stick to saying either “I don’t know”, or provide explanations that are rooted in data, logic or well-supported interpretations of existing theories.
4. REINCARNATION: I think the challenge for anyone interested in this concept is to formulate a conclusive study. I support something along the lines of that proposed above by Christoph a year or so ago: quantify story accuracy, and set a criterion for “not random”. This is similar to the approach taken by IIR for dealing with paranormal claims. This also addresses what I feel is an underappreciated weakness in the reports: we only hear about what matches, not about what doesn’t match (I am NOT AT ALL saying that this is intentional here, i.e., this is not like how “medium” John Edward does this intentionally).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And extraordinary proof must be accepted…or challenged with proof.
Wahoo-wah.
Alexander Duncan on 12/19/2014
There are scientists and then there are people who believe in science - scientism. Those who are appalled by this research clearly only want to see research that confirms their believe in science as it is, i.e., scientism. It is not the author of this article who is unscientific, but those who want to control scientific research so it supports their own views, presumably “scientific” materialism, which science discarded long ago.
Alexander Duncan on 12/16/2014
Just a small editorial quibble. He can’t be “one of the only scientists” studying this topic. He is either the only one, or one of a small number.
Ankit Garg on 12/06/2014
I have interest in reincarnation and near death experience topics, these topics seem to validate the existence of soul, this soul topic has been described beautifully and extensively in very ancient indian (hindu) religious text called ” Bhagvad Gita” in which Lord Krishna describes existence of soul to his disciple Arjun in following way -: Chapter 2 verse 11~25 - ” Lord krishna said, you are mourning for those not worthy of sorrow, yet speaking one like knowledgeable. The learned neither lament for the dead nor for the living. Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, o son of kunti, one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul. The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata. Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain. For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill? As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same. It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.” Chapter 2 verse 28~30 - ” All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation? Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all. O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.”
Isn’t it not interesting….
Dr J D Bapat on 12/01/2014
I have read the works of Prof. Stevenson and prof. Tucker. They have collected a huge evidence that suggests there is something that lives after death. One may have difference of opinion on the their explanation of the phenomena but the evidence cannot be ignored. I think it needs careful study.
GCM on 12/01/2014
The original studies of reincarnation were by Dr. Stephenson, who was chairman of the Psychiatry department at the University of Virginia. He studied and researched evidence of reincarnation involving recollections by children of past lives. His work was extraordinarily careful and precise, and was published in peer reviewed journals. He also wrote books about it. He simply presented the facts and the research regarding numerous cases where it was impossible for the child recollections to have been faked. He also researched autopsy reports of the deceased and found scars and birthmarks on the children that corresponded to the injuries that killed them. He did not attempt to offer this information as proof of reincarnation. He submitted the evidence to the scientific community and asked how in the world these stories of past lives can be explained. the only explanation that seemed to fit the facts was that the child had a previous life. His methods were careful, detailed and recognized as scientific and thorough. His work has been continued by Dr. Tucker, who has continued to collect the information of hundreds of cases of memories of past lives. His work is also recognized as scientifically valid. These scientists are dealing with actual verified facts and not made up stories. No one knows how a person can have memories of a past life, and we do not understand the process. This important research should be lauded and should certainly continue. Recent studies of near death experiences published by researchers in England and Germany in a painstakingly careful way seem to show that human consciousness continues even when a person is brain dead and has no brain activity. This tends to support the idea that human consciousness can continue after death. The research continues. Congratulations to Dr. Tucker on his book.
Mike Schwed on 11/26/2014
Read “Finding Laurie”
When you lose something you make an effort to find it. When the something you lost is your precious child you will search forever.
In 1977 my beautiful five year old daughter died suddenly. There were signs signaling the coming tragedy, signs I failed to recognize. Following her death there were other signs telling me she was not gone forever but would somehow return. This book spans the thirty three years it took for me to find her. Some might call this a book about reincarnation, but, I call it finding Laurie.. Available on the Kindle and Nook.
louis on 10/29/2014
this study is old as the pre-mountains…......it is an ancient truth…...specially…..mind projected phenomena…..this is found…in buddhism,and the gnostics, specially if we study deeply the sayings of the gnostic jesus…..give one quote…......(why do you wash the bowl from the outside only…..dont you know that the inside of the bowl is made by the same person)...............all existence is mind-made,mind is supreme,universe is nothing without its creator…..............mind when realised we will wake from death….......like jesus .
Tracy on 10/11/2014
For those interested in reincarnation, I found Dr. Brian Weiss’ book, “Many Lives, Many Masters” to be fascinating. The main thing that concerns me about reincarnation is having to come back to planet Earth! I’m hoping I can “graduate” and go somewhere else in my next life!
Christ-messenger on 10/11/2014
Question: “Is there activity of demonic spirits in the world today?”
Answer: Ghosts, hauntings, séances, tarot cards, Ouija boards, crystal balls—what do they have in common? They are fascinating to many people because they seem to offer insight into an unknown world that lies beyond the limits of our physical existence. And, to many, such things seem innocent and harmless.
Many who approach these subjects from non-biblical perspectives believe that ghosts are the spirits of dead people who, for whatever reason, have not gone on to the “next stage.” According to those who believe in ghosts, there are three different kinds of hauntings: (1) residual hauntings (likened to video playbacks with no actual interaction with any spirits). (2) Hauntings by human spirits, whose natures are a combination of good and bad (but not evil). Such spirits may simply want to get a person’s attention; others may be pranksters, but, in either case, they do not truly harm people. (3) Interaction with non-human spirits or demons. These entities can masquerade as human spirits, but they are harmful and dangerous.
When reading about ghosts and hauntings from non-biblical sources, remember that, just because an author may refer to the Bible or to Bible characters (such as Michael the archangel), it does not mean he approaches the subject from a biblical perspective. When no authority is given for an author’s information, the reader has to ask himself, “How does he/she know this to be so? What is his/her authority?” For example, how does an author know that demons masquerade as human spirits? Ultimately, those who address such subjects from non-biblical sources must base their understanding on their own thoughts, the thoughts of others, and/or the experiences of the past. However, based on their own admission that demons are deceiving and can imitate benevolent human spirits, experiences can be deceiving! If one is to have a right understanding on this subject, he must go to a source that has shown itself to be accurate 100 percent of the time—God’s Word, the Bible. Let’s take a look at what the Bible has to say about such things.
1. The Bible never speaks of hauntings. Rather, it teaches that when a person dies, the spirit of that person goes to one of two places. If the person is a believer in Jesus Christ, his spirit is ushered into the presence of the Lord in heaven (Philippians 1:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). Later, he will be reunited with his body at the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). If the person is not a believer in Christ, his spirit is put in a place of torment called hell (Luke 16:23-24).
Whether a person is a believer or an unbeliever, there is no returning to our world to communicate or interact with people, even for the purpose of warning people to flee from the judgment to come (Luke 16:27-31). There are only two recorded incidents in which a dead person interacted with the living. The first is when King Saul of Israel tried contacting the deceased prophet Samuel through a medium. God allowed Samuel to be disturbed long enough to pronounce judgment upon Saul for his repeated disobedience (1 Samuel 28:6-19). The second incident is when Moses and Elijah interacted with Jesus when he was transfigured in Matthew 17:1-8. There was nothing “ghostly” about the appearance of Moses and Elijah, however.
2. Scripture speaks repeatedly of angels moving about unseen (Daniel 10:1-21). Sometimes, these angels have interaction with living people. Evil spirits, or demons, can actually possess people, dwelling within them and controlling them (see Mark 5:1-20, for example). The four Gospels and the Book of Acts record several instances of demon possession and of good angels appearing to and aiding believers. Angels, both good and bad, can cause supernatural phenomena to occur (Job 1–2; Revelation 7:1; 8:5; 15:1;16).
3. Scripture shows that demons know things of which people are unaware (Acts 16:16-18; Luke 4:41). Because these evil angels have been around a long time, they would naturally know things that those living limited life spans would not. Because Satan currently has access to God’s presence (Job 1–2), demons might also be allowed to know some specifics about the future, but this is speculation.
4. Scripture says Satan is the father of lies and a deceiver (John 8:44; 2 Thessalonians 2:9) and that he disguises himself as an “angel of light.” Those who follow him, human or otherwise, practice the same deceit (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
5. Satan and demons have great power (compared to humans). Even Michael the archangel trusts only God’s power when dealing with Satan (Jude 1:9). But Satan’s power is nothing compared to God’s (Acts 19:11-12; Mark 5:1-20), and God is able to use Satan’s evil intent to bring about His good purposes (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 12:7).
6. God commands us to have nothing to do with the occult, devil worship, or the unclean spirit world. This would include the use of mediums, séances, Ouija boards, horoscopes, tarot cards, channeling, etc. God considers these practices an abomination (Deuteronomy 18:9-12; Isaiah 8:19-20; Galatians 5:20; Revelation 21:8), and those who involve themselves in such things invite disaster (Acts 19:13-16).
7. The Ephesian believers set an example in dealing with occult items (books, music, jewelry, games, etc.). They confessed their involvement with such as sin and burned the items publicly (Acts 19:17-19).
8. Release from Satan’s power is achieved through God’s salvation. Salvation comes through believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 19:18; 26:16-18). Attempts to disentangle oneself from demonic involvement without salvation are futile. Jesus warned of a heart devoid of the Holy Spirit’s presence: such a heart is merely an empty dwelling place ready for even worse demons to inhabit (Luke 11:24-26). But when a person comes to Christ for the forgiveness of sin, the Holy Spirit comes to abide until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
Some paranormal activity can be attributed to the work of charlatans. It would seem best to understand other reports of ghosts and hauntings as the work of demons. Sometimes these demons may make no attempt to conceal their nature, and at other times they may use deception, appearing as disembodied human spirits. Such deception leads to more lies and confusion.
God states it is foolish to consult the dead on behalf of the living. Rather, He says, “To the law and to the testimony!” (Isaiah 8:19-20). The Word of God is our source of wisdom. Believers in Jesus Christ should not be involved in the occult. The spirit world is real, but Christians do not need to fear it (1 John 4:4).
Lary on 09/19/2014
http://www.hhsismanship.com/hidden-dimensions-of-reality/reincarnation
surendra reddy on 09/11/2014
Good try
You people should investigate thoroughly regarding the same with all the available physics & physical theories , as we know a few theories exists then what about the one’s which you never know in the pattern they exist in the world.
Todays science is yesterdays imagination which has been proved in while.Hope everything starts from imagination as your brain is a physical and chemical entity which always interacts with the surroundings.Though we do not percept everything that doesn’t mean it is false.
Think deep.
C Loureiro on 08/27/2014
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=294
Karen on 08/27/2014
While I think Dr. Tucker’s hypothesis concerning quantum mechanics, consciousness and reincarnation is highly speculative, particularly from a non-physicist, and should have been kept out of this article, the work that he and Dr. Stephenson have done carefully documenting and analyzing young children’s apparent memories of past lives is valid and intriguing. I discovered Dr. Stephenson’s work after being told about someones childhood memories of a past life. I’ve since been told of another person’s childhood memory. There is something to this.
I don’t think Dr. Tucker’s explanation does justice to his careful observations.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Nipuni Liyanaarachchi on 07/31/2014
I’m fond of rebirth,view of Buddhism related to rebirth and i want to have idea about scientific view of rebirth.
Elias on 07/24/2014
I’m really enjoying the theme/design of your blog. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems? A couple of my blog audience have complained about my website not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Opera. Do you have any recommendations to help fix this issue?
Williemae on 07/23/2014
I blog quite often and I genuinely appreciate your content. This article has really peaked my interest. I am going to bookmark your website and keep checking for new details about once a week. I opted in for your RSS feed too.
C Loureiro on 07/14/2014
Gary Schwartz, Science and Spiritism - Interview
GARY SCHWARTZ, PHD
http://www.thespiritistmagazine.com/noticia.php?CodNoticia=444
C Loureiro on 07/11/2014
Or would be the other way around? Why would one be so “close minded” against the scientific investigation and research of this subject matter? Let the science take its course and then we’ll see whether or not reincarnation is a fact of life. It’s sad when we pointed to the sun and someone cannot see beyond a finger.
Bruce on 07/11/2014
Those who are so “appalled” are very close-minded. The only reason they don’t like it is because it disagrees with their own personal religious belief. Eastern theology includes reincarnation, most western theology does not.
hn on 07/06/2014
Causality and Reincarnation appear to go together. What we sow, we reap. Whether this occurs by quantum physics, a loving God, or by both, we may never know. But causality and reincarnation appears to be a process of purifying the mind. But to the majority of people, we see but we do not understand.
