Old Souls

[songbird36]

I hope this won't be a spam thread Corporate Whore (I'm not advertising anything except my genius, so don't worry) :lol:

Do any of you believe in the concept of "old souls"? I was thinking about this long and hard while racked with insomnia last night. I've met a few people recently who have said or done things that astound me, in terms of the person's unexpected insight or acuity of perception, or (in some cases) apparent knowledge or experience of something that I know for a fact the person has never experienced.

My older son is a little like this. Occasionally he will come out with statements or insights that make my jaw drop and I think "I am sure he was around in a previous life". I was discussing death with my son the other day and he started talking about some things that really amazed me regarding eternity and afterlife and so on. I asked "where did you get that information" and he said "I just knew".

His personality is "old" and occasionally it feels as if sharing a house with him is like sharing with another adult. This goes beyond mere precocity and I can't quite put my finger on what it actually is.

I'm just interested in whether anyone else knows anyone like this, or has had experiences like this.

[Geoff]

I hope this won't be a spam thread Corporate Whore (I'm not advertising anything except my genius, so don't worry) :lol:

Do any of you believe in the concept of "old souls"? I was thinking about this long and hard while racked with insomnia last night. I've met a few people recently who have said or done things that astound me, in terms of the person's unexpected insight or acuity of perception, or (in some cases) apparent knowledge or experience of something that I know for a fact the person has never experienced.

My older son is a little like this. Occasionally he will come out with statements or insights that make my jaw drop and I think "I am sure he was around in a previous life". I was discussing death with my son the other day and he started talking about some things that really amazed me regarding eternity and afterlife and so on. I asked "where did you get that information" and he said "I just knew".

His personality is "old" and occasionally it feels as if sharing a house with him is like sharing with another adult. This goes beyond mere precocity and I can't quite put my finger on what it actually is.

I'm just interested in whether anyone else knows anyone like this, or has had experiences like this.

He is the INTP one then, I presume. I dont think it is about being an 'old soul'. In my own experience we have a strong sense of 'self' and a tendency to take an individualistic and personal viewpoint on such things as 'eternity and afterlife'.

Remember, an INTP will construct a belief system or universe view on their own... they dont have to wait to be taught a set of rules. So it is normal to find us putting together a world view that we are not qualified (by experience, if you will) to produce.

I can remember my own experience at about the age of 5.. I was bored by the childhood games and had started to construct my own language in my head. I was even taken to see a psychologist before it was realised that I just needed more to stretch me than i was receiving through my schooling.

I can clearly remember adults asking me who had 'told me' about things that I felt I just knew or believed, like this. Yet I tended to just answer, like your son 'that I just know' and have always sought to identify patterns behind an underlying factual set.

I see how it could come across as 'old souls' but I have felt nothing that did not well from within me, so I do not buy into any spirituality beyond the individuals desire to know that which they decide for themselves when they have an INTP type view of the universe.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

This isn't just about forming a view though, it's about knowing the existence (or nature) of something without ever having been told.

My son told me how a part of the body worked the other day and again I asked him "where did you find that out"? He said "I just knew". It's happened quite a few times.

Maybe INTPs are old souls?!

[Geoff]

This isn't just about forming a view though, it's about knowing the existence (or nature) of something without ever having been told.

My son told me how a part of the body worked the other day and again I asked him "where did you find that out"? He said "I just knew". It's happened quite a few times.

Maybe INTPs are old souls?!

I suppose we are talking here about the difference between deducing the existence/purpose of something and actually knowing something that they can *not* deduce for themselves.

I think INTP to deduce reason the universe for themselves - it doesnt mean they are more intelligent of course, but a symptom of being INTP might be the ability to work out the purpose of something on their own internal framework.

It can also be that kids pick up stuff from more sources than you realise (like the background TV) and therefore you think they have no real expectation of knowing but may have picked up.

