In Ian Stevenson's cases of investigation of children who remember their previous lives, there are a number of cases where there is a birthmark corresponding to the injury that caused the previous death (i.e. a birthmark where the bullet entered the body of the previous identity).
These are old arguments and I will probably reply with the same old arguments. Imagine . . .
First of all, if we were to just sit around and imagine, I guess we could come up with all kinds of scenarios, xris. Then, can you not see that I have already answered your question?
You have quite specifically stated that a soul is the individual, correct?
Now your being just a bit silly, no one has said that anything is possible by imagination alone
i have answered yours, . . .
I am not totally convinced of the existence of an ethereal soul but by experience i have not rejected this notion, you have.
Would you be willing to specifically relate all the exact details of your experience (not just your mother's), and the circumstances of the occasion? That may help in my possibly being able to explain how your working brain could be seen as having created the experience internally.
I'll ask once more, then:
In the event that you have talking of experience in the objective, or third-person view, and that it had actually been your mother's direct experience which you have always been talking about, then please do related that in detail here.
Well I think that is good. The 'scientific worldview' is in itself a dogma. Since when is it the case that nothing spiritual is real? Who declared it? These things definitely happen. There are people who remember their past lives, their are telepathic experiences, and there are mediums who communicate with the dead.
But so what? I really don't want to get too interested in it either. It is not healthy. If you are practising a spiritual path you are told that psychic events occur, but not to get attached to them, just view them as phenomena that arise. I think they are just facts of life. The issue is that materialism rules and most people only think that the material is real.
Science certainly is dogmatic.
The 'scientific worldview' only contemplates certain kinds of realities
Actually now I think about it, the way the question was asked was, can science agree?
Because 'science knows what is real'. Science knows best.
Therefore, we are appealing to science to validate something we think might have some truth in it but is not mainstream. Is that the motivation?
the late sixties , it was reported a train crash had happened and four passengers had died. The names of those killed would not be published till the next of kin had bee informed. My mother, that night, dreamed one of the passengers, a certain major in the army had left home without saying goodbye to his wife. In my mothers dream he told her of his name and requested she contact his wife telling her he loved her and to say good bye. My mother told my daughter in the morning , me later on in the day, she was visible shaken by the dream. The next day this major was reported in the news papers as one of the dead. My mother refused to contact the wife as she thought the wife might think her cranky. I rang the police and the BBC to see if the names had been announced prematurely, assuming my mother might had overheard this subconsciously, they assured me they had not.
I have rejected the notion, holding that it is by far the least likely scenario, based on accumulated empirical knowledge over a range of variable yet relevent matters. Would you be willing to specifically relate all the exact details of your experience (not just your mother's), and the circumstances of the occasion? That may help in my possibly being able to explain how your working brain could be seen as having created the experience internally.
Its not a premonition, the accident had occurred, my mother new of the accident.
How do you believe she acquired the knowledge of that man's death?
She did not acquire knowledge of his death, but learnt his name. I have asked a question, i dont intend answering yours first.
Science is a method. People can be dogmatic, not methods. People can stubbornly believe (with little evidence) in some things dealing with science and assert their opinions, but this makes the person dogmatic not the method. It makes no sense to say that science is dogmatic. It's like saying the number three is angry; it's a categorical error. Not to mention, science is entirely too diverse for you to be liberally throwing out adjectives, positive or negative.