Anagarika Dhammapala on 07/05/2014
Even Einstein’s theory of general relativity was thought to be wrong, and was rejected by notable physicists of the time. Some in the physics community though t Einstein might be right, and supported his work, including chasing down solar eclipses around the world to prove that light would bend on a space-time curve as Einstein predicted. For those here so certain that rebirth cannot occur, or that the quantum physics doesn’t resonate with this theory, please consider how wrong those very smart naysayers were about Einstein. In time, the world learned, and those that opposed Einstein are now largely forgotten.
wirot on 05/31/2014
Somebody belief and somebody are not..for who unbelief,, are they have any good reason for that past life memory??
hn on 05/22/2014
The topic of reincarnation is true to the Tenrikyo church (Heaven’s Truth Church). Our teachings are based on causality, and rebirth as the process of cleansing our hearts of evil (greed, arrogance, and self love). Please visit heaventruth.com
Suzie on 05/15/2014
I find it hilarious that people are attempting to prove that this researcher has no or at least an incomplete knowledge of QM by citing Wikipedia articles….........
Y’all know that ANYONE LITERALLY ANYONE can edit a Wikipedia article right?
Wikipedia is in no way more credible (or even as credible) as the man conducting these studies.
You Americans are crazy.
C. Loureiro on 05/07/2014
A worth watching interview with Dr William Tiller Ph.D (link below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI7jO1JuF-c
Sara on 04/25/2014
The issue many commenters here seem to be running into is the difference between brute fact and social/conceptual fact. The idea of justice is a social/conceptual fact. It is not a real “thing” in that it naturally occurs and has a physical presence or absence. It is only a thing in and of the fact that we consider it so in our conceptual understandings. It’s socially constructed. A table doesn’t cease to exist simply because I don’t consider it to exist. This is the difference between brute fact and a social or conceptual construction. Sciences that study social/conceptual facts (such as much of the social sciences) may assume brute factuality for the sake of statistical analyses and ability to produce some sort of reliable information, but this does not connote validity or realness. It’s purely theoretical. There’s nothing wrong with this of course, but the concern many on this board and in many research circles in general seem to have is the presentation of theoretical information as if it is brute fact. This may diminish the meaning of the research that has been done that truly depicts brute fact, but my main concern is rather that this is a dishonest way to present theory. Because there are so many in the “hard” sciences that dismiss meaning in theoretical research, those in these fields often find that in order to have their findings taken seriously they must misrepresent them as the other sciences do, as brute fact. This is of course not the case with every researcher in these fields, and I would actually argue that the majority only fall into this trap because they are taught that this research on social/conceptual constructs is just as concrete as the research being done in another fields. It’s important that we do take seriously these sciences for what they are, no more and no less. The research being mentioned here is clearly not based on hard science but rather convenient correlations that may or may not indicate something of objective truth. This doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful, but it cannot be thought of in the same way as brute fact without being disingenuous. As of now, we do not even know that consciousness is anything but a social/conceptual construct that we have created to describe something that we perceive of ourselves having. The ideas being put forth here depend on many other assumptions that are simply not based in brute-fact. Again, this does not mean it is worthless, but its findings are simply ways that we conceptualize that these ideas may or may not appear to occasionally coincide with assumptions based on our philosophical conceptualizations rather than brute fact. It can be harmful to a society when science of philosophy is touted as a hard science when the vast majority of people do not understand the difference. This has been documented clearly in the effects of diagnostic psychiatry in the US.
Steph on 03/30/2014
I’m sure you have plenty of critics who write your work off as unrealistic, idealistic, or simply irrelevant, but I found myself unable to discredit the “evidence” of the Macaulay case. As compared to virtually every other documentary of a similar sort that I’ve seen on TV or the internet, The Boy Who Lived Before was unique in that it left me unable to rationalize away the paranormal phenomenon. I will say that I consider your work to be the beginning of a study that will change the very face of science.
I don’t know much about you or your research; what i do know I have learned from wikipedia (sorry, I assume doctors like yourself do not generally approve of being defined by a wiki page, but that was the information most readily available). This passage caught my eye:
Although critics have argued there is no material explanation for the survival of self, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another.[8][9] He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, the self may not be merely a by-product of the brain, but rather a separate entity that impinges on matter. Tucker argues that viewing the self as a fundamental, nonmaterial part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the brain.[26]
I am wondering how deeply you have invested yourself in a genuine belief in the phenomenon of reincarnation (the word itself is pregnant with fanciful/spiritual connotations), and whether you have collaborated with any imaginative top physicists (think Einstein) with any real, goal-oriented attempts at linking the phenomenal (your work) with objective scientific knowledge.
What I am concerned about is the politics of academia, and the suffocating organizational habit among top scientists to departmentalize knowledge. I fear the inherent ego that accompanies world-reknown is literally the single greatest impediment to progress; the assumption that each field is in some way an island unto itself is a grave misconception, but one that is nearly impossible to overcome unless we find a way to step outside ourselves and view humanity as a collective consciousness.
I think I am writing you these things because I’ve been wanting to voice my beliefs for quite some time, and your topic of study seems like one that would benefit greatly from a cross-departmental study in which each expert in his or her field is explicitly requested to leave his or her ego at the door and discuss a matter of utmost importance with sincere and humble objectivity.
I’m big into metaphors as a way of conceptualizing new ideas, and I have been mulling a concept around in my head for quite some time (bear with me here).
3 independent entities: society, the human brain, and the internet. I imagine a world in the future in which society : individual as brain : neuron, with the internet working as axons and dendrites, passing information and building complex “neural” associations within society. It seems to me that just as isolated neural networks are inferior to brain-spanning networks, departmentalized fields of study are inferior to intimately interconnected scientific communities.
Scott on 03/26/2014
Too bad so many are closed-minded about this research. Scientific history is full of ideas that seemed absurd and were ridiculed until legitimized.
Oslec on 03/23/2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKdqw6xCou4#t=16
kld on 03/20/2014
“Science” and the “scientefic method” as we know now is overrated. Those who claim to be scientists should accept these with open mind and prove or disprove them completely. Science never disproved reincarnation. It doesnt have the means to prove or disprove.
Murday on 03/16/2014
Life will never trully end, when a living organism dies it is reborn into another different living organism, this is the cycle of life. People will say that “God” created all life and when you die your “soul” goes to heaven and that’s the “end of your life”, but that’s not true, when you die, it will not be the end, you will be reborn as another person and repeat the cycle of life.
Mauricio Chaves on 03/12/2014
One advantage of the XXIst century is that now, dozens of people can exchange views. When the first guy said the Earth was round, nobody wrote in a blog that they were “apalled”. They just killed him, and kept saying the Earth was flat.
For me, there is something else. Since there are billions of stars and planets, I believe there has to be life elsewhere, not because I have seen aliens, but because of sheer numbers and statistics.
Reincarnation? Too many people through history have claimed these types of experiences. There are thousands of documented cases that go beyond “coincidences”. So, by the force of numbers, I am willing to recognize there must be something there.
Close minded people think they need to deny everything contrary to their beliefs, as their only safe way to “reaffirm” their own beliefs.
Intelligent people know that they cannot pretend to understand an infinite universe that has been here for billions and billions of years. Therefore, they are opened to new theories, new ideas, new ways of seeing the world. Without these people, progress and evolution would not be possible.
I believe some of the deniers here, are just the reincarnated souls of those who said “A flying machine???? Those Wright brothers are just craaaaazy!. Ha!
For those who refuge on science, isn’t the science of today the “crazyness” of yesterday? And so on, the science of the future will be the “crazyness” of today. That is how the world works.
Oh, I can not wait to come back in a hundred years. Things are going to be so cool!
Cheyenne on 03/07/2014
this is extremely facinating and keeps me going on the idea that reincarnation is in fact, real. Many people focus on the reincarnation of person to person but for me, its a different story. I used to be a Grey wolf that lived in the ozark mountains in arkansas, I remember my death and my home, the memories of the Hawksbill Crag outlook. I was murdered by two middle aged male hunters when one of them slit my throat with a knife.
sara on 03/06/2014
It seems like a lot of people are deeply offended by this research, and it seems that they have taken the research as a personal affront to themselves. How is it so offensive to have someone research spirituality…. or use science to do so? Is it because its not relevant to mainstream spirituality?? What could be so horrible about science proving God…or creating discussions about differing energy sources?
I think a lot of very insecure, anxiety stricken people have commented on here. What’s more sad, is that some of them appear to be very educated. Strange that they could discipline their minds to learn, yet not have control over their own emotions when someone contradicts their core beliefs. Hold yourselves together kids, you can still believe whatever YOU want to believe.
CL on 02/22/2014
Let’s see…how do you explain a child prodigy? How can a child who has never been taught a subject matter such as high-level math, physics, etc. be so brilliant at such an early age? If you can only think with what you know, from where that knowledge was acquire from?
Milton Leite on 02/21/2014
The whole reincarnation starts in the Act of fecundacao and is completed when the child reaches the age of 7 years - La reencarnación toda inicia en el acto de fecundacao y termina cuando el niño alcanza la edad de 7 años.(via Bing Translator)
Celso Loureiro on 02/20/2014
Some haphazard reactions to the possibility that reincarnation could be possible, even without considering all the scientific (yes, scientific) studies carried out by Dr. Tucker and so many other physicians and scientist is appalling and reminds me the reaction Dr. Pasteur received in France when he contemplated that some deceases could be caused by bacteria. I commend Dr. Tucker for his courage to put forward his findings. Moreover, please, before being so judgmental; get to know his body of work as well as that of his predecessor, Dr. Ian Stevenson, among other physicians and scientists in Europe and Brazil.
Melanie Simms on 01/25/2014
Fantastic article! I just love Dr. Tucker’s work and that of his predecessor, Dr. Stevenson. There’s a huge demand for this topic matter; so many people experience this—I believe there’s more to this than meets the eye and it deserves further investigation by some of our greatest minds. Univ. of Virginia offers that with Dr. Tucker. Thanks for the article! Melanie Simms, www.poetmelaniesimms.wordpress.com
R on 01/21/2014
OgreMkV: You didn’t read the story. The actor the boy claimed to be someone who at the time was an uncredited extra. They would not show up in the cast listing. Your point about how they others died does not seem relevant.
OgreMkV on 01/19/2014
I wonder, did Tucker investigate this kid’s claims at all?
Look up Night After Night at the IMBD. Then read the bios of all the actors and actresses. One (Louis Calhern) did die from a heart attack on a movie set. But he had no children. Another actor did have three children, but died from bone cancer.
This is trivial people. Skeptical doesn’t mean “I think you’re stupid” it means, “That’s interesting, how about the evidence?” There is no evidence here. Just using what’s in this is article and 5 minutes of basic research on the internet, it’s plain to see that Tucker has no idea what’s going on and the claims of this case aren’t even valid.
Laurence on 01/09/2014
Late to this discussion, but would like to contribute this. When Jim Tucker presents simple, effective observations of phenomenon, these people who have no experience in his field, nor the tools to measure the science of metaphysics effecting the data, become instant experts over the very possibility. That’s what gives science a bad name, not Jim Tucker’s work.
I, for one, am pleased to see Jim’s work, for a couple of reasons. I’ve studied Eastern Religion, particularly the knowledge of the oldest religion, Hinduism, for many years. Hindus accept the fact of reincarnation as readily as we take our next breath. The Tilac or Bindi dot in the centre of a Hindu forehead remembers the place of the opened third-eye and our spiritual vision, where we, the soul, reside in the brain. The view is, we are the soul, and are made up of mind, intellect, and characteristics (traits and behaviour unique/individual to us). It’s from here we are conscious, empowering the brain, which in turn powers the body, not unlike a driver driving a car. When the car is worn out or broken (old age, accidental death), and cannot support the driver anymore, the driver leaves the vehicle and goes to find another one. We, the soul, take with us the skills and knowledge of that past birth. Depending how deeply ingrained those experiences are, we may see attitudes and experiences from previous births exhibited in the new environment and upbringing in our new body (infant Korean piano/maths prodigies anyone?). Anyway, don’t be disheartened when our scientists behave like old, curmudgeonly grandfathers in the face of startling revelation. Use your own mind to determine where you stand.
R on 01/07/2014
Tucker was on NPR over the weekend. Here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/05/259886077/searching-for-science-behind-reincarnation
P on 01/06/2014
“If you had studied anything at all about other cultures and other religions you would know that reincarnation is a very common spiritual belief.”
Fine, reincarnation may be a good cultural studies topic. But science? Not so much. The arguments for reincarnation sound a lot like the BS arguments people make for intelligent design. What’s the process of hypothesis testing for either?
Tucker suggests ‘quantum physics’ as a mechanism for consciousness transfer…. What about the ‘scarlike birthmarks or deformaties’ found in ‘reincarnated’ bodies? Also transferred by ‘quantum physics’?
Edwin on 01/06/2014
“appalled at this pseudo science”?
That is very small minded. If you had studied anything at all about other cultures and other religions you would know that reincarnation is a very common spiritual belief. In fact, I would say it is the dominant belief in most Asian countries. I don’t have the statistics handy but it is very possible that more people on Earth believe in reincarnation than do not.
Keep up the good work Dr. Tucker.
Ken on 01/04/2014
“It is all the more imperative to supplement the analytical aspect by constant awareness of the fact that the “things” presented by analysis are never isolated, self-contained units but are conditioned and conditioning events…() They occur only in temporary aggregations or combinations that are constantly in the process of formation and dissolution.”