The idea of old souls in a Buddhist sense (the turn of the wheel) is not one I subscribe to. It is such an illogical premise. But if a child is born and kept in an environment when they categorically can not have deduced things yet they do so regardless, then it is a logical result. I would be surprised if that happened though - it just doesnt fit my understanding of the world.

The way you described the phenomenon, particularly the expression "unexpected insight or acuity of perception" certainly suggests an NP combination, and the I just implies they have worked it out by thinking in their own head.... I think precocity is something that you should not discount. I could read, for example, as long as I can remember (at 3?) I can remember being able to read, and when my Mother went to teach me I already knew how - I had picked up the system from my 18m older sister when she was being taught is my explanation. My Mother has said more than once she does not understand how I learned - yet i can remember (vaguely) filtering the knowledge in at 2-3 something like that. I can certainly remember her bafflement at going to teach me and me already 'knowing' - she probably experienced the same 'old soul' feeling that you are. It is for experiences like this that I discount the spiritual old souls argument, somewhat.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

I'm not sure why it's illogical. Physics dictates that matter and energy do not disperse - they simply change form.

Why then is it illogical to suppose that a soul may survive physical demise? I don't see anything strange about that.

[Geoff]

I'm not sure why it's illogical. Physics dictates that matter and energy do not disperse - they simply change form.

Why then is it illogical to suppose that a soul may survive physical demise? I don't see anything strange about that.

Yes, of course they change form. When brainactivity stops by way of purely normal biological processes in death there is no logical mechanism for the energy (which is no longer being expended) to be carried around the universe and then transfer to another organism, at some future time.

I therefore find it illogical that the a bunch of synapses generating a magnetic/electrical field that we manifest to ourselves as 'existence' can transform itself by some unknown process into the brain of a newly borne infant, and in such a way that the brain (unformed at the time of birth, and therefore like a clean slate) is able to do anything with.

-Geoff

[Ascending]

If I took a flash memory disk with data on it, ground it into dust and sculpted a clay statue out of it would it contain that data? As bad as I am at analogys this is pretty close to what your saying (As I understand it). Data/infomation/wisdom is an extremely complex system of order.

The human neruological system is said to be one of the most complex structures in existance. That the complexity is somehow transfered by mechanism that can't be seen, heard or even has evidence hinting at it seems to be far beyond a leap of faith.

That being said, human psychology is an amazing thing, often doing things that are difficult to explain and may even seem supernatural. If you care to research "Blindsight" on google you may see one example of something that seems beyond common sense.

[songbird36]

I presume then that you all find *energy* illogical and non-existent because we can't see it.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. I am interested in people who have experienced the things I describe.

[indie]

I've thought a lot about this too, SB34

Perhaps wisdom is not acquired, but lost with time. Perhaps a child is born with the basic wisdom to understand of the nature and structure of the universe, and all of its mysteries. But the more he/she is subjected to the ways/thoughts/ideas of society, the more his/her knowledge is questioned, the less influence it has on his/her thought process . .. and eventually that wisdom just goes away.

(Just a theory I've had)

I've met more than a couple children who've had it more "together" regarding the death thing than I want to admit. In fact, I remember writing a letter to my Grandma after her sister passed away. I was probably 8 or 9 and I wrote all this stuff about how her sister was "in a better place" and "not suffering" and I have no idea where that outpouring came from, but it did. She STILL mentions that letter to me every so often, saying she could not believe such a young child could be so sure about things.

Of course, I don't necessarily have the faith now that I did then. . . maybe that is because my wisdom about life and death is receding, and not accumulating.

[Geoff]

I've thought a lot about this too, SB34

Perhaps wisdom is not acquired, but lost with time. Perhaps a child is born with the basic wisdom to understand of the nature and structure of the universe, and all of its mysteries. But the more he/she is subjected to the ways/thoughts/ideas of society, the more his/her knowledge is questioned, the less influence it has on his/her thought process . .. and eventually that wisdom just goes away.

