Thread: Seeing who you were in previous lives...through mirrors?

Yeah, its truely logical that I lived several past lives in which my face was skewed and stretched. Its really possible that a candle will reveal a spiritual past. If there are any other explanations, I can guarantee you they won't be paranormal whatsoever. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe its time you wake up and come back to the real world.

I mean, do you get the point of "acting neutral towards the situation, keeping a moderated skepticism and an minimal open mind to possibilities, so that you can have a broad sight unto the phenomena and use up a larger amount of the subject's potential" rather than "assuming it's true/fake based on what you want to think of it, alongside all that you've been convinced of in your life"(which takes both believers and non-believers)?

Take out the "I'm talking to an friggin' escapist, what a waste of time and thought." glasses?

I'm not biased, and I am considerably open minded compared to many. But someone has to draw the line. And clearly its not going to be you.

Dude, what I'm saying is that in order to draw a line, you have to tell what it's beyond it and what it's not. I'm saying that if you simply solely believe in what your society has taught you, you won't get farther than someone who's solely disbelieving it and comming up with hocus pocus theories that they defend with all their petty might.

You' re taking me as a crazy ass because I'm saying that it's not because you can obviously see that something is (1), that the same thing can't be (2), and (3) as well. And that's just as simple as cracking a nut with a door. I'm just defending an idea you see as crazy and you're just doing your part as an ignorant and seeing it as crazy. You're not participating in an argument, you're hammering your own ideas over what you don't want to think of.

Do you get my point now?

Don't be stupid, I've considered both sides of the argument before making a conclusion. Just because its not the conclusion you wanted doesn't mean I haven't thought about it from your perspective, and the others that believe there is more to it.

It also means that I'm not wrong. I'm not telling that I'm right, I'm just saying, once again, that what you're saying doesn't make, in any way, my statements fake, stupid, or disoriented in some sort.

Besides, I asked you if you got my point.

Originally Posted by Corello

It also means that I'm not wrong. I'm not telling that I'm right, I'm just saying, once again, that what you're saying doesn't make, in any way, my statements fake, stupid, or disoriented in some sort.

Not my statements. Just the logic, common sense, and applied knowledge of almost everyone on the earth.

Exactly. Common sense.

Common sense has a tendency to label things as absolute truths, people who aren't used to epistemologic and ontologic studies, one or another branch of both philosophy and science, or simply crude and simple critical thinking may easily accept what is brought to them, as long as they can be convinced.

The obvious may be not so obvious. If you take the wave/particle nature, for example: Both experiments proving that light was made of particles and that it was a kind of wave had gone right.(that takes us to "when empirical data does not necessarely deny a theory which is opposite to the prior") When it was so obvious beforehand, in an newtonian context, that physical objects were concrete, substantial. With the disposal of the exclusive nature in such theory,(which still contributed enormously to mankind), many things that wouldn't be taken in consideration, were. With that, much more could be "found and put in use in the name of science".

I'll be glad if you understand that I am not making the same mistake common sense does and using something as "TRUTH" to stand on. I am using a theory, just as any other theory that gave birth to the many fields of knowledge you know of. A theory can be justified by the rational concept of it's contents, and/or by the pursuit and use of empirical, pratical data/facts(and also other possible means I haven't taken in consideration).

I don't believe it as indisputable truth, but as a valid truth nevertheless.

If you have doubts or denials towards the theory I am using, make sure that you know of it as well.(Have you read studies from Wilhelm Reich, Carl Gustav Jung, or Barbara Brennan?) It is, as a matter of fact, a well gifted theory with both a good group of considerable hipothesis and also, empiric data.

If thoughts such as the ones I've just mentioned weren't known by men, earth wouldn't have reached it's present point when it comes to "truth".

Our brains are expert at misinterpreting what our eyes see. It's also common knowledge that if you stare at something for too long you will tend to get disoriented and possibly start to hallucinate.