“Bare analysis starts () its investigations by selecting single objects existing in the sector of time called “the present”. The present is certainly the only reality concretely existing, but it is a very elusive reality that is constantly on the move from an unreal future to an unreal past.”
“… bare analysis starts with single objects occurring in the present. But even the most complacent analyst cannot afford to stop at that point. They must take into account that other “single” objects existing in the “same” space-time act upon their original object, and are in turn acted upon by it. They also have to note that the object chosen undergoes, even before their eyes, a series of consecutive changes. In view of these considerations, analysis must renounce its self-sufficiency and admit within its range of scrutiny at least those two facts of relational existence and constant change. When that is done we must now speak of “qualified analysis”, as distinct from the previous “bare analysis”.”
“Both bare and qualified analysis are closely bound to a spatial view of the world and to a limited two-dimensional space. () The fact of change is disposed of by imagining the single phases of the change to be arranged in the dimension of the length as if the time during which these changes occurred were an extent in space along which the object moved. Obviously, the strange assumption is made that while the object “changes its place” along that stretch of time it also changes in some mysterious way its nature, that is, it undergoes the observed alterations of, say, aging.”
“In that way, sequence in time appears to bare and qualified analysis like a cinema in which a great number of single static pictures are substituted quickly enough to produce in the spectator the effect of moving figures. This illustration, after Bergson, is very frequently used in literature with or without the implication that, properly speaking, motion or change is illusory, or real to a lesser degree, while only the single static pictures, that is, self-identical psychical and/or psychic (time) atoms, have genuine reality.”
But what if the very reverse is true: change or flux is real, and the single static pictures are illusory? How about changing our view to match with that?
“Modern research has penetrated to a point where even the least accessible components of the material world have lost their static appearance and have been recognized as dynamic processes.”
And the smallest “unit” of consciousness is likely to be exactly similar, not uniform and homogenous but dynamic (and fairly complex).
- -
Sorry for the lengthy quotes, you can just skip if you are not interested, but I think this is important… and I could not say it better myself, I don’t even pretend I could, so better to quote. And this discussion is very interesting. Quotes are from the book http://www.amazon.com/Abhidhamma-Studies-Buddhist-Explorations-Consciousness/dp/0861711351/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388825529&sr=1-1&keywords=abhidhamma+studies
(the first edition of the book is from 1949).
Ken on 01/04/2014
Whitehead: “It is impossible to over-emphasize that the key to the process of induction, as used either in science or in our ordinary life, is to be found in the right understanding of the immediate occasion of knowledge in its full concreteness…. In any occasion of cognition, that which is known is an actual occasion of experience, as diversified by reference to a realm of entities which transcend that immediate occasion in that they have analogous of different connections with other occasions of experience.”
Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1926)
Rezy on 01/02/2014
This is such an important discussion to have. I am glad we are looking at the subject. There is so much we cannot explain with our senses and it is time to admit our sicnece and knwoledge is limited about all there is in the unvierse or the multiverse.
John Streiff on 01/01/2014
The position taken by skeptics and cynics today that the material world is a satisfactory model of reality, is flawed. Materialism was discredited in physics in the early 20th century with the arrival of relativity and specifically the proven predictions of special relativity. Relativity in turn could not explain the nature of quantum physics. We now know at the dawn of the 21st century that quantum reality is the basis of everything of which are aware. Hence the intense in the theoretical physics community to unify relativity and quantum theories.
Michael Levin summed it up well in that the ‘net’ he referred to represents the filter which limits our observations in physics. We now know that the nature of quantum reality has attributes remarkably similar to those of psi. Modern models of reality actually support the notions of things like telepathy and even mediumship as well as remote viewing.
Physicists who hold these positions include Saul Paul Sirag, PhD, Henry J. Stapp, PhD, Harold Puthoff, PhD, Brian Josephson, PhD, Russell Targ, PhD, among many others.
The proof that psi exists is plentiful. Skeptics are simply unwilling to admit this data. This reincarnation suggestive data is only a small part of it. Dean Radin, PhD and Daryk Bem PhD have demonstrated presentiment and precognition; these experiments have been replicated successfully. Part of this research has shown conclusively that belief may well affect experimental outcomes. Now that we know that quantum effects like entanglement can occur on the scale of the everyday world, it is quite believable that these effects may even effect some experimental outcomes in everyday science. So-called ‘flukes’ in experimental science may be explained in this manner.
Theoretical physicists are increasingly warming to the idea that there is more to reality than particles of matter and energy. It is becoming clear that we exist in a world of information that is very likely non-material. It seems to exist in hyper-dimensions, a concept that has increasingly found acceptance in theoretical physics. This would explain why we do not see it at a material level. And this imposes an interesting issue: theories about these hyper-dimensions are difficult to test by conventional means.
While our material experiments cannot reach into these hypothesized dimensions, our minds can. In fact, this may explain our extended memories. No one today understands where the patterns that reflect material reality may be found. No one. These patterns may be in this information realm. Our recognition of this realm may be what we call “consciousness”.
And if this information persists, which may well be the case (evidence can be found in Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism), then telepathy, remote viewing and even mediumship make perfect sense. As does the notion of reincarnation. The material world emerges from this information which in turn persists and changes over time.
The bottom line is that the cynical and “skeptical” arguments are grounded in notions of science that have long been abandoned by theoretical physicists, The idea skeptics continually suggest that there is no evidence of psi is wrong as well. So the foundational position is also incorrect. It should also be pointed out that most skeptics who comment on these matters themselves are not physicists.
For more information consult a book that is highly readable “Conscious Minds” or “Entangled Minds” by Dr. Dean Radin. He offers extensive research bibliographies in those books. Any skeptic who say he or she is informed should be well aware of that research and its contents directly, not the opinions of other skeptics. ‘For graduate level scientists should consult “Irreducible Mind” by Kelly et al. (also of the University of Virginia). This book extensively documents the nature and implications of research at an advanced level. Warning: this is not early reading, you must have the competency to understand the material; this is also true of many of the journal articles which are written by and for scientists. Lastly you may consult http://showme.org for a reasonably complete and recent listing of existing research in psi.
Parapsychology research and paraphysics research represents the leading edge of science. In over 45 years of study in these fields, this fact has become increasingly apparent to me. Those who comment would do well to become familiar with the actual work in the field as opposed to relying like sheep on their idols, most of whom are highly ill-informed. Skeptics claim to be logical, rational and critical. Yet when it comes to those they trust, all of this seems to vanish in a cloud of misplaced trust.
lee miller on 12/30/2013
Not all research is science. I would put this more in the category of anthropology – it might be interesting, but it has no practical application. Proving that reincarnation exists would not solve a single problem facing humanity today. There are so many better ways to spend our time and money.
Kang Huayue on 12/30/2013
Softly Marked Here. I guess I should study quantum physics! God bless!
If Stevenson and Tucker is right, then the University of Virginia will be the first,again,not only in the America, but also around the globe, the real seeker of reality and truth,defying all kinds of dogmas,religious or “scientific”. Is this Thomas Jefferson’s conspiracy?
Here Again:
“When you are criticizing the philosophy of an epoch, do not chiefly direct your attention to those intellectual positions, which its exponents feel it necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental assumptions, which adherents of all the variant systems within the epoch unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them. With these assumptions a certain limited number of types of philosophical systems are possible, and this group of systems constitutes the philosophy of the epoch.”—-Alfred North Whitehead—Science and the Modern World (1925)
Digbijoy Nath on 12/27/2013
I have got my PhD in Electrical Engineering from Ohio State University (which of course doesn’t make me a scholar), but I want to stress that - I am an extreme skeptic. I barely accept anything at its face value. I seriously want to verify each and every step of data acquisition, interpretation, and eliminating all probable errors and misinterpretations.
Saying that, I want to say that scientific investigations may reveal hitherto unknown phenomena in nature, and history testifies to it. Things like X-ray, radioactivity, etc were totally unknown, unthinkable before they were discovered. So any piece of scientific finding should not be discarded without proper & critical analysis. Same goes with Tucker’s investigation.
Perhaps it’s all bogus. But first we need to dissect and understand what the flaws are. Who knows (?) if what he finds are really real and true ? Who knows, physics may become so advanced in next 200 years that hitherto unknown physics theories would be formulated, validated and applied to completely understand things which we don’t understand now such as rebirth ? What if rebirth does happen and consciousness-outside-body does exist and it is perfectly explainable by physics and math (without resorting to religious crap) ? We don’t know yet.
For people who are ‘appalled’, I would like to know your counter-points in falsifying Tucker’s findings, in a scientific manner. Maybe you all are right. I am just curious.
As for quantum mechanics, it is well-known and proved that the act of observation does in fact affect the outcome of an event. I didn’t make it up. It is there. It is proved experimentally in different labs across the world. So, although application of Quantum mechanics may be B******T to this case of rebirth, but the fact is true that observation changes outcome.
thanks
diggi
Robert Searle on 12/27/2013
My research project may be of special relevance…. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Multi-Dimensional_Science
edward baril on 12/25/2013
awesome article, great work Dr. Tucker! This article gives me hope fr a potential future—Ive spent too much of it being sad and feeling like I missed out on something.
Marie on 12/24/2013
Not everyone who remembers as a child forgets. Most of us can’t remember our family’s names, or the roads we lived on. But this ^ is why we don’t talk about it. And of course it’s important who we were. Those lives shaped us before we ever entered this one.
Helen on 12/23/2013
It’s true that psychology has a golden era ahead, in entering into the world of self-knowledge and making mind and its functions part of everyones common knowledge. Emphasis on us all knowing our own minds and understanding cause and effect in much more wider sense, including how our emotions and thoughts impact our behavior, attitudes, values, fears and so on. Lots of reasoning and simple knowledge could be brought to help help us in our turbulent emotional lives. This type of knowledge would also bridge us from reactive to responsive beings. How we are conscious would belong to this branch of science, whole gradience of consciousness as a matter of fact.
Regarding anatomy and physiology we already have all sorts of wonderful tools developed to help for example athletes in their performance (equipment and applications that help to measure most imaginary things in incredible precision) and the knowledge about how our physical body works in great detail has made all that possible. Similar would be possible to assist ourselves in psychological growth, development and performance as well. Detailed knowledge about mind and its functions is the first step. So far we seem to take mind almost for granted, we don’t tend to pay too much attention to how our mind works. And I think it is still quite rare for people to know that mind could be trained. Mind is in fact much more malleable than our bodies, so it could be trained accordingly, in many various ways.
We think with our mind, not with our neurons. Our brain is not aware of our feelings, we are. We sense. We feel. We think. We act. And that matters. Mind is the primary what comes to our daily life and maintenance of our psychological well being. Mind is also primary what comes to how we relate to ourselves and to others.
I agree that it is not that important who we in this world are but how we are in this world, how we are within ourselves and with others.
A true skeptic on 12/22/2013
The skeptics here don’t seem to understand what true skepticism is. Ian Stevenson, and I presume Jim Tucker, gathered a lot of data in as careful a manner as they could. I have not seen or heard of serious criticism of their methods. The best explanation for that data happens to be reincarnation, but Stevenson has always been open to other explanations, including delusion and fraud. The tone of the skepticism I have seen in these comments seems to suggest that the skeptics already know the answer to something without data or hypothesis to test—the opposite of the scientific method. Just because it is a hard question, and the methods may not be definitive, does not mean it should not be approached. I guess the skeptics here know more than Carl Sagan, who said, “[t]here are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study,” the third of which was “that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.” Carl Sagan-1996
Ken on 12/22/2013
Well said, Douglas Wade. I agree with those points very much.
Douglas Wade on 12/20/2013
Stevenson and Tucker are the only reason most people have ever heard of UVA. Stevenson’s work was clearly necessary in a way that most research is not. Stories of memories of past lives badly needed to be systematically collected and analysed applying the tools of textual criticism and statistics
More recen studies, building on Stevenson’s pioneering work, including those of Tucker, have deepened our understanding of this phenomenon. We are now able to distinguish between the stories that reflect wishful thinking and / or social ambition, and those that are much harder to explain away.
Tucker’s contribution, looking at gender differences and the frequency of stories involving violent death, etc, are an important contribution to this whole field of enquiry.
It is unfortunate that quantum physics has someho been dragged into the debate. We are such a long way from understanding the behaviour of matter at a quantum level, or of seeing what implications this might have for the study of consciousness that it would probably be best to let the nerds get on with their particles for a few more years without disturbing them too much.
I understand that people want to know what “mechanism” is proposed by which memories could pass from one person to another, and that it is tempting, therefore, to reach for some current theory of physics that could be pressed into service, but the theorising is on the one hand so metaphysical, and on the other hand so contentious, that for now we should do better to stick to the paradigms and methodolgies of the social sciences. (To be fair, I can sympathise with the horror and outrage of genuine physicists when some fruitloop starts bandying the word “quantum” around to justify claims about Atlantis or Homeopathic remedies.)
Beyond all such skirmishing, it might be observed that in those traditions that do feature ideas of mindstream, metempsychosis, or transmigration, it is generally agreed that we would do better to be mindful in the here and now rather than become attached to ideas about the self or past selves. Who cares if “you” were once a Turkish sailor? It is far more important that you look at your mind as it is now and free yourself from ignorance, anger, and greed.