(Just a theory I've had)

I've met more than a couple children who've had it more "together" regarding the death thing than I want to admit. In fact, I remember writing a letter to my Grandma after her sister passed away. I was probably 8 or 9 and I wrote all this stuff about how her sister was "in a better place" and "not suffering" and I have no idea where that outpouring came from, but it did. She STILL mentions that letter to me every so often, saying she could not believe such a young child could be so sure about things.

Of course, I don't necessarily have the faith now that I did then. . . maybe that is because my wisdom about life and death is receding, and not accumulating.

If I can twist this a little, I think children are borne without preconceptions. Like a blank slate they are written by their upbringing, as conditioned by the particular 'style' of brain they have inherited.

Therefore the creation of a system that involves an afterlife is just the outpouring of a growing brain, particularly an INTP one that seeks to decide for itself what and how the universe works, but at that time is not yet coloured by a detailed knowledge of other people's opinions and widely accepted facts.

So I would say children are not born with wisdom, they are born with intellect. They can be ground down by contact with society so that their intellect is tempered by the constantly reinforced view that they are not old enough to know better...

-Geoff

[garak]

That used to happen to me as a kid ("where did you learn that?" "how did you know that?" .... "i dunno"). I don't think souls or religion or anything even enter into the equation; the kid's just able to connect the dots better than most.

[Lee]

It's strange reading Geoff's story about reading because my experience was very different, what I know is pieced together from memories and what I have been told about my childhood. Apparently I did not learn to read properly until about 6 or 7 and then, but by the time I was 10-11 was assesed as having the reading age of a 14-15 year old, I can't really remember why this may have been but it is a radical departure from Geoff's experience.

I think the illusion of "old soul" comes out of how our brain processes infromation, as people age they begin seeing patterns, noticing similarities, predicting events, they begin viewing the big picture. This old age wisdom comes after many years of viewing the world as concrete, factual and sequentially, it just happens that some people are born with brains that produc ethis behaviour. I often throughout childhood could through intuition would figure out all sorts of things before I was told, I would often be asked "who told you that" I could only reply "nobody". This intuition caused me many problems in the real world of standardized testing because these tests would not except my descriptions of how things happened, they would insist on using proper terminology or answering using key words....this is where my intuition would fall apart and become a weakness, rebelious INTP behaviour kicked in as I began to fight a system that made little rational sense to me and so a downward spiral began.

We are not blank slates and I believe youthful wisdom is a result of genetic, inherent brain physiology with only a small amount of influence derived from nuture.

[Ascending]

I presume then that you all find *energy* illogical and non-existent because we can't see it.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. I am interested in people who have experienced the things I describe.
On the contrary that would be quite absurd. I believe in energy.

Wind, electricity, cosmic rays, radio waves, none of these can be seen directly with our eyes. They can be seen though the testable and retestable effects they have on the world they exist in. Energy can be seen.

Do not take my comments to be rude as I have no personal agenda against you. However such arguments are rather illogical. (I was almost afraid to use that word. Not alogical as they are actualy using logic but in a confused manner.). When you say you are only interested in people who have experineced the things you describe you mean that you only wish to see data that supports your belief. A perfectly normal thing to do, but not the best for finding unbiased data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

On the contrary again, I am a religious person. Obviously we exist (leaving nihlism sit for a moment) and therefore we have somewhere to start for arguing a first cause. All I have seen thus far to support reincarnation are illogical statments.



I'm not sure why it's illogical. Physics dictates that matter and energy do not disperse - they simply change form.

Why then is it illogical to suppose that a soul may survive physical demise? I don't see anything strange about that.
Unfortunatly this is what I would euphamistically call Hollywood Physics. Movie writers are not physists, some seem to even lack a firm grasp on logic. Anyone see Spiderman 2? Suspension of disbelief was a bit of a workout there.

The idea of the soul finding a new body is I'm afraid cut up by Ockham's Razor. What I mean to say is: whats more likely?