Also, the "everyone on the earth" may not be the one you know. Many studies about things MANY people would call a freaking waste of time, a perfect bullshit, are on the run, not the mention the ones that have already been recognized as valid and are already used today.

Posted by Caprisun:

Our brains are expert at misinterpreting what our eyes see. It's also common knowledge that if you stare at something for too long you will tend to get disoriented and possibly start to hallucinate.

Can you bring me a more detailed justification that it is hallucination what occours?

Originally Posted by Corello

Posted by Caprisun:



Can you bring me a more detailed justification that it is hallucination what occours?

http://www.howtodothings.com/hobbies...nate-naturally

I don't have any kind of scientific study or anything, it's just common sense. Everybody has probably experienced it in their life. If you stare at something for too long your eyes will eventually get tired and they will have trouble focusing, so they will slip in and out of focus. That makes it easy for you to perceive things to be moving or changing when they actually are not. Ever had a moment where you had to blink real hard a few times and shake your head to get your eyes to focus again? Get an optical illusion book and you will most likely find at least one trick that illustrates this. The fact that this is supposed to be done by candle light will magnify the effect greatly. Im not telling you that you didn't experience what you experienced, Im just offering an alternate explanation that is much more plausible. It's wrong to assume such a fantastical explanation for this phenomenon.

Edit: I just realized several people already explained this on the first page so you can look there for more information.

Also, common sense is a fine way to decide whether or not something is true. Common sense is just basic logic.

Caprisun,

Well, if you can get to that point, I can get to where "it can be this, but it can be that", and that would be it. It is indeed very easy to see that things like this can bring you to an alternate state of consciousness. But to the matter of the nature of such states, we would have to go further in.

Loaf said:

Also, common sense is a fine way to decide whether or not something is true. Common sense is just basic logic.

It's good to shape the reality you percieve from the world, and also very useful and healthy to anyone's life for that matter. You do well in saying that.

But to state it as "fine" can be dangerous, since being fine needs the circunstances of that point so that, there, in it's dominant situation, it is "fine".

Since one's own logic is well accepted and propper to one's own life, but in various cases, not so to others if the same system is applied, I'd say it's not enough for the discussion over what is real and what is illusory in our subject, since it goes beyond that point.

Thing is, this is a really simple, easy to explain scenario. There is nothing deep about it. What is your basis for even believing this is true other than "lets not close all the possibilities". Lets be rational. It is highly highly unlikely that we are actually experiencing a paranormal event, therefore its naive to believe that over the much more feasible explanation.

(Also stop double posting please )

Wow! I will do this!!!

Oh, I didn't realize there was a debate. Well, I'll still do it & won't use common sense so my mind doesn't kill my experience.

By Loaf:

Thing is, this is a really simple, easy to explain scenario. There is nothing deep about it. What is your basis for even believing this is true other than "lets not close all the possibilities". Lets be rational. It is highly highly unlikely that we are actually experiencing a paranormal event, therefore its naive to believe that over the much more feasible explanation.

(Also stop double posting please )

First of all, sorry for the double post, seriously. I got carried away as I'm not used to posting much in forums and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again in this one.

Yes, it is easy to explain. Using various different methods and reaching various different conclusions. The thing is, if you saw something like that, you'd have to think it as "paranormal"X"normal", as you demonstrated. How much what I said is deep, it's something you see in what I wrote, not necessarely what I wrote. You'd just hang yourself in the "I know what is and what isn't" rope, just as you did with "easy to explain" and "rational", (which you made wrong use of, I must say.[+rational])

You're confusing yourself with the ideas of "being rational towards everyday phenomena", "being rational towards unusual phenomena", and "using beliefs rather than rationality to defend an crazy, needless idea"

People like to make a fuss about whether something is "supernatural" or "paranormal" in opposition to "normality", that's not my ideas and I am being very rational in what I'm saying. If you engage in self questioning, discussions with others, study, or other methods, you may find yourself that for something to be normal, that something needs the propper situation to be in in order to be "normal", or you may also end up failing to find a propper validation of the concept of "normal". The normal you talk of is a conventioned thought, it's useful and powerful in it's own dominant context, not utterly substantial, since out of it the conventioned thought is powerless.