P. Rodomsky on 12/20/2013
One more thing. Have we ever stopped for a moment to think how the term “physical” keeps expanding all the time as we find out new things? As soon as we’re able to verify something we include it in the physical world. That’s the name of the game, as it should.
But isn’t everything going to belong to “physical” world at the end? Especially if we coin the term with: that which we know about / that which we are - or at some point will be - able to explain. If we coin the term ‘physical’ with ‘reality’ would that be ok? I.e. with physics we could then refer to all that there is in the universe (all substance and all energy, be it “dark” or light, whether we know about it right now or not). And I don’t mean flattening or shrinking new things to fit into the (currently known frame of) physical, I mean the opposite, expanding the term physical to cover larger and larger range of phenomena. And expanding what we experiment and verify within physics so ingeniously.
I would say this is exactly what will happen. Lets include mental phenomena to be part of physical world and start investigating them with the same precision as we investigate atoms and particles currently. If we push mental events out and simply exclude them from research, any guesses, will we ever get to know more about mental events or their impact on things? Most likely not. So lets include them, and we will start to get answers. At least we increase the probability of getting answers with 100%.
We are able to choose whether we direct and place our mental awareness (our mental focus, attention) to here or to there. And I bet it does make a difference. (And this is for sure nothing mystical, this is plain everyday life).
Every act has an impact to something, in some ways. And however minute is the impact, it is a change. Physics has shown that.
P. Rodomsky on 12/20/2013
Hi to all. Have you ever thought that in hundred years time every single person that you know currently has died. Even the toddlers that you see around you have passed away in just hundred years and here is totally new set of people governing and running things. With their ideas. All of us, everyone that we know now, we are past.
How will the world will look like in year 2100? In 86 years. What will be the worldview then?
I find that thought very inspiring, especially in regard to the uniqueness of the time right now and potentials that we have, for the moderately short period. We can initiate lots of things or choose not to initiate any. We can be quite content in managing just what is necessary.
Do we want to be in the history books characterized as a generation that resisted all fresh and new ideas? As a generation that felt thoroughly uncomfortable with any expressed idea that tried to think in a new way? Generation that just wasn’t able to think outside of the box? As a generation that felt safe - and played safe - to stay inside the box?
Every discovery made in the past has required thinking outside of the box. Lets value and cherish such attitude ourselves, shall we not? At least if we wish to continue making discoveries.
Lets not close ourselves to any type of a box. Freedom of thoughts that can be verified/proved wrong with rigorous uncompromised research methods is much more fun. Lets not shrink universe to match the size of our (still limited) imagination. 4% versus 96 % - we have still room to expand.
Melissa Apodaca on 12/20/2013
Our first child was a very “colicky” baby. I could not get that child to quit crying, especially at night. It was terrible! When she learned to speak she would cry “I want to go home!” I’d say “we are home!” and she would cry “no no no”. One day her and her daddy went for a ride, she was crying as usual. He decided to stop by the cemetery and visit his father’s grave. He parked the vehicle got out and took the girl out of her car seat. She climbed out, ran past him straight to his fathers grave, threw her arms in the air and proclaimed “I’M HOME!! THANK YOU THANK YOU!” The only time she ever cried after that was typical times like getting boo boos. She had the closure the author of this article was speaking of and I’m so happy to find this article. I think of all the children that do not get closure. This should be the next study and I have a theory about those people. It has a lot to do with love and first site and feeling like you’ve known someone for years that you just met.
ann on 12/20/2013
I experienced night terrors for years with absolutely no recollection of. Disgruntled and sleep deprived siblings covertly recorded my dynamics one night. Upon listening to the recording the next morning, I had know clue as to who or what I was hearing. Then it stopped….age 5
Henry on 12/19/2013
If anyone is planning to put up a unified, multidisciplinary research program on consciousness I recommend this book: Inner Presence: Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon (MIT press, 2009). It is perhaps the broadest description I’ve seen drafting such a program, very elaborate and interesting.
“The question of consciousness is perhaps the most significant problem still unsolved by science. In Inner Presence, Antti Revonsuo proposes a novel approach to the study of consciousness that integrates findings from philosophy, psychology, and cognitive neuroscience into a coherent theoretical framework. Arguing that any fruitful scientific approach to the problem must consider both the subjective psychological reality of consciousness and the objective neurobiological reality, Revonsuo proposes that the best strategy for discovering the connection between these two realities is one of “biological realism,” using tools of the empirical biological sciences. This approach, which he calls the “biological research program,” provides a theoretical and philosophical foundation that contemporary study of consciousness lacks.”
The author says about the book: “I have had to trespass into the territories of at least the following disciplines: philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, biology, neuroscience, dream research, evolutionary psychology, neuropsychology and cognitive science. The issues I have included in the book I have judged as being absolutely crucial for understanding consciousness, no matter which disciplines they fall into”.
“The problem of consciousness, if ever solved, will be solved in the context of some sort of systematic empirical research program that takes phenomenal subjectivity very seriously.”
I would absolutely agree that interdisciplinary approach is the way to go. Consciousness cannot be approached only from one angle. After reading this book I would still vote consciousness to be mental rather than biological phenomena (are’t these discipline borders arbitrary anyway?) but I would say that the type of phenomena is secondary, if we’d only get it finally described and defined. If we don’t even know what we’re talking about, lacking both the definition and commonly agreed theory, thorough discussion gets very difficult. If not impossible. We never even know whether we’re even talking about same thing among ourselves.
And we will never get a theory unless we start working on it. How about putting up this type of a program?
Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Inner-Presence-Consciousness-Biological-Phenomenon/dp/0262513412/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387438951&sr=1-2&keywords=Revonsuo
ron on 12/19/2013
I’m amazed that we don’t teach our kids metacognitive skills at schools. Kids are many times perplexed confronting their emotions and other peoples’ emotions (and when facing instantaneous reactive behavior triggered by these emotions). We ought to teach them what thoughts and emotions are so that one can observe them happening without identifying with every bit of it. With reason kids would then be able to understand that each emotion has a natural cause - and as they find that out, also their emotions make sense. Understanding our emotions and causes to our emotions gives us room to choose how we respond.
(Similar training would not harm us adults either.)
We don’t need to be trapped in reactive behavior if we expand our knowledge with little bit of psychology. Reaction and intentional response are like two opposites. We cannot solve any of our problems (nor raise the quality of a discussion forum) with reactive behavior, we can try to solve our problems only with deliberate, responsible responses. Ability to discern and recognize reactive impulse from a deliberate action is a basic mental skill. Inability to recognize is a deficiency. (It could be likened to not recognizing laying yourself down from falling down).
Mind can be trained. Lets not forget that. We just have not taken that seriously enough yet.
All mental faculties - memory, concentration, all various metacognitive skills - are trainable. Being consciously aware in real time what is happening within our minds is a skill beyond compare. (As is the ability to choose how we response).
Psychology as a science will embark to the area of limited potentials when it establishes and starts to teach us how to observe our own minds. And how to become skilled in that. This area of research is still pretty undeveloped.
We are masters in developing our physical capabilities in lots of various ways - lets bring our mental skills to the same level of expertise! Why not? Who would not want to?
Jay A. on 12/19/2013
Close-mindedness and science do not even belong to the same sentence. Science is about exploring more of the unknown, not sticking or being content to explore just better that which we already know. It’s absurd to even think that new findings that we are making all the time would need to fit into current paradigm. It that is the starting point in a research, then that is not science. That would be travesty.
If beliefs and assumptions play some role in the scientific process, they should act as an inspiration and encouragement to enter into areas that we cannot yet fully understand, not restrict or limit the studies. If assumptions and beliefs restrict - or inhibit - studies, that again is travesty to science. That would be exact opposite to science, representing something that science has never been.
It is clear that by choosing which type of projects we fund, we choose the things from which we want to know more. That is very normal. Money is limited - while our curiosity is not.
But for prejudices there simply is no room.
If one truly has a scientific mind, the word ‘prejudice’ is unknown.
Nelson on 12/19/2013
How far are we in succeeding in making a brain transplant? Still quite far I think? Might sound a bit like a science fiction today but I think it is only a matter of time that we see such thing also possible. Nothing from a biological side stops us from succeeding, if I have understood correctly. It’s just a matter of discovering a way to conjoin neural connections.
All other organs can already successfully be transplanted so why not brain. Organ in the human body is organ in the human body. And with the scientific worldview we know there is nothing magic in there.
I bet this will be one of the big things in future that will reveal us also a lot about consciousness. Just think if we would have hundredfold or thousandfold budgets for this type of research.
If a brain-dead person gets a transplant and is able to get back into life with that, what would you say, would his/her personality remain the same or would it change to be the personality of the donor? I would say that his/her own personality remains. Cause organ is organ. Biology as such does not suddenly take some new forms when we move from the rest of the body to our heads.
(If his/her personality would change to the one of the donor, then that I would call magic!)
Anyway, it is a fascinating topic. More research please and then we know.
Phil on 12/17/2013
@R “It is interesting that most everyone who claims to have expert knowledge about quantum physics cites as their evidence one of the most unreliable sources of information on the Internet: Wikipedia, entries of which are created by….anyone who wants to post on it. You’d think those who claim such devotion to the scientific method would provide arguments more rooted in, well, the scientific method.”
A couple of points: Wikipedia is not created by ‘anyone who wants to post on it’. Try editing an article in a substantive way without a cited source and report back how long it takes before your edits are rolled back or tagged as uncited. Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia that usually requires external citations. The people who care enough about certain topics to check the pages act as the gatekeepers/peer review. If you actually want to fact-check and weren’t just trying to score some rhetorical points, follow the citations on the linked Wikipedia pages. If they are not reputable, it should become clear in short order.
Point 2: If we are casting stones as to who is unscientific, I would like to reiterate that the phrase ‘physicists have long known…’ will raise the hackles of anybody with an understanding of the scientific method. Science is built up around theories seeking to provide the most plausible explanations for sets of systematically observed phenomena. Scientists prefer theories that can be tested and shown to be likely or unlikely to be true. Nothing is formally acknowledged to be ‘known’, especially not something as abstract and difficult to observe as the behavior of quantum particles, because there is always the possibility that a better theory will be proposed than what is currently accepted. That phrase in this context smacks of somebody eager to lend scientific legitimacy to a project without any real respect or knowledge of the science he claims to cite. The article would have been many times better if the misrepresentations of quantum physics were left out entirely and the story focused only on the actual studies performed by this group.
K. L. on 12/17/2013
I don’t think it is a globally accepted assumption that thoughts are emergent properties of the brain. Besides, it is an assumption while science is about *knowing*. Knowing facts that can be tested and verified. So that’s about that.
I would be amazed if no funding is directed to the research of consciousness, being perhaps the most intriguing area of research in this current era. Hands up all who would not accept a new paradigm even if it would get scientifically shown that observer plays a big role in all that we know?
Better to test than speculate..
Scientific paradigm is not like dogma, that someone (or anyone!) needs to defend, paradigm is a celebration of all that we’ve been able to find out so far. Ever evolving!
I would love to see the research of the role of the observer, the act of measuring and the role of measurement devices grow significantly during my lifetime, it is far too interesting to leave unstudied. Good thing is that the scientific community is worldwide so that if we choose not to head with this area ourselves, someone else will, and the results will still be at everybody’s hands, available to us all equally. Yet it would be brilliant if we were in the front row doing the research ourselves. Do we wish to be followers or pioneers?
One thing that I have not understood is why to mystify consciousness? The correlations that e.g. neuroscience has been able to find so far for various mental phenomena are magnificent, as not long ago we could not even dream about the things that brain imaging is showing us today. And this definitively is not the end of the story! As we still miss the facts of consciousness by having investigated our brain for so many decades, maybe at some point if crops up to someone’s mind to look also elsewhere. Much more is still needed before we can talk about systematic science of consciousness. Maybe we are looking from a wrong place? Not totally wrong, but from slightly too narrow perspective.
For a human it is possible to enter into a dream consciously (so called lucid dreaming) and each of us - if we so want - can train to have this skill. This is a known fact. What happens in our brain when we enter from a normal dream into a lucid dream? Has it been even tested? I’m yearning to have this type of results!
With our mental perception we are able to witness and also “measure” consciousness all the time. If we loose our consciousness we certainly get to know about it! (at least after regaining it). And during the day we’re able to discern whether we have done a particular job consciously or with so called “autopilot”. And we can train ourselves in discerning these modes of consciousness even more. So what’s so difficult in measuring and observing consciousness? Zero.
Searching consciousness elsewhere is perhaps like searching for your lost eye glasses only to find out that you are already wearing them? Maybe we are masters in looking far into the external world but not skilled enough to look close?
The ways to do research are unlimited.
Human mind is a heck of a “measurement device” itself, if I come to see you and I measure you with my sight, with my hearing and smell, it certainly has an impact on your behavior compared to me not being there. Right? And it results in changes in me as a “measurer” as I get to know more about you with very glimpse. Does this not already show how things work?