1.)That some children notice simple truths about the workings of life and do not have the vernacular to articulate how they came about this understanding.

or

2.)That there is an embodyment of the essence of a person existing that does not interact with objects or energys in this world in any testable way that is yet able to transend a the death of a body and impliment itself into a new complex neurological structure (person).

Both are possible, but apply Ockham's Razor for yourself. Which requires the most assumptions?

-In search of Truth -Logan

[Lee]

1.)That some children notice simple truths about the workings of life and do not have the vernacular to articulate how they came about this understanding.

or

2.)That there is an embodyment of the essence of a person existing that does not interact with objects or energys in this world in any testable way that is yet able to transend a the death of a body and impliment itself into a new complex neurological structure (person).
I am going to go with........hhhmm........number 2, because it's sounds more pleasent to believe in :)

[Ascending]

I'm sorry, I was distinctly trying to avoid a cynical appearance.

[Lee]

I'm sorry, I was distinctly trying to avoid a cynical appearance.

I am just being silly, ignore me (I might also be trying to make a point, who knows :whistle: )

[s0978]

Agreeing with "it's an INTP thang."

And it's still really wonderful to experience the moments of "I just know."

[indie]

If I can twist this a little, I think children are borne without preconceptions. Like a blank slate they are written by their upbringing, as conditioned by the particular 'style' of brain they have inherited.

Therefore the creation of a system that involves an afterlife is just the outpouring of a growing brain, particularly an INTP one that seeks to decide for itself what and how the universe works, but at that time is not yet coloured by a detailed knowledge of other people's opinions and widely accepted facts.

So I would say children are not born with wisdom, they are born with intellect. They can be ground down by contact with society so that their intellect is tempered by the constantly reinforced view that they are not old enough to know better...

-Geoff

I like that.

Here's another thought I had about wisdom. . . Oh, and by wisdom, I mean the basic ablility to *know,* unyieldingly, the truth of a matter.

Let's say a person shows a child a piece of paper with the color blue on it. That person tells the child "Okay, kiddo. This is a piece of paper with the color BLUE." The child accepts that at face value. He/she thinks: Okay, THIS is the color blue. No matter what, I'll always be able to identify THIS as blue. Blue will always be blue. No one ever questions his knowledge, so he goes on believing that blue is blue because that is what he was told.

Now, let's say a person shows a child a piece of paper with the color blue on it, and that person says Okay, kiddo, this is the color RED**. A child would accept that "truth," and think Okay, THIS is the color red. No matter what, I'll always be able to identify THIS as the color red. Red will always be red. But, inevitably, someone will come along and say, "That's not red, that's blue." The child will know something is not right. He'll question enough people, and eventually come to the conclusion that red is red, not blue.

Perhaps there are some things that children just *know* . . . they just *know* that blue is blue, even if someone else tells them it's red. It doesn't matter what anyone CALLS it, it just is what it is. But when enough people tell him that he's seeing red and not blue, he'll eventually believe that.

If you saw blue for the first time and someone (everyone else) told you it was red, would you ever be able to trust your sensibilites again? Would you begin to believe society over your self? Isn't this how children are conditioned? Learn, child, learn. Learn this, and this and this and this and this and this because THIS is how it is. Isn't this similar to those "wise" things children just know. . . those uncanny things that children sense?

Wisdom is similar to the color analogy in that it is something a person posesses, and something that no one else is able to confirm or deny . . . but the second someone DOES deny it, its very foundation begins to crumble and the foundation for conformity of thought begins.

Well, I've certainly digressed enough for one post, but it is something to *think* about, eh?

**assuming the child is not color blind

[songbird36]

Well off on a tangent for a minute, there *is* a recognised phenomenon of limbic, or atavistic, memory (i.e. memories passed on genetically so that a person is subconsciously preprogrammed to respond to certain events or stimuli in a certain way). These sorts of responses are stored in the "old" brain.