My basis for believing it as a possible and valid truth is that I want to see how it unfolds, just as any other person with any other subject he/she wants to check and use what one can from it. Also, I can say that I have already experienced situations you may call supernatural, in sufficiently convincing circunstances for me, just as you have yours.

It is a valid truth in my life since I experienced things related to it and made good use of them for my life, and it crosses that line since I have applied concepts you could call fake or illusory in other people's lives, and it worked very well, not because it was coincidental, but because the theory was well apllied in practice. i.e. tarot and energy/subtle healing.

Saying that it doesn't need to be what I'm saying because it can be explained by other methods is different from saying that it isn't what I'm saying it is because you're used to live your life your way you learned it, or that a greater number of people thinks so. I go in on the subject to the point where I "find what I was looking for", it being or not what I wanted it to be, rather than giving up or stating it as something that pleases my ego.

Loaf, you are making it so I'm having a neat discussion and exercising my mind in a way I usually don't. I am really enjoying this and I want you to know that I thank you for this.

Also, sorry for the f***ing long posts dude, it's just the way I do it. =/

Originally Posted by Corello

My basis for believing it as a possible and valid truth is that I want to see how it unfolds.

From a third person perspective, that just isn't good enough.

I am going to burn a building down because I believe it might not get damage. Why? Well, I wanna see how it unfolds. I believe it, even though its totally crazy.

You have absolutely no proof any of this can work, and you believe in it purely because you want to. That is just crazy.

From a third person perspective, that just isn't good enough.

I am going to burn a building down because I believe it might not get damage. Why? Well, I wanna see how it unfolds. I believe it, even though its totally crazy.

You have absolutely no proof any of this can work, and you believe in it purely because you want to. That is just crazy.

Then we'd be going down to moral subjects. Since you don't know me, I don't think you could apply that I would do dangerous things to others, or even to question how much reasonable and righteous I morally am.

"Oh, since everybody is really part of one whole thing, the supreme being won't hurt itself if I carve this awesomely sharp knife deep in your brains!" something like that would be stupid, not just because of moral matters, which I'm pretty sure wasn't the matter in our discussion, but(morals being taken out of consideration) because of the improper interpretation and use of the theory that "All is One and One is All".

I dare to tell you that determining whether something is valid or not really depends on wanting to try it, I'd say that the greatest portion, if not all of the knowledge you yourself have gathered in your life, came from "wanting to see how it unfolds". If you think of it as not good enough you may as well criticise all the other knowledges/truths that came from this same and, if well equipped with righteous moral matters, sane thought.

You have absolutely no proof any of this can work, and you believe in it purely because you want to. That is just crazy.

I'm being unusual and you're disliking it. I mean, that's plainly an "you're wrong and I'm right you poo poo head" argument. How can you tell that I don't have at all, any proof that spiritual subjects influence directly in anyone's life, other than wanting to believe I'm wrong?

You have no clue of my experiences, knowledges or even character for the record. "Who do you think you are to tell me who I am?" You're not even developing proper argument, you're simply stating what is and what isn't normal/possible/valid/right/wrong/true/illusory/etc. and wanting me to accept it while I'm trying to discuss the subject of this thread. (Not that you're not discussing it, you are. But you're simply attacking my idea because you don't like it!) And I don't even believe in it purely, as I have already said, more than once, I take it as an valid truth, which is different from an indisputable truth, and also, since I'm the one who's saying it, different from blind acceptance, which isn't part of my repertoire of critical thinking, unless we're talking about the Tao. In case you didn't understand, a valid truth has meaning and effectiveness inside it's own domain. It's valid inside a determined context and powerless beyond it. Now for whet is inside and outside of it's domain, now that's "entirely" a "different matter".