All scientific discoveries are results of the human mind and intelligence, I guess no-one disagrees that? All external measuring devices are both invented and built by us due to the unlimited creativity and intelligence. Why would this stop now? Lets not outsource the intelligence completely to the devices we have invented - lets continually cherish and value the intelligence and potential in ourselves as well, as “measuring devices”. It is a shame if we only trust the equipment and machines, and not ourselves.
All mysteries will turn into common knowledge by investigating them thoroughly. And if there’s nothing to them, they will dissolve. End of mystery.
Norma on 12/17/2013
Fascinating area of research. I think UVA pioneers in this area in an exemplary way, providing systematic research on this rare topic. Leaving prejudices aside and guaranteeing scientific methods is the way to go. Has any other country done anything similar on this area? If yes, it would be interesting to compare the findings (if not, then this work is really pioneering).
I’m proud of UVa for being able to leave prejudices aside and for heading open-mindedly and boldly to verify these cases. This type of boldness is what we need. As far as I understand, Mr. Tucker - a skeptic himself at first, I believe - has in his work concentrated namely to eliminate all “made up” stories and excluding systematically cases that could be just coincidences. It would be strange (almost hilarious to me) to think otherwise. Lets give some credit to how high UVA (among other universities) sets the bar what comes to methods used. I see no room for complaints in this regard, just the opposite.
Blaming - besides that it’s not decent human behavior - plays no role in science, fortunately. It does play a role in human psychology though. To express subjective and emotional upheavals is very human, but lets leave it outside science.
Claudio on 12/17/2013
Dear P,
I’ve just read your comment about Dr. Tucker.
Could you please tell if you checked his work thoroughly, especially his method, and let me know what flaws are you finding in it?
Is Dr. Tucker offering any evidence and is the evidence compelling or not?
The issues raised by Dr. Tucker are too important to take blindly one side versus the other. If there is any truth in his research, I want to know it. If it is false, I want to know it with total certitude.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Claudio
P on 12/16/2013
It’s surprising that the UVA Alumni magazine devoted a cover article to this nonsense. UVA Magazine- Does this article really display cutting edge science at the university? Are you trying to drive away donors by showcasing a crank in the Med School? FYI, Dr. Tucker’s work publishes in fringe journals where the peer-review process is nonexistent. You’ll find some of his latest work next to an article questioning if HIV causes AIDS. just sayin
Kiana on 12/16/2013
Tucker’s hypothesis is in accordance with the Buddhist explanations of the continuity of consciousness. In Buddhism there is no belief, you investigate the logic and reason for yourself. And if it doesn’t make sense to you, then you don’t accept it.
HH the Dalai Lama has had many conversations over the years with Quantum physicists on this topic and other Buddhist teachings on the nature of the universe. But don’t take my word for it, go investigate it for yourself.
Rhonda on 12/16/2013
For those amongst you with a truly inquisitive mind, Dr B. Alan Wallace has already proposed a method of investigating the validity of past lives, called the Alaya Project, in his book “Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity,” p. 115-118 (Columbia Series in Science and Religion, 2009).
Furthermore the question concerning consciousness itself, is well overdue for serious scrutiny.
William James, the great pioneer of American Psychology, put forth 3 hypotheses to explain consciousness, 2 of which allow for continuity of consciousness. These are:
- the brain produces thoughts, as an electric circuit produces light;
- the brain releases or permits mental events, as the trigger of a crossbow releases an arrow, by removing the obstacle that holds the string;
- the brain transmits thoughts, as light hits a prism, thereby transmitting a surprising spectrum of colors.
So far, the unquestioned assumption is that thoughts are emergent properties of the brain. Let’s question this assumption and put the other two theories to the test of experience, in a concerted effort of radical empiricism.
I applaud those bold scientists willing to suspend their most cherished beliefs to take up the challenge of investigating all 3 of them without bias. You are the true scientists of the 21st century.
Rhonda & Claudio
Spinion on 12/15/2013
A fascinating article. As an Arts & Sciences Alum (Psychology), this area of science is about the human consciousness—or rather, the universal stream of consciousness. The quantum physics bit was muddled in my understanding; however, the fact that reincarnation is being explored on a scientific level speaks volumes about the University of Virginia’s pursuit in pushing the envelopes and combining the fields of psychology and physics.
Reincarnation goes beyond religion. Religion is man-made. Reincarnation dives into the energy of the human consciousness. It’s understandable how this can be appalling: we are taught that we have one life and to choose wisely to live it. But once again, this tests our boundaries of thinking.
We all have energy—and if you’re in tune with others’ energies you’ll understand why you meet people who remind you instantly of someone else you know. Law of attraction, a spirit—call it what you want to call it, but there is something to be said about how connected we are to one another despite our social, religious, and tangible differences. It’s that stream of consciousness that unites us and this study is opening up the idea of how this energy pervades space and time.
Bravo, UVA, bravo.
Beverly on 12/15/2013
John - 2013 12 11 Regardless of the origination of your thoughts about Vast Intelligence, it makes a lot of sense, but it also raises many questions. In your last paragraph, are you intimating that there are more than one Vast Intelligence? Is there another site where I can go to get additional information?
R on 12/14/2013
It is interesting that most everyone who claims to have expert knowledge about quantum physics cites as their evidence one of the most unreliable sources of information on the Internet: Wikipedia, entries of which are created by….anyone who wants to post on it. You’d think those who claim such devotion to the scientific method would provide arguments more rooted in, well, the scientific method.
Phil on 12/14/2013
I have mixed feelings about this article. As the skeptics have pointed out, quantum mechanics is misrepresented in the article. “Scientists have long known that matter like electrons and protons produces events only when observed.” is patently false. There are *theories* that changes in the behavior of quantum particles under different modes of measurement or observation may be due to some effect of consciousness, but this is not something that ‘has long been known’ (it has been speculated on, not known). The description of the slit experiment was totally inaccurate. For one thing, the main conclusion of the experiment was that it appeared that particles were behaving probabilistically ie you would not reproducibly see that light had gone through both slits while you were playing peek-a-boo and through one slit while you were watching, but you would find that the behavior of the light was impossible to predict with certainty. Additionally, the idea of the observer and the particle interacting is misrepresented. The observer in this case refers to an electron with which the photon being observed would have to collide for a measurement to be taken. Of course the collision of the photon with the electron would be expected to have some effect on the photon’s trajectory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
On the side of the article, it’s not exactly scientific to dismiss observable phenomena offhand if they don’t fit orthodox theory. If the stories presented are real, I think it would be a good thing for a research team to investigate them systematically, compile and analyze statistics and theorize about possible causes of the phenomenon. They just shouldn’t make up stories about what established scientific disciplines hold to be true in the process.
Also, FFS why does everything degenerate to name-calling and ad hominem attacks within two posts on every comment board?
L. P. on 12/14/2013
Constructive skepticism is only good for science. Prejudices are not. Isn’t it so that we rarely recognize which is which in our own thinking? Those who are appalled, do you recognize which is which in your thinking?
Are we - any of us - in general reliably able to track back the basis of our opinions? How many of us ever practices this type of inquiry?
Let us also remember that the author of this article is Sean Lyons, not Mr. Tucker. Some comments are reflecting what is being said in the article and some obviously the study that the article describes. They are two different things. I would’ve personally chosen to use perhaps a term ‘continuum of consciousness’ rather than ‘reincarnation’ as the language should always be chosen with the targeted audience in mind. We’d be many times able to avoid lots of fuss just by choosing our words carefully.
Z wrote: “Protons and electrons make up more than half of the observable universe”
Do you mean more than half of that approximately 5% that we currently know about universe? (95% being dark matter and dark energy).
To be afraid of new findings does not make sense to me at all. Only the illusion that we already know everything stops us from complementing our knowledge and there is nothing that we can loose if we continue to investigate this type of cases further - remarkable amount of data by Ian Stevenson to start with. It would be a high time to also start studying consciousness itself as a phenomena. Such study would for sure complement our knowledge further. How could it not?
———
Some quotes to reflect upon:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Charles Darwin
“Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes.” Peter Drucker
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J. Boorstin
“Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice.” Anton Chekhov
“To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” Nicolaus Copernicus
“It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge.” Enrico Fermi
‘It is what we think we know that keeps us from learning.’ Chester Barnard
‘The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.’ Frank Herbert
Clarsa McElhaney on 12/14/2013
The research is fascinating and potentially fertile as an exploration of memory and consciousness, but the leap to “reincarnation” is huge. When rats are taught to run a maze, their offspring learn to run the maze more easily and their offspring can run the maze with almost no mistakes from the first time. It does not follow that the new-generation rats are reincarnations of their ancestors.
I’d like to know the sample size. The article notes twice that the median time passed between the death of the person with the original experiences and the birth of the person recounting the memories is 16 months, but does not say if there are cases where the lives overlap, or if it ever happens that more than one person expresses memories of the same previous person, or if any person recalls memories from more than one, possibly overlapping, life. Would such cases have been disqualified for the study?
We understand so very little about what consciousness is. Are we equating consciousness and memory? If your memories could be transferred to me, would it follow that I am, or was, you? How do we differentiate between “memory”, “consciousness”, and “self”? Does the concept of “self” have scientific validity?
We are beginning to understand that “things” exist independently of mass. Can consciousness exist as waves or philotes or in some other form? Does the human brain (or other brains) have mechanisms for decoding these waves or philotes into memories? Would that be different from “reincarnation” (literally “put back into meat”), or just a more science-y explanation of the same thing?
Good scientist can be proved or disproved. But surely we must develop a conceptual matrix before we can even imagine a test. The insight to observe phenomena for which a conceptual matrix has not been established is laudable, as is the courage to communicate those observations in nascent and awkward concept form. It isn’t science yet, but it has the potential to grow up to be an exciting new branch of science.
DTM on 12/14/2013
http://rt.com/news/space-evidence-universe-hologram-195/
John Cattell on 12/14/2013
I am appalled, at those that are appalled, scientific snobs, Shame on you, shame on you!
Ken on 12/14/2013
Is any of the US universities doing currently any systematic, rigorous study of consciousness? Wouldn’t it be a good time to start? It is year 2013 anyway. How long are we happy of not having answers? How long are we happy not even studying it from a scientific perspective? How long are we going to be happy not understanding the so called hard problem? It would be insane not to study these.
If we don’t find scientific answers to consciousness, our future generations will, that’s for sure. It is our choice. We can of course postpone such research or claim there is nothing to study, but.. do we really want to?
Shaleen on 12/14/2013
I’ve never read UVA magazine before but I came here from a link on Facebook. Fascinating article, thoughtfully written and informative. Thank you for publishing it.
Ken on 12/14/2013
Are not openness and ability to question one’s own current assumptions major factors and strengths in science? In my opinion exactly these two make science what it is.
In addition, I don’t think that fear belongs to science at all. Since if something is true, it becomes only truer under scrutiny, and if something is false, it gets proven under scrutiny for sure as well. So no room for fear here, neither any need for prejudices.
I think it might be the term ‘re-incarnation’ that gets people to jump around, since it’s not the term that tends to get associated with science. To come up with more neutral term that does not have an earlier connotation in peoples’ minds, could be good.
Lee on 12/14/2013
Is this why the University of Virginia has the strongest Tibetan Studies program? The Tibetans whole heartedly believe in reincarnation. I read somewhere the Dalai Lama claims to be in his privies lives, Thomas Jefferson. The founder of your university.
John M on 12/14/2013
Crosby Stills and Nash & Young: Deja Vu
If I had ever been here before
I would probably know just what to do
Don’t you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you
And I feel
like I’ve been here before
Feel
like I’ve been here before
And you know it makes me wonder
What’s going on under the ground, hmmm
Do you know? Don’t you wonder?
What’s going on down under you
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
Shawna Svacina on 12/14/2013
The impression I get from people who are outraged or appalled by the notion that life isn’t exactly as we have been conditioned to know it, is that they would have been the type of person who would have been outraged or appalled to hear that someone had the audacity to say that the earth wasn’t flat.
IL on 12/14/2013
How preposterous of us to talk about consciousness as if we understand fully what it is. The truth is we know we have about 100 trillion neural connections and we know they’re responsible for memories and certain physiological functions, but we have no idea how they all work together to form this thing we call “consciousness”. Making a claim that consciousness transcends our brain, when in truth it might just be an irrelevant philosophical definition, is too big of a leap for any serious scientist to make. Also, people should understand that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to prove any claims made within the scientific world. And by the way, for those of you who mentioned Galileo, he was prosecuted not because he was open-minded, but because he was skeptical about the dogmatic and outdated religious teachings of nature that had more basis on human emotions rather than nature itself. In fact, scientific inquiries are always skeptical in nature - no matter how beautiful your theory about the world is, if it does not agree with rigorous experimental results, it is WRONG. Where the hell do you think all of our technological advances - modern medicine, airplanes, smartphones, etc. - come from? Pink unicorns? Santa Claus? I don’t think so. They all stem from the hard work and skeptical inquiries of basic scientists and engineers. So, for the people who insulted the skepticism of “real” and respectable scientists of UVa and said that we hold society back, you owe us a fucking apology.