I wonder whether memory and knowledge can somehow genetically span generations in this way, even if the concept of soul survival is not accepted.

[Ascending]

That is quite interesting. May I see a source please?

I don't believe instinct would be the same thing you refer to. Instinct would not be the personal memories of the previous generation.



As soon as the herring-gull chick hatches, it looks at its mother. The mother has a long yellow beak with a red spot on it. And the chick starts pecking at the red spot, begging for food. The mother then regurgitates half-digested food into the chick's gaping mouth, the chick swallows the food and is happy. Then Tinbergen asked himself: "How does the chick know as soon as it's hatched who's mother? Why doesn't it beg for food from a person who is passing by or a pig?"

And he found that you don't need a mother.

You can take a dead seagull, pluck its beak away and wave the disembodied beak in front of the chick and the chick will beg just as much for food, pecking at this disembodied beak. And you say: "Well that's kind of stupid - why does the chick confuse the scientist waving a beak for a mother seagull?"

Well the answer again is it's not stupid at all. Actually if you think about it, the goal of vision is to do as little processing or computation as you need to do for the job on hand, in this case for recognizing mother. And through millions of years of evolution, the chick has acquired the wisdom that the only time it will see this long thing with a red spot is when there's a mother attached to it. After all it is never going to see in nature a mutant pig with a beak or a malicious ethologist waving a beak in front of it. So it can take advantage of the statistical redundancy in nature and say: "Long yellow thing with a red spot IS mother. Let me forget about everything else and I'll simplify the processing and save a lot of computational labour by just looking for that."

That's fine. But what Tinbergen found next is that you don't need even a beak. He took a long yellow stick with three red stripes, which doesn't look anything like a beak - and that's important. And he waved it in front of the chicks and the chicks go berserk. They actually peck at this long thing with the three red stripes more than they would for a real beak. They prefer it to a real beak - even though it doesn't resemble a beak. It's as though he has stumbled on a superbeak or what I call an ultrabeak.

[ApeTheDog]

I would like to add two things.

First of all, sometimes I know things without remember where I learnt them. That's because I mastered them and the source, or the ideas that led me to come to the conclusion aren't directly attached to what I learnt. I took all that I knew, and discovered new truth in it. The source is literally all that I know. That may be what your son means when he says: "I just know". He may not remember where it came from.

Secondly, sometimes a person can say something really smart by happening to pick the right words, without meaning them as such. Again, something I have experience with. Perhaps your son said something really smart, but that doesn't necesarily mean he realises the full extend of what he said.

[Arioch]

This isn't just about forming a view though, it's about knowing the existence (or nature) of something without ever having been told.

My son told me how a part of the body worked the other day and again I asked him "where did you find that out"? He said "I just knew". It's happened quite a few times.

Maybe INTPs are old souls?!

I used to be like that as a child. Actually I still am sometimes.

[Lee]

Well off on a tangent for a minute, there *is* a recognised phenomenon of limbic, or atavistic, memory (i.e. memories passed on genetically so that a person is subconsciously preprogrammed to respond to certain events or stimuli in a certain way). These sorts of responses are stored in the "old" brain.

I wonder whether memory and knowledge can somehow genetically span generations in this way, even if the concept of soul survival is not accepted.