Once again I'm telling that "I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you saying I'm wrong just because my idea goes beyond what you're used to doesn't make me wrong." "labeling it as indisputable truth is the same as naming it utterly fake, you're ignoring important aspects of it", bla, bla, bla, bla.

I'll be going now, since I have to wake up early tomorrow for college.

Quoted from Corello

How can you tell that I don't have at all, any proof that spiritual subjects influence directly in anyone's life, other than wanting to believe I'm wrong?

Do you?

You have no clue of my experiences, knowledges or even character for the record. "Who do you think you are to tell me who I am?" You're not even developing proper argument, you're simply stating what is and what isn't normal/possible/valid/right/wrong/true/illusory/etc. and wanting me to accept it while I'm trying to discuss the subject of this thread. (Not that you're not discussing it, you are. But you're simply attacking my idea because you don't like it!) And I don't even believe in it purely, as I have already said, more than once, I take it as an valid truth, which is different from an indisputable truth, and also, since I'm the one who's saying it, different from blind acceptance, which isn't part of my repertoire of critical thinking, unless we're talking about the Tao. In case you didn't understand, a valid truth has meaning and effectiveness inside it's own domain. It's valid inside a determined context and powerless beyond it. Now for whet is inside and outside of it's domain, now that's "entirely" a "different matter".

Once again I'm telling that "I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you saying I'm wrong just because my idea goes beyond what you're used to doesn't make me wrong." "labeling it as indisputable truth is the same as naming it utterly fake, you're ignoring important aspects of it", bla, bla, bla, bla.

I'm having trouble understanding you but I think you are also misunderstanding everyone else. They aren't attacking your idea because they don't like it or because they want to assert their superiority, they are attacking it because it is an argument from ignorance. The only "truth" we can pull away from your experience is that staring at a mirror for an extended period of time will cause the image to become distorted. TRUTH ENDS THERE. You can't blindly insert whatever explanation that you feel could be theoretically possible. You mentioned that you have a "reptertoire of critical thinking" but this is the antithesis of critical thinking. There is evidence that staring at any object for a long time will cause your eyes to distort images. There is not evidence that any sort of spiritual beings can appear in a mirror or even that they exist period. It seems to me that you already have an explanation set in your head and you are just looking to validate your belief by whatever means necessary. That is not logical and that is not how science works. Your distinction between "valid truth" and "indisputable truth" makes no sense and is only serving to confuse yourself and everyone else. You logically can't entertain the idea of past versions of yourself appearing in mirrors unless you have evidence that unambiguously points you in that direction. The evidence leads you, you don't lead the evidence.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'm having trouble understanding you but I think you are also misunderstanding everyone else. They aren't attacking your idea because they don't like it or because they want to assert their superiority, they are attacking it because it is an argument from ignorance. The only "truth" we can pull away from your experience is that staring at a mirror for an extended period of time will cause the image to become distorted. TRUTH ENDS THERE. You can't blindly insert whatever explanation that you feel could be theoretically possible. You mentioned that you have a "reptertoire of critical thinking" but this is the antithesis of critical thinking. There is evidence that staring at any object for a long time will cause your eyes to distort images. There is not evidence that any sort of spiritual beings can appear in a mirror or even that they exist. It seems to me that you already have an explanation set in your head and you are just looking to validate your belief by whatever means necessary, that is not logical and that is not how science works. Your distinction between "valid truth" and "indisputable truth" makes no sense and is only serving to confuse yourself and everyone else. You logically can't entertain the idea of past versions of yourself appearing in mirrors unless you have evidence that unambiguously points you in that direction. The evidence leads you, you don't lead the evidence.

:bravo:

Sorry for big post in advance.

I really hope any of you have enough patience for reading this. Please try taking some really free time to read this if you're going to.

Caprisun:

You mentioned that you have a "reptertoire of critical thinking" but this is the antithesis of critical thinking.