Mikk on 12/13/2013
It is an interesting avenue for inquiry. I can only hope that these kinds of inquiries would be given even a tiny bit of the funding that is spent on all kinds of fancy labs and experiments. Yes we need developments in avenues of science that have proved themselves and match the world-views of people nowadays but I guess we would also need to put at least some money and effort to topics that just seem totally outrageous. That has seemed to be the only way knowledge has been able to progress.
On a lighter note, this discussion here reminds me of a nice quote from Mark Twain: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
And for those who are interested in the hypothesis for this topic more and how to really take it much more rigorous in its research could find Dr. B. Alan Wallace’s two books very interesting to read: 1. Hidden Dimensions 2. Embracing the Mind. He shows why possibly it could be so difficult to open-mindedly look at the hypothesis of re-incarnation, he discusses some of the quantum physics that might help to explain these topics in more detail, and he suggests a hypothesis for an experiment that could be done in a rigorous and replicable way to test if there is something to the re-incarnation.
Z on 12/13/2013
The folks behind this paper clearly do not understand quantum theory. I’ve seen this reasoning before, and it goes like this:
1. Mention “Quantum” stuff that the author does not have the educational underpinning to really understand (or just willfully misinterprets)
2. Step two
3. ????
4. MAGIC!!!
There are many interpretations of quantum physics and most do not involve the observer collapsing the wave function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations
“Scientists have long known that matter like electrons and protons produces events only when observed.” That statement hurts my brain, as it is wrong in about 6 different ways. Protons and electrons make up more than half of the observable universe- so this author is saying nothing is real until someone looks at it (what scientist thinks that?). Therefore, our minds create everything and can zoom around without us and then grab on to new brains. “seriously, this one physicist almost 100 years ago thought some of this stuff was true, according to us.”
Also - there is no mention of any sort of statistics or citations or ANY other signs that are hallmarks of serious critical research. If a kid says 100 things about a story he made up and 10 are true, should we stop the presses and change all of our beliefs? Statistics exist to give strength to inferences and comparisons, exactly so people don’t get boondoggled by coincidence!
Troy Tice on 12/13/2013
I am happy to add my voice to those who applaud The University of Virginia Magazine for featuring an article on this important work. I enjoyed Dr. Tucker’s previous book (have not yet read his latest), but found it aimed more towards the general reader. For those really interested in wading into the details, I suggest Ian Stevenson’s voluminous writings on the topic, especially his 2,500 page magnum opus, Reincarnation and Biology. Speaking of this masterwork, I am surprised that the article did not mention the birth mark cases where a child is born with a deformity or birthmark matching wounds usually associated with the previous personality’s death. (For example, a little boy who said he was shot in his previous life, and whose birth marks matched the bullet’s entry and exit wounds. A fact corroborated by Stevenson using an autopsy report.)
Also, many of the detractors in the comments have jumped on Dr. Tucker’s use of Quantum Mechanics. Despite the fact that I don’t think Dr. Tucker claims that Quantum Mechanics explains reincarnation, the interpretation that consciousness plays a role in the measurement problem is not a quack idea, even if it is a minority position among physicists. A recent book “Quantum Enigma,” explores these issues in some detail. I should also add that Dr. Tucker and the DOPS staff have research links with respected physicists like Quantum Foundations expert Henry Stapp and astrophysicist Bernard Carr. This is not to say that their interpretations of QM are correct, but they are certainly not Deepak Chopraesque quantum babble.
Ron on 12/13/2013
I am enjoying the comments…and siding with those who remain open.
“Belief is the death of intelligence” Robert Anton Wilson
Christoph on 12/12/2013
This article only goes into the positives reinforcing the idea that these kids came from other life, and it doesn’t go into any standard testing.
What I think they should do, is with each of these children have a 100 question test. Each of these questions would be about the life of the person who they were reincarnated from. I personally feel it should be open, but it could be multiple choice. If it’s multiple choice of 4, and the child gets around 25% correct, it shows random guessing, if they get 75-100%, then it should be further investigated. If the total of 25+ children tested is higher then 25% right, it would be further accepted by the science communities, and people interested could far easier get grants for studies.
So, where is this? Until it can get that real kind of study, I don’t believe it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Brian Randolph on 12/12/2013
To Chris and others criticizing,
I would encourage you to read any of Dr. Tucker’s books—they describe in it the painstaking research he and his predecessor Ian Stevenson have conducted. I read life before life as a skeptic, and was amazed at how they have literally spent decades collecting thousands of cases, scrutinizing them for authenticity and any possible signs of fraud. Dr. Tucker is actually a very skeptical researcher and spends a large portion of his book talking about other possible explanations, and discards many cases that he hears about for these reasons. When you read the book, and see examples of case after case after case I think it’s honestly impossible not to believe from a strictly rational point of view that any other explanation than reincarnation explains the facts. You cannot say something is just religious or psuedoscientific when you haven’t even examined the evidence for it—sufficed to say it’s actually overwhelming.
Regarding quantum theory, but 1) quantum mechanics is a very murky area and there are tons of interpretations, 2) I don’t know why you say consciousness “collapsing” the wave function is an invalid interpretation of it—is that not exactly what happens in the double slit experiment?
JJ on 12/12/2013
I am thrilled to see an article about Dr. Tucker’s work and upcoming book in UVA magazine! Congratulations to him on this achievement!
Amac’s excerpts from “The Undivided Universe” seem to be particularly applicable in this situation, and raise important points related to scientific thought about our world. In addition, ab’s comments suggest something equally important: science has continually evolved from “crazy theory” to “accepted fact”. While not all theories become “fact”, the most prudent thing seems to give researchers consideration while exploring theories and looking evidence related to them.
With that said, after having listened to presentations by Dr. Tucker and his colleagues at UVA, I have been impressed with the correlations they present in their extensive past life history-gathering, fact checking, and database analysis. I encourage everyone who feels strongly about the article to consider reading Dr. Tucker’s book to learn more, since I have been interested as I have learned more.
ab on 12/12/2013
For those who feel appalled by this research, and call it pseudoscience, I’m wondering just what you think science is. Should science stay within a nice, comfortable little box, only investigating those aspects of the universe that we can readily measure with existing tools? Knowledge progresses by pushing beyond the boundaries of what is already known, or believed to be known. The very idea of quantum mechanics was once view as nonsensical, even by those who were developing the principles. That doesn’t mean that any hypotheses proposed or conclusions drawn from this research should be considered correct. Nor does it mean that the researchers haven’t missed something that could easily explain all of their results thus far in a very mundane manner. But, how would that make this research any less valuable? If it turns out that there is nothing to reincarnation, this line of research could still shine a light on a number of disciplines, such as:
1) Psychology—Learning more about how these beliefs arise in our brains and are propagated even by small children
2) Statistics—Seeing how data like this can show apparent statistical significance where there is none at all.
I’m sure I could go on, but the long and short of it is this: the idea of life after death has NOT been debunked by science, it has only been ignored and berated by certain factions within the scientific community. We simply don’t know the facts, nor have we developed tools suitable for measuring and gaining facts.
I applaud the courage of anyone willing to do this sort of research, and UVa for allowing it to go on. However, I do think UVa should review its graduation requirements. They apparently have been turning out some graduates (like Alison, who commented earlier) who feel competent to judge scientific lines of inquiry, yet show themselves to have very closed, and rigid minds far more comfortable with belief than scientific research and knowledge.
R on 12/12/2013
Tucker’s work is a continuation of Ian Stevenson’s, which made it into some of the most rigorous academic journals in the world, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is referenced with citation in Stevenson’s Wiki entry. JAMA referred to his work as a “painstaking and unemotional” collection of cases that were “difficult to explain on any assumption other than reincarnation.”
Ian Wardell on 12/12/2013
Jim Tavenner on 2013 12 11
“QM is, by the way “regular science”, and present day physics and chemistry have a very firm understanding of how it works and why. Much of our present technology, including the technology you are using to read this article, is a consequence of QM. QM makes predictions of physical phenomena that are breathtakingly accurate, but none of these predictions includes reincarnation. To suggest otherwise only reveals a lack of understanding of QM, and indeed, science in general”.
Jim you are confused. The whole issue about QM is what it says about reality when it is not being observed. The fact that the maths works and it is stunningly accurate does not help us here. One interpretation is that it is consciousness which plays the pivotal role of collapsing the wave function. I keep asking these “appalled” people why this interpretation is ruled out, but as of yet no one has responded to me. Perhaps you could?
Jim Tavenner
“As to those appalled at those of us who are appalled, I will remind you that science works so well only because it is skeptical. The standards are high: those who wish to prove what they say must make reliable, repeatable predictions”.
No, strictly speaking one can never prove anything in science. What we have here is data i.e many young children claiming memories of previous lives. There are competing hypotheses to explain this data. The reincarnation hypothesis by far best accommodates all this data, therefore why is it being deemed highly unlikely?
Jim Tavenner
” The article says that science has “no way to prove or debunk” Mr. Tucker’s “findings”. This is not true: Science has plenty of ways to explore whether or not Tucker is on to something,”
Over and above what Jim Tucker and Ian Stevenson before him have already done? I’m unable to think what else science can do? Please enlighten us . .
Jim Tavenner
“but given the nature of the subject, there is no reason for the scientific community to take him seriously”.
But the trouble with the “scientific community” is that they have tended not to have studied philosophy, hence unthinkingly accept some type of materialist metaphysic.
Again, as I keep saying to people, there is this compelling evidence which only the reincarnation hypothesis seems to fully explain. In order to reject the reincarnation hypothesis you’ll need to explain how it is a priori unlikely. In order to do that you’ll need to advance arguments to the effect that some flavour of materialism is overwhelmingly correct. The problem here is that materialism is untenable—it cannot accommodate the existence of consciousness. However, crucially, it seems that a certain interpretation of QM can accommodate consciousness! But now we come full circle because you and others claim this is an incorrect interpretation but without explaining why . .
I would appreciate it that the so-called “skeptics” would knock the asinine comments on the head. Or at least respond to my comments . .
Jeremy on 12/12/2013
Jim says: “Science has plenty of ways to explore whether or not Tucker is on to something, but given the nature of the subject, there is no reason for the scientific community to take him seriously.”
Exactly. Given the nature of the subject, there is no reason for you and your kind to ALLOW him to continue his research unhindered. On his own and with people of like mind…
Without interference from you.
You’ve won. We get it. People with souls will never convince you that “souls” exist within the current scientific/political climate.
You don’t have a soul, therefore, nobody does. The end. Thanks. We get it. (Unless, of course, you or any of your soullless clones would like to repeat yourselves 10 more times.)
astrofrog on 12/12/2013
“The standards are high: those who wish to prove what they say must make reliable, repeatable predictions.”
Positivism has been discredited for decades, and trying to apply such standards to fields of research that by their nature make it impossible to apply them is as absurd as you’re claiming his understanding of quantum mechanics is. Not that any of this even rests on quantum mechanics ... his findings are essentially a statistical sample of case studies, applying methods that are well-accepted within the social sciences. Putting scare quotes around “findings” doesn’t make them go away. It just makes you like prejudiced and small-minded.
Jim Tavenner on 12/11/2013
Add me to the “appalled” list. Having a crank like Mr. Tucker doing research under the aegis of the University of Virginia is a betrayal of the legacy of Thomas Jefferson.
His silly handwaving invocation QM only betrays his feeble understanding of the field. QM is, by the way “regular science”, and present day physics and chemistry have a very firm understanding of how it works and why. Much of our present technology, including the technology you are using to read this article, is a consequence of QM. QM makes predictions of physical phenomena that are breathtakingly accurate, but none of these predictions includes reincarnation. To suggest otherwise only reveals a lack of understanding of QM, and indeed, science in general.
As to those appalled at those of us who are appalled, I will remind you that science works so well only because it is skeptical. The standards are high: those who wish to prove what they say must make reliable, repeatable predictions. The article says that science has “no way to prove or debunk” Mr. Tucker’s “findings”. This is not true: Science has plenty of ways to explore whether or not Tucker is on to something, but given the nature of the subject, there is no reason for the scientific community to take him seriously. His work may be of interest to the non-overlapping magisteria known as religion, but this work is simply not scientific.
He is funded by a “private endowment”. Well, let that endowment take its funding elsewhere, and let the University save its scientific reputation by firing this charlatan while it still has a scientific reputation left to save.
astrofrog on 12/11/2013
Typical skeptics. Someone mentions quantum mechanics in an offhand way as a possible physical underpinning for some odd aspect of reality that is very difficult to explain, and they get all hot and bothered about quantum woo. Which, undoubtedly, yes, there are unscrupulous purveyors of sciency-sounding word salad out there ... but what makes the skeptoids on this thread all too typical is that they don’t actually bother pointing out how, precisely, the quantum mechanics in this article are wrong. As someone who spent his undergrad taking numerous courses in quantum theory, the description of the two slit experiment seemed pretty legit to me. As to the argument that the observer effect implies a strong role for consciousness in reality, yes, that is certainly one perfectly legitimate interpretation. There are others, all equally strange, all equally impossible to prove (many worlds, anyone?). But the reason these reactionaries are ‘appalled’ has nothing to do with misunderstood science (if it did, one of them would have pointed out the error); it is, as others have noted, because free, rational inquiry into fields such as reincarnation, psi, UFOs, etc., is deeply threatening to the absolutist materialist scientism they have committed themselves to. Anyone remember the TEDx debacle with Hancock and Sheldrake? Same shit from the same table-pounding dogmatists.