Genetic memory does get passed on from generation to generation for example facial expressions mean pretty much the same thing (odd exceptions excluded) regardless of where in the world you are, regardless of how remote and distanced the society is from the rest of civilisation (source: Understanding Emotions - Paul Ekman). Such information is probably genetically encoded into the brain, if it were not then different cultures would have very different systems of facial communication, this is a strong argument to use agaisnt strict behaviouralism. Humans, like animals have genetic memory, innate structures in our brain that have evolved over millions of years to allow us to enter the world and be able to react to it appropriately, however the limitations of this kind of memory mean the "old soul" phenomenom is unlikely to find it's cause here.
I think the "old soul" behaviours a child might display are infact just the childs intuition connecting the dots and making logical assumptions about the world. I am reminded of a what Jung said about the young learning by tearing the world apart and the old by sewing it back together, I find that many people, especially sensates and even moreso sensate judgers learn by seperating the world, they divide details and information into seperate fields or stages, catorgarize and sub-catorgarize, erecting barriers between the infomation in there minds. The intuitive mind takes a very different appraoch, intuitives are in fact almost incapable of not connecting the dots, and think in a very fuzzy usually visual-spatial way, this leads to difficulty in remembering and dealing with the very facts and organization that sensates thrive on. Intuitive Percievers have the final advantage in this "old soul" phenomona, they are almost compelled to prove themselves wrong, explore the possibilities and usually fail to come to a clean conclusion because of this, thier combination of thouroughness in understanding all points of view and thier intuitive connect the dots nature means thier nuerons make more cross-referencing connections and comparisons, hence allowing them to come to conlclusions through leaps of imagination.

Intuitive minds (especially NP's) never really go through Jungs stage of tearing the world apart, they skip to the end.

[Geoff]

Genetic memory does get passed on from generation to generation for example facial expressions mean pretty much the same thing (odd exceptions excluded) regardless of where in the world you are, regardless of how remote and distanced the society is from the rest of civilisation (Understanding Emotions, Paul Ekman). Such information is probably genetically encoded into the brain, if it were not then different cultures would have very different systems of facial communication, this is a strong argument to use agaisnt strict behaviouralism. Humans, like animals have genetic memory, innate structures in our brain that have evolved over millions of years to allow us to enter the world and be able to react to it appropriately, however the limitations of this kind of memory mean the "old soul" phenomenom is unlikely to find it's cause here.
I think the "old soul" behaviours a child might display are infact just the childs intuition connecting the dots and making logical assumptions about the world. I am reminded of a what Jung said about the young learning by tearing the world apart and the old by sewing it back together, I find that many people, especially sensates and even moreso sensate judgers learn by seperating the world, they divide details and information into seperate fields or stages, catorgarize and sub-catorgarize, erecting barriers between the infomation in there minds. The intuitive mind takes a very different appraoch, intuitives are in fact almost incapable of not connecting the dots, and think in a very fuzzy usually visual-spatial way, this leads to difficulty in remembering and dealing with the very facts and organization that sensates thrive on. Intuitive Percievers have the final advantage in this "old soul" phenomona, they are almost compelled to prove themselves wrong, explore the possibilities and usually fail to come to a clean conclusion because of this, there combination of thouroughness in understanding all points of view and thier intuitive connect the dots nature means thier nuerons make more cross-referencing connections and comparisons hence allowing them to com to conlclusions through leaps of imagination.

Intuitive minds (especially NP's) never really go through Jungs stage of tearing the world apart, they skip to the end.

That certainly sounds 'right' to me. Of course the human body contains a basic 'how to be a human kit' which has a basic instruction set on which we are all based. The fact that facial exhibition of an emotion or intent is largely fixed by this is not surprising.. if we have common ancestors then this was part of the kit when we were still bashing mammoths over the head. But this does not (correctly) I think, give any mechanism for passing on anything 'learned' during life - like a personality or historical knowledge on to the next generation either directly through evolution or by way of 'magic'. All evolution can do is make a more successful kit part of the next generation. So if humans with brains that contain a common set of emotional display characteristics have a better chance of breeding in prehistory they will pass this on to the next generation as their survival quotient was higher. This all makes perfect sense.

Thank you for the insightful post Lee - as an aside did you see Horizon the other week about Human vs Neanderthal early prehistory and the analysis of the brain and its basic skills therein between the two? It was fascinating!

As for the intuitive jumps that bypass sensory facts and 'rules' that the NP combination gives, that would explain the 'uncanny' way that INTPs are often viewed as children - it is part of what stands us aside amongst our friends.