By that I meant to say "repertoire of thoughts derived from critical thinking", I did very well in expressing it badly enough to go wrong. Seriously sorry and thanks for pointing that out.

The only "truth" we can pull away from your experience is that staring at a mirror for an extended period of time will cause the image to become distorted. TRUTH ENDS THERE.

The only sensorial data we can pull away from your experience is that staring at a mirror for an extended period of time will cause the image to become distorted. Incomplete sensorial data ends here.

A distorted version of an image is not the same as a different one, and I'm not talking about a nose being slightly different, I'm talking about an african showing up from a caucasian's face, with a totally different facial expression and garments. Also, staring at a mirror for an extended period of time will indeed tire your vision, therefore it may blur and cause your sight to get unstable, which is different from what is supposed to be done in this visual exercise.



I think that if you read the previous posts, you can see that my arguments weren't really taken in to discussion, but not taken seriously and mocked at. It was like getting assaulted as soon as I entered the room. I came in to introduce an idea to the thread, and recieved some sort of "that's purely illusory hallucination, and it's cristal clear." from people who I dare to say haven't tried to make any study whatsoever regarding not the commonly accepted fully skeptic view towards the matter, but of scientific methods applied to other "supernatural"(as you may call) experiences, that, by the nature of their very happening and explanation, can serve as a justification to "seeing you from past lives in a mirror", once evidences that prove their functionality in the real world are shown. That was completely ignored. Just as in physics, for example, in which you can make use of different theories so they act complementary towards a third one. I don't really remember any to make an example, but I think there's something to exemplify that in eletrostactic or electrodynamic physics that I have gone through last year.

You can't blindly insert whatever explanation that you feel could be theoretically possible.

Indeed I cant, if i were doing that, It'd be contrary to my way of acting.(unless of course if it was a tool to direct the discussion towards a specific point, which isn't my objective in this discussion.)

they are attacking it because it is an argument from ignorance.

Please fully read the post.

There is evidence that staring at any object for a long time will cause your eyes to distort images. There is not evidence that any sort of spiritual beings can appear in a mirror or even that they exist.

Well, you can go search for scientific studies directed to mediunity for the "existance of spirits" for that matter. Also, going through the concept of spirit, rather than taking in that it is a synonymous for soul, or, should I say, something like "the living ghost of a human being" would be very useful.

It seems to me that you already have an explanation set in your head and you are just looking to validate your belief by whatever means necessary

That's because the evidences and arguments that sustain the idea I introduced were ignored. I mean it.

Your distinction between "valid truth" and "indisputable truth" makes no sense and is only serving to confuse yourself and everyone else.

You seeing no sense on it doesn't imply it being devoid of sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no longer about Caprisun's quotations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I see I haven't been explicit enough by noting that I have a base on holistic philosophy, as I already did in a previous post, alongside scientific studies which are likely to be ongoing. (even if they're still ongoing, the benefits from them were already measured in several experimentations, and they were positive.)

If you have doubts or denials towards the theory I am using, make sure that you know of it as well.(Have you read studies from Wilhelm Reich, Carl Gustav Jung, or Barbara Brennan?) It is, as a matter of fact, a well gifted theory with both a good group of considerable hipothesis and also, empiric data.

Specially Barbara Brennan for our matter. And I wonder if this was even noticed at all.

The way I see it it's kind of "The One Whole in which are manifested The Many", like many focal points of life/consciousness within the same, primal one. If you make it a scale like: 10 being the one whole and 1 being the smallest form of life, you can get a three, for example. Within it are lesser forms of life that makes it be what it is, just as it is part of a higher form.

From here, you have other focal points of consciousness that compose yours.