I think that Jeremy’s suggestion, while perhaps made somewhat tongue in cheek, that there are underlying psychological reasons for the ideological split between ‘skeptics’ and ‘believers’ may be close to the mark. I would be absolutely fascinated to see a statistically significant comparative psychological study of the two groups.
Adam Evenson on 12/11/2013
So, John, you just traded the words, “Vast Intelligence,” for the one word, “God.” What if I suggested that there are neither of these, but an Iwon?
Jeff on 12/11/2013
Well…I thought that we left the notion of consciousness as an epiphenomenon back in the 18th century, but apparently if one can insert the word “quantum” into an old (and largely disproved) theory then it gains a new life. Pun intended.
d e bartley on 12/11/2013
I wrote a book about reincarnation and how the higher elite of all cultures can reincarnate back into a specific bloodline…none of this is new, Science is way behind when it comes to the ‘science of reincarnation’
Ian Wardell on 12/11/2013
Wally58, could you argue for your position? How do you know we cease to exist when we die? What am I not understanding?
Proclus on 12/11/2013
Dr. Tucker is not a physicist. He did not claim to be one. The science has to do with investigating these children, their memories and attempting to corroborate their stories. The fact that he dabbles some in physics hoping to find an explanation is not a mark against him. Those that are appalled would be even more appalled if they were more knowledgeable about what actually goes on with scientific journals, research and so on. Scientists are not saints. There is a great deal of corruption in the science world. Given our school picture of science how to account for the unending dispute about first global warming and now climate change. Since everything changes of course climates do to and have many time in the past so even writing climate change is simply tautological. The important message of the article was this research which seems to substantiate reincarnation. Not whether Dr. Tucker knows sufficient physics. Even qualified physicist have remarked that quantum theory is useful nonsense. What a thing to say!
Jeremy on 12/11/2013
It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever this subject comes up, there is an immediate 50/50 split between those who simply say “Yes, the soul is real” and those who vehemently squeal “NO, the soul is not real. We are material bodies with material brains and that is all!”
Who is right? And why is there such a well defined dividing line between both sides?
Well, here’s a working hypothesis deserving of serious scientific study:
Both sides are right, each from their own point of view.
Yep…
If you know you have a soul, you probably do. And you will, quite naturally, be attracted to the idea of scientific inquiry into this field. Why not? After all, the purpose of scientific inquiry is to get a better handle on the objective reality of the universe we find ourselves in, so that we may better navigate that reality.
And, on the other hand, if you, as so many on the other side like to say: “Simply turn off like a TV.” That, too, is probably true for you.
The difference in approach arises from the fact that real, unhindered scientific inquiry into this area will prove that you are, in fact, soulless. And you are terrified of the ramifications if it were to be generally accepted that it is true only of yourself and others like you.
You might be afraid that people who have souls can prove it, scientifically, thereby freeing themselves from your oppression.
What a terrifying thought for you.
No wonder you attack everyone who asks the question.
Joe Quinn on 12/11/2013
The people that are “appalled” are probably working as disinformation specialists for the NSA. Or, they are fundie Christians who cannot abide the idea of reincarnation being talked about in serious terms, with evidence.
R on 12/11/2013
Carl Sagan, in his book, Demon-Haunted World, said this about Stevenson’s (now Tucker’s) research : “At the time of writing there are…claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study (including) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that might be true.”
j.david on 12/11/2013
If consciousness does indeed create the physical world, this would go some way to explaining a number of anomalies, namely synchronicity for one, these so called meaningful coincedenses , could be that we bring into the so called physical world something we have been thinking about,or is important to us
wally58 on 12/11/2013
No such thing as reincarnation. When you are dead, lights off, period. Even the Bible has no comments on “going to Heaven or Hell” such as folks have been brainwashed into believing. A person is body, mind, and emotions. It takes all of these to be considered a soul. When you pull the plug (death), just like on a TV, the power goes off and that’s it. Not even darkness, just nothing. It is exactly like being knocked out for surgery - nothing, no awareness, nada. The only thing you remember is the last moment before you conked out. This is death. We will only know consciousness again when Christ Yahshua RETURNS to resurrect us, whenever that might be. until then, LIGHTS OUT!
Amac on 12/11/2013
David Bohm and “The Undivided Universe” By Russell Targ.
A contemporary discussion of interconnectedness has been presented by David Bohm in his last book, The Undivided Universe. This physics text has great contemporary credibility because Bohm derives quantitatively correct answers to some of the most puzzling questions at the ragged edges of modern physics with his concept of the Implicate Order and Enfoldment. A whole generation of physics students in the 1960s learned quantum theory from Bohm’s outstanding textbook of that title. Bohm provides a compelling model for all the data we have been examining. He does so through the use of a holographic model of the universe. The defining property of a hologram is that every tiny piece of the hologram contains a complete picture of the whole.
In physics, quantum mechanical-wave functions predict and describe with perfect precision (ten decimal places in optics) what we will experience in our physical measurements. For Bohm, these wave functions make up a physical, four dimensional, space time hologram in which we are all embedded. The wave functions are solutions arising out of the Schrodinger equation, which is the quantum mechanical engine used to solve all problems in the quantum domain. However, these solutions are usually treated as merely mathematical models, so called probability waves. In Bohm’s interpretation, the quantum mechanical-wave functions are treated as having measurable effects through space and time. These wave functions describe what Bohm calls “active information,” and this information has its own nonlocal existence.
If you look at a hologram on a photographic plate, the imbedded three-dimensional image is invisible. It is entirely dispersed in the optical interference pattern spread throughout the plate, even though these fringes cannot be seen or measured directly. Bohm calls this the implicate, or “enfolded,” order in the holographic plate. The explicate order would be the three-dimensional picture that you see when you illuminate the hologram with a laser beam. Imagine that you had a large sheet of postage stamps, where the whole sheet showed a picture of a flag and each small sheet showed a picture of the same flag. As you break off smaller and smaller pieces of the hologram, the three-dimensional field of view decreases along with the spatial resolution, but you still get the whole picture. It’s as though you start with a big piece of matzah. No matter how small a piece you break off, you still have matzah.
Bohm says, “The essential features of the implicate order are that the whole universe is in some way enfolded in everything, and that each thing is enfolded into the whole.” This is the fundamental statement of a holographic ordering of the universe. It says that, like a hologram, each region of space-time contains information about every other point in space-time. Bohm continues:
“All of this quantum interconnectedness implies a thoroughgoing wholeness, in which mental and physical sides participate very closely in each other. Likewise, intellect, emotion, and the whole state of the body are in a similar flux of fundamental participation. Thus, there is no real division between mind and matter, psyche and soma. The common term psychosomatic is in this way seen to be misleading, as it suggests the Cartesian notion of two distinct substances in some kind of interaction. Extending this view that you cannot separate the observer from the observed, we see that each human being similarly participates in an inseparable way in society and the planet as a whole. What may be suggested further is that such participation goes on to a greater collective mind, and perhaps ultimately to some yet more comprehensive mind, in principle capable of going indefinitely beyond even the human species as a whole.”
Kate2756 on 12/11/2013
Your appalled? It’s people that are appalled at anything that does not meet their idea of what life is about. People that are appalled should just cover your heads in the sand. You should be appalled that your so uptight and rigid in your thinking. Life does not exists in your tiny paranoid world.
Steve Naidamast on 12/11/2013
I believe that many of the people who are arguing about the concept of science in this essay have not read the piece very well. Dr. Tucker is not using science to prove re-incarnation but merely as a possible metaphor.
The quantum mechanics he details, though not very extensively, is known as the “slit experiment”, which I believe was actually devised in the 19th century and is still used as a foundation in QM today by such scientists. The explanation he puts forth based upon it is a hypothesis as he does not state anywhere that the comparisons involved can be demonstrated as proof,merely a possibility.
The data that he does in fact present have posed a quandary for researchers for many years and other such researchers have found similar conclusions such as those of Dr.Tucker.
Potentially, the most well documented example of such a situation is in fact an adult that believed to have had a past life and was found to have been aboard a US submarine on a classified mission that had remained classified until the researchers of this case requested permission to have the files opened. This case was presented by Robert Stack on the show “Unsolved Mysteries” in the 1980s.
Jack on 12/11/2013
I am appalled by the skepticism expressed by those that simply cannot tolerate having their current worldview challenged. ;) If anything, they cause me to believe in reincarnation even more than I already do, because those folks are probably the reincarnations of the same people that forced Galileo to recant!
Seriously, there is real science, decades of it in fact, behind this work. But you can’t convince people that will not take an honest look at the evidence, and just shoot from the hip whenever they see something does doesn’t square with their personal take on reality. The sad part is that because the public education system doesn’t encourage individual thinking, but rather that students just blindly accept whatever they are taught, too many people develop the view that it’s somehow wrong to challenged established thinking on any subject. And when that is the prevailing mindset, we risk heading into a sort of “dark ages”, where not much progress is made because too many people are afraid to think outside the box, and those that do get punished for it.
Jack on 12/11/2013
I am appalled by the skepticism expressed by those that simply cannot tolerate having their current worldview challenged. ;) If anything, they cause me to believe in reincarnation even more than I already do, because those folks are probably the reincarnations of the same people that forced Galileo to recant!
Seriously, there is real science, decades of it in fact, behind this work. But you can’t convince people that will not take an honest look at the evidence, and just shoot from the hip whenever they see something does doesn’t square with their personal take on reality. The sad part is that because the public education system doesn’t encourage individual thinking, but rather that students just blindly accept whatever they are taught, too many people develop the view that it’s somehow wrong to challenged established thinking on any subject. And when that is the prevailing mindset, we risk heading into a sort of “dark ages”, where not much progress is made because too many people are afraid to think outside the box, and those that do get punished for it.
Bradley on 12/11/2013
Anyone who has had a pet mouse knows that they are conscious. They sleep, play, and have many of the same emotions that humans have. Research on rats has verified this. In other words, mice are conscious. A mouse brain has a million neurons. A modern CPU has many millions of transistors, yet no machine or program no matter how intelligent has come close to being conscious. The hypothesis that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the material world wears thinner by the year. Fortunately, theories of quantum consciousness by Roger Penrose (he was Stephen Hawking’s thesis adviser) and Stuart Hameroff are providing a path forward. Increasing knowledge of quantum entanglement (quantum computing research) is opening minds to the possibility of scientific characterization of soul stuff.
Amac on 12/11/2013
I would like to hear from skeptics on their own understanding of quantum theory and how it differs from the information presented here. If the author is so hopelessly misinformed on the nature of quantum mechanics, It may be useful for you to present a clearer understanding of what it is and how it describes the observable universe.
Tim on 12/11/2013
What a shame that there are people out there who are so stuck in their beliefs that they will fearfully cling to them in order to feel a sense of peace, unwilling to open to any other possibility that can’t be “proven” by science.
We tend to be arrogant as Westerners and especially Americans; believing that what we “know” is the final word and all other ideas or philosophies, some dating back 10 times the age of our country, cannot possibly be real. If there is a Divine being or force out there, surely they are the only one(s) who know for sure. All other speculation and statements of damnation are just egotistical outpourings attempted to hide fear and create an illusion of certainty in an effort to bring a sense of peace.
There are limitless possibilities in the Universe and it is only our human brains the limit us and keep us from experiencing what might be.
A on 12/11/2013
To those who are bashing this article as ‘appalling’, open your mind. The rest of us feel sorry for you! Come join us in the world of peace and tranquility.
Sad to see those comments come from ‘UVA grads’.
Terry on 12/11/2013
Chris, Alison. To be “appalled” by something even you will never understand is both arrogant and pretentious. The fact that we even exist at all should be a starting point for causing pause before trying to portray yourselves as some “all knowing” intellect with all the rational answers. Get over yourselves. You will never understand all there is to know about this amazing universe.
Ian Wardell on 12/11/2013
Chris Becke said:
“Scientific research could explore the phenomenon of false memories and the influence of society on the implanting of these memories based on known and plausible sociological and neurological processes”.
Why on earth do you imagine they are false memories? Why would false memories correspond to what actually happened anyway?
The most parsimonious explanation and the hypothesis which is consonant with most of the data is reincarnation. What justification do you have for ruling out this hypothesis?
Ian Wardell on 12/11/2013
I’m just wondering why people are claiming this is a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics? That consciousness plays a pivotal role in collapsing the wave function has always been one of the main hypotheses. To say this is a gross misinterpretation entails this has been definitively ruled out. Could you guys provide some justification for your stance here?
I think though that the issue over the precise interpretation of QM is relatively uninteresting. One could of course subscribe to the notion that the physical world only exists by virtue of consciousness without appealing to what QM suggests.