Does this desire to connect the dots explain me trying to create my own language (I was talking in it at about 3 as well as english because I was 'bored' with English which I felt I understood the rules for) - is this classic NP response to a universe? Or is this the display of the fact that coupled with my NP is a stronger E than most INTP - was I extroverting my NP onto the world by way of an external linguistic construct.

I am sure the NP leaps explain people asking me more than once as a child 'how I know' - as I alluded to my Mother had the same thoughts when I was able to read before I was formally taught by anyone. I can remember it being obvious how to connect the dots between 'words' and create a linguistic set that turned out to be 'correct'.

These earliest development phases for me, as with many children as so hugely centered around language. The human child in the earliest years is programmed to learn and look for languages, so to find an INTP developing their own or jumping to the 'end' without going through the rules is perhaps not a surprise that their activities even (at that early age) are linguistically driven. Does anyone else have that 'linguistic' early year development that they can remember as a child?

-Geoff

[Lee]

These earliest development phases for me, as with many children as so hugely centered around language. The human child in the earliest years is programmed to learn and look for languages, so to find an INTP developing their own or jumping to the 'end' without going through the rules is perhaps not a surprise that their activities even (at that early age) are linguistically driven. Does anyone else have that 'linguistic' early year development that they can remember as a child?

I actually have quite a different experience with language, as I said in an earlier post and will repeat here - I was a slow learner when it came to reading and did not learn to read competently until about 6 to 7 however once I started reading before very long I was the best reader in my class and by 10 or 11 years old I was assesed as having a reading age of 14 to 15.

My experience starkly contrasts yours in many ways, I cannot directly remember much of this process, most of it has been told to me by my parents when I inquired one day and so I am unsure of why I developed like this. Maybe I was emulating Einstiens approach to speaking by refraining from taking part until I was sure of my ability or more likely the teaching techniques were not in my style and therefore it took me a while to grasp the big picture, I really don't know for sure? (I seem to be fairly right-brained in behaviour, maybe that has something t do with it.)

[Lee]

Thank you for the insightful post Lee - as an aside did you see Horizon the other week about Human vs Neanderthal early prehistory and the analysis of the brain and its basic skills therein between the two? It was fascinating!

Sadly no :(

I do not watch very much TV, had I known it was on I may have made sure I caught it.....but alas I am not often incharge of whats on the TV where I live (bloody stupid eastenders :mad: )

[Clara]

It's strange reading Geoff's story about reading because my experience was very different... I did not learn to read properly until about 6 or 7 and then, but by the time I was 10-11 was assesed as having the reading age of a 14-15 year old, I can't really remember why this may have been but it is a radical departure from Geoff's experience.

I think the illusion of "old soul" comes out of how our brain processes information... ( old age wisdom comes after many years of viewing the world as concrete, factual and sequentially ) it just happens that some people are born with brains that produce this behaviour....

This intuition caused me many problems in the real world of standardized testing because these tests would not except my descriptions of how things happened, they would insist on using proper terminology or answering using key words....

We are not blank slates and I believe youthful wisdom is a result of genetic, inherent brain physiology with only a small amount of influence derived from nuture.
Yes. ( I was also late in starting to talk - and, I still take "longer" for learning to do some - "mechanical" - processes... )

songbird, I'm in agreement with ApeTheDog's post ( all of it; and particularly : "... mastered them and the source, or the ideas that led me to come to the conclusion aren't directly attached to what I learnt. I took all that I knew, and discovered new truth in it. The source is literally all that I know." ). That said, I know that "what we know" changes as we talk about it... ummm. Wait. There's a risk, here, of making something that's just one way of a brain doing it's stuff... seem "mysterious" -- it's not. It's just a different way of sorting through the world from the INTJ way.