[+holistic view of the universe]

[+holistic view of the universe]

You can read the book called "Hands Of Light: A Guide to Healing Through the Human Energy Field", by Barbara Brennan, if you want to. One may go look for it instead of rambling about me not having any evidence at all, when sources of it were put in the discussion to be used. There are, also, studies about why Reiki has crossed the placebo effect line may work as well, which means people do not need to believe in it in order for it to work. (Gyoshi Ho is a techique belonging to the japanese Reiki[ an energy healing techique]style in which the principle a principle of "gazing" which is very simmilar, if not the same one supposed to be used in what it's being discussed in this thread, is used to act as facilitator in the client's self-healing process. Therefore, if Japanese Reiki has it applied and Japanese Reiki works, thus, by logic, I believe it also works.)

When I came in, I was asked to bring forth evidence. If one sees him/herself with the right to ask for what the later doesn't give in a supposedly fair argument, I don't see such person in an discussion such as this one. I'm seriously talking about being fair. If you want to justify something, you do it. If you want to prove it wrong, you do it by using it's own statements, rather than just accepting them as fake and wanting the other side of the argument to thankfully swallow your words. That would be a harsh opinion statement rather than a rational argument.

I asked for the evidences that sustained the counter-arguments directed to me and recieved something like"It's simply obvious that this is that", or "everyone knows that what you're talking about is 'this'." I did put sources for you to see whether someone is satisfied or not, and they were perfectly ignored.

If one can have the statement that (1) is right because "everyone knows it is", I can then simply state that everyone that knows that "what I'm talking about is something close to what I'm saying, rather than what you just said, knows about how much it is true, (1)." which are both ridiculous evidences, if is it that they may actually be called that.

If I'm on an argument and I ask for what evidence justifies the statement I'm dealing with, I may very well go look for them if given an indication.

Holistic philosophy has explanations about why and how a human being can experience past and possible future experiences, and since holistic philosophy sees the universe as "the complete set" rather than it's tiny parts, you can get to the conclusion, after rational thinking, that:

************************************************** ***************
Independent of how high it is on a scale, an existance of some level may be composed of "lesser" existances of a lower level. These "lesser" existances are connected, since they compose the higher one. By being connected, they may "obviously" manifest a link among them. If they're all equal, thus "fully representing" the higher one, they're all identified with, and aware of, themselves. If they are still unequal and unproperly individualized, they may manifest poorer links among them. The more one section of the higher one is focused in it's particular existance, rather than the collective one, the more it will have difficulties in percieve them.

If you have any doubts or denials towards this, you are well invited to study holistic philosophy to point out where, when, why and how it contradicts itself, or makes itself invalid in any way. It is valuable to mention that concepts embraced by the holistic philosophy can be seen practically in pretty much anywhere and also be used in practice.

As for the Reiki part, there's this link:
http://www.reiki.net.au/copy.asp?id=BenefitsScience

Once again: Reiki -> Gyoshi Ho -> gazing technique ->seeing "spiritual realities" with your physical eyes.

Also, about hallucination, you can take the same structure of the same one being made of lesser others. The more solely focused, the more a section of the whole may be entrained("be entrailed to", I'm not sure if I'm using the right term) to the limited view of its surroundings. Now, let's say we have that kind of situation and a spontaneous sinchronicity manifests itself in the refered section, "forcefully" connecting it to another source, or even more than one. If this would happen, the limited perception would be found in conflict between the poorly individualized reality and the other sections of the higher existance that this section in matter composes. Since the limited, poorly individualized reality is what we can easily see, we would easily see someone plainly going crazy.

Also, the more poorly developed a section is, the less it can percieve it's outsides, since it has way too much problems in it's insides. That may cause someone to experience things about him/herself, and that this person in matter, may judge it as of "spiritual authority".

I believe that this is a fair example for showing why many people who don't know what they're doing go down the hill, all over town, trying to convince people of their spiritual capacities, therefore, creating an undesirable image of spiritual concepts in common western society.

I'm just covering other phenomena with the theory I'm using to test it's functionality, for the record.

I really hope any of you have had enough patience for reading this to this point.

Man, just because Reiki practitioners believe that gazing at your own reflection cures you doesn't fucking mean they're right. You lost your point several posts ago. Stop beating the dead horse.