I would also like to know why people are “appalled”. Is it merely due to this alleged “misinterpretation” of QM? Or do people have issuws with the notion that people are investigating whether reincarnation occurs? if the latter is that because you guys believe that reincarnation is impossible and hence any research is a waste of time and money? If so then what arguments do you have that reincarnation cannot possibly occur?
Chris Becke on 12/11/2013
John,
Each sentence above is either a statement with no evidence or a misrepresentation of science.
You state “regular science can only explain the laws of the universe that human beings are able to perceive”. This is simply not correct. Humans cannot perceive the molecules that make up a gas, yet “regular science” explains the phenomena of pressure and temperature through kinetic theory quite well. We extend our human perception through tools that allow us to measure physical phenomena well beyond the range of human perception. And we have used these tools to explore quantum effects as well. Quantum mechanics is not a mysterious alternative to “regular science”. Instead it is yet another extension of our understanding of the behavior of fundamental particles and fields.
Yes, some of the phenomena described by quantum mechanics are not intuitive, but this does not give one liberty to apply a quantum explanation for anything you don’t understand.
The rest of your talk of “Vast Intelligence” is devoid of evidence and has no connection to anything we understand about quantum mechanics. Without any supporting evidence, this is no more than a fantasy story.
Chris Becke on 12/11/2013
What’s next? An institute of Bigfoot research? Will we be researching alien abductions at UVA? Should we accept the truth of Nessie because it fits with “alternative and very plausible explanations to age old questions”?
Scientific research could explore the phenomenon of false memories and the influence of society on the implanting of these memories based on known and plausible sociological and neurological processes. But to use the “God did it” hypothesis or a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics removes this topic from the realm of research worthy of a major university.
John on 12/11/2013
The problem with most conventional thinking people is that they are so attached to their preconceived ideas, they are unable to look at alternative and very plausible explanations to age old questions.
The concept of reincarnation makes a lot more sense than many of the ideas that have been attached to and promoted by traditional religions. As painful as this may be for many of us, the truth remains the truth regardless of whether the majority of the world’s population can embrace it.
Quantum physics explains a lot of things that regular science cannot explain. The reason for this is because regular science can only explain the laws of the universe that human beings are able to perceive.
Here is another explanation about life and reincarnation supported via the ideas centered around the science of quantum physics:
Vast Intelligence (The Universal Creative Force of Everything Spiritual and Physical) continuously searches for ways to broaden and improve its creative properties. Vast Intelligence is not a person, nor should it be envisioned or personified as such by sentient beings that can manifest themselves as spiritual or physical entities within the parameters of particular frequency platforms. Gods are not a reality as they do not exist! Vast Intelligence is not a God and it never judges anything or anyone. It simply collects experiences and seeks to expand its knowledge base!
In very simplistic terms, you and I are both integral parts of Vast Intelligence. We both represent different expressions of Vast Intelligence within different dimensions of universal existence.
From third and fourth dimensional perspectives, where time and space properties are factors that, undoubtedly, affect and influence perceptions of reality, Vast Intelligence decided long ago to create an infinite number of opportunities to garner knowledge. It did so by creating frequency signatures that could be converted into different densities or dimensions of existence. The individual dimensions were designed to help fulfill the needs of Vast Intelligence in regards to increasing its knowledge base.
Within the incredible frameworks of Vast Intelligence’s different dimensions, there are countless expressions of Vast Intelligence being realized. The dimensional expressions are unlimited and unending. They are represented by galaxies, solar systems, planets, and sentient beings that collectively exist in varying degrees of solidness depending on how universal, subatomic particles are vibrating.
In order to maximize the process of increasing its creative knowledge base, Vast Intelligence quarantined the different dimensions of existence from one another. In other words, what was reality in one dimension was not in another. Individual expressions of Vast Intelligence (The Higher Realms) were designed to act as data banks as well as holding containers for soul groups in regards to the collection and development of knowledge theories. Vast Intelligence has and continues to have a desire to increase its knowledge by developing countless classrooms (worlds) in which smaller expressions of Vast Intelligence (Soul Groups that are attached to a specific Higher Realm) were born into various frequencies or dimensional platforms.
When souls are born into any dimensional platform, they automatically choose a biological vessel that has the unique DNA capacity that allows them to accomplish the specific goals prescribed by Vast Intelligence for a given lifetime. A group of souls, attached to a uniquely assigned Higher Realm, will incarnate on a specific planet. In many cases soul groups will migrate away from planets and choose to frequent unique frequency platforms. These worlds are similar to physically constructed planets and they are designed to host entities that are born into a dimensional existence but lack physical bodies.
In most situations there are thousands of souls attached to a unique Higher Realm. There are dominant, recessive, major, minor, and mate souls. They all agree by contract to incarnate into a world/platform in order to experience and gather knowledge for the benefit of their specific Higher Realm and Vast Intelligence.
On Earth, and on some other nearby planets within the third dimensional construct, a unique phenomenon is taking place. Certain soul groups have been redirected by the Higher Realms of another quarantined dimension. As a result of this situation, there are, presently, many interdimensional interactions occurring on Earth that were never prescribed by Vast Intelligence.
In the most simplistic explanation that can possibly be offered, I will write that the humans living on Earth are being influenced by a group of souls that are not supposed to be in your dimension of existence. They are, by definition, interdimensional souls that have inappropriately incarnated into biological vessels and they are addicted to the experiences and expressions that are offered on Earth and some other third dimensional platforms. These entities are the elite bloodlines that control the major political decisions in your world.
The interdimensional souls that have taken up residence on your Earth have greatly influenced your planet’s governments. This is a very complex situation and not easily understood by the average human being. This is not a jab at human intellect. It is an accurate depiction of the current situation and a direct byproduct of your in-house genetic wiring. Human beings have been genetically modified by these interdimensional entities in such a way that they are incapable of accurately sensing the total reality that surrounds them. Because of genetic modifications within the human DNA, people of Earth have limited life spans; limited immune systems, and a very limited awareness of the third dimensional construct they exist in.
When humans die (the physical death of the biological vessel) they are not supposed to reincarnate into another biological vessel until they undergo a proper review process. The soul groupings on your world have been hijacked by interdimensional Higher Realms and they are siphoning energy and other properties from third dimensional entities that they are not entitled to interact with. Humans are recycling back into newer biological vessels, without proper review, because of these unauthorized interdimensional interactions. Human souls are, presently, caught inside a time loop and are in trouble. They have been artificially prevented from ascending the natural dimensional ladder that has been designed and prescribed by Vast Intelligence.
What Vast Intelligence represents beyond the descriptions I have written about in this article is difficult to describe with mere words. Vast Intelligence is a subset of other forms of order/intelligence. There are different universes and they all have intelligent design and order attached to them. Of course that is a completely different story.
keith on 12/11/2013
Personally, I prefer the reincarnation theory (particularly after my youngest son expressed genuine fear on his first visit to the seaside at the age of five. “No, no,” he said to his mum. I’m not going in there. I drownded in there last time.)...(mis-spelling intentional).
Any theory that gets rid of the controlling Gods. and their alleged messengers. of conventional religion who treat their creation with jealousy and vengeance is OK by me.
As for the appalled, you are entitled to you opinion, but personally, if I was endowed with similar feelings about ‘any’ subject, I wouldn’t give it credibility by responding to it publicly. I suspect it is the credibility of the theory that has shaken your beliefs that, in turn, has made you respond.
To me, it is the most credible theory we have pertaining to who or what we might be. Right or wrong. I suggest that if there were ever such a thing as heavenly social services, the conventional Gods would be incarcerated, preferably with each other for company, for eternity.
Stop fearing your Gods, appalled, and open your minds to ALL possibilities. Be appalled when you have proved them wrong and not until. Even then, you might learn something new.
Henry on 12/11/2013
Learning must move forward, by research and investigation. Some people would rather stay in the dark, with their closed minds. To them the earth is flat and they are appalled that anyone would challenge the church by suggesting otherwise. These people are ignorant.
Professor Tucker’s research is most important.
Iddy on 12/11/2013
@Faresalis I’m not sure if you’re directing that question to me. If you are, I think you have misunderstood my point. I’m not trying to disprove reincarnation so much as to ridicule and point out the fact that not everything that “sounds” science-y represents good science.
Faresalis Bookcarrier on 12/11/2013
Everyone, believe in reincarnation DOES NOT necessitate belief in God! How is that possible? Ask Buddhism, the only organized religion that Einstein himself has ever praised to be “compatible with modern science”.
In addition to saying that there is no God, Buddhism also claim that there is no such thing as a soul, and therefore what “transmigrates” to a new body after death is not your “soul”. So what is it? Find a Buddhist scholar to tell you what the Nama Rupa Doctrine is about.
So does Buddhism claim that other religions simply lie for telling that there is God, and there are souls? If “honest misperception” constitutes a lie, then yes. What Buddha said about what Hindus, Moslems, Christians and Jews perceive as “God”, is explained in Sutta Pitaka - Digha Nikaya - Brahmajala Sutta, chapter 2 verse 1-5.
Many “new-age labeled” charlatan individuals and institutions are scamming people for money, by their reincarnation-related products/services, like aboutastro dotcom. But I suppose you agree that disproving reincarnation by only using that logic is dishonest?
Iddy on 12/10/2013
In my home country Thailand, people claim to remember their past lives all the time. Usually they were either King Naraesuan the Great or Rama the First in their previous lives. That’s right, there’s not that much variation. So my question, based on those claims, is how is it that multiple souls can exist in a single body? My hypothesis is that souls can be divided and recombined, and then fitted into a new baby that could possibly grow up to be the next president of the United States. For my experiment, I would survey 5000 toddlers and ask them about their past lives. Now the hard part - data analysis. I guess I would pick out the “memory” that has been (coincidentally) uttered the most by those kids and conclude that it is possible that the memory came from one source in their past lives. Conclusion: my hypothesis is possibly correct based on the rules of quantum mechanics. Does anyone think this is good science? I hope not…
Phil on 12/10/2013
To those who are criticising the sceptics, I think you’ve misunderstood what they’re saying. The problem is not that people believe in reincarnation. The problem is not that people investigate reincarnation. The problem is not that reincarnation challenges people’s worldviews.
The problem is that the article presents reincarnation as being supported by quantum physics, then proceeds to completely misrepresent quantum physics. Surely the writer could have spoken to someone from UVA with a bit of knowledge on the subject – that’s just good journalistic practice.
Lance B. Payette on 12/10/2013
There is an old saying in the legal profession: “When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and law are against you, pound the table and shout.” “I am appalled” is the sort of statement that diehard skeptics resort to when they are unable to confront in a substantive way the evidence and the most reasonable explanation that flows from it; typically, they are so dismissive of anything that might challenge their cherished paradigm that they have not even examined the evidence. I am shocked—shocked, I tell you—that anyone would be appalled.
Rachel on 12/10/2013
The problem is the use of the word science. I don’t see facts but coincidences. Describe any person and someone can be found who fits that description. Interview enough folks and someone is sure to have a story that happens to match someone who once lived.
Martina on 12/10/2013
I have great admiration for both Ian Stevenson and Jim B. Tucker. This area of research has universal importance, and more people should be involved in it. As to the “appalled” ones: it’s basic human nature to shut out anything that threatens an established world view. If it took so long for Dr. Semmelweis’s observations to be accepted, imagine how long it will take for reincarnation studies to be widely accepted…
Peter Newton on 12/10/2013
I am appalled at those who are appalled. They may not accept the quantum mechanics explanation (I don’t understand it myself) but the facts of the cases reported can’t be made to go away so easily. Have they got a better explanation? Or would they prefer just to shut it up and hope it goes away? Shades of Galileo and the Inquisition…
Angel on 12/10/2013
This is amazing and for people that are appalled…shame on you!
Alison on 12/10/2013
Chris Becke completely nailed it. I am appalled. And disappointed. And embarrassed for the institution which has granted me a doctorate in science. When people like Tucker are referred to as “scientists” doing “scientific research which may not be disproved” it is no wonder the American public wants Creationism taught in schools. If this is the sort of work UVA calls science, there’s really no argument against it.
I would have thought that the author would be thorough enough to at least ask a physical scientist to explain quantum mechanisms. The description of quantum described here (provided by Tucker, I assume?) is just wrong.
Appalling. Disappointing.
And one who cares strongly about science and critical thinking, deeply, deeply troubling.
Chris Becke on 12/10/2013
I am appalled that pseudoscience such as this is occurring at UVA and also appalled that the Virginia Magazine would stoop so low as to promote this “research” as a cover story.
Many branches of pseudoscience are latching on to a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics as an explanation of their otherwise unscientific claims. But any physicist could point out the fallacies of these arguments and clear misunderstanding of the underlying phenomena. Professor Tucker might just as well rely on invisible unicorns as the mechanism for his research, but if he did, would he be allowed to continue at UVA?
This article and the “research” that it covers degrade the integrity of the university and the magazine and detract from the scientific literacy of the population.
Again, I am appalled.
Leave a Comment