And, what the heck, I'm going to throw this in : talking with brilliant people ( and - yup - there are many was in which to express brilliance ) is a lot of fun...
[ ... maybe it's amazing, because... we can't choose everything - but, we can share some of the insight resulting from the experience of our various choices... whatever, I'm very glad that the necessity for exchanges seems to be built in :) ]

[jimkopelli]

I'm kinda like that... except I remember where I learned things, usually, even if it's a book that I read 12-15 years ago. I even remember what the page looked like...

[cjs55]

I think this effect occurs when my Ne outpaces my Ti =)

[songbird36]

The arguments in this thread have proceeded in a predictable direction.

I wasn't suggesting atavistic memory is an explanation for the "old soul" phenomenon - I was merely using it to illustrate the point that not all forms of memory and consciousness are derived from the "present conscious" state.

I will be more interested to contribute further if I can see some evidence that INTPs are prepared (in the words of Hamlet) to acknowledge that there may be "more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in our philosophy". I

In all discussion threads on spirituality I detect a mindset that I would associate far more with strong sensates, which is to say that nothing exists unless we can apprehend it with our five senses. I find that argument very limited and rather disappointing amongst a group of highly intelligent rationals.

[cjs55]

I can in retrospect always point out what things led me to certain conclusions. Sometimes though, I'm not sure at the time.

I just, at least personally, see no reason to reach anywhere like that for an explanation for anything I have known. And other people seem to work pretty similarly.

[CoHo]

I will be more interested to contribute further if I can see some evidence that INTPs are prepared (in the words of Hamlet) to acknowledge that there may be "more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in our philosophy". I

To be honest it doesn't sound like you want people that acknowledge the possibility exists, you want people to believe the possibility exists.

Plenty of people here have provided very interesting content to the subject matter the only problem is their conclusions and theories aren't the answer you were looking for. Is the problem simply that you are being the narrow minded one?


which is to say that nothing exists unless we can apprehend it with our five senses.

Nononononononononononononononononononononono!

It is the other way around! I am saying that if YOU want to claim that something exists you need to be able to PROVE IT!

[songbird36]

I was simply disappointed that most of the argument in this thread (while intriguing and interesting) has been centred around disproving my hypothesis rather than outlining actual experiences (which is what I wanted).

In terms of the substantive argument there is no law of physics I can think of which necessarily militates against the survival of a soul, after corporeal existence has ended. If anyone can point me to a law which dictates against it, I will accept that.

[songbird36]

Oh and by the way, I am not claiming this phenomenon *does* exist, I am saying that it *may* exist, and it is interesting to ponder on its possible existence.

[Lee]

Oh and by the way, I am not claiming this phenomenon *does* exist, I am saying that it *may* exist, and it is interesting to ponder on its possible existence.

I cannot say it does not exist, I hope it does, but I do not think it does.

You say this thread has went in a predictable direction and has not went in the direction you had wished which was to debate about the soul, however your initial question was about children (your child in perticular) who show an uncanny understanding of the world almost as if they have been here before.

I do not wish to disprove your hypothosis, I cannot disprove the souls existence, even if I wished to there is no way to disprove something that is supernatural, non-corporeal and exists only in the realm of ideas.

As for the "old souls" situation, it sounds very like reincarnation which makes no sense simply because the maths of population involved make it impossible.

However for the purposes of this discussion I am quite happy to entertain the idea that I have a soul, I will simply pay attention to the side of myself that I believe most people think to be thier soul.

[songbird36]

As for the "old souls" situation, it sounds very like reincarnation which makes no sense simply because the maths of population involved make it impossible.


What do you mean by this?

And what the heck does "behind Boo..doing stuff" mean? It sounds incredibly rude..lol

[Geoff]

What do you mean by this?

And what the heck does "behind Boo..doing stuff" mean? It sounds incredibly rude..lol

There are more people alive today, than yesterday, and more than the year before, and considerably more than 10,000 years ago. How does the maths work?

That is what he means, I think.

-Geoff

[Lee]

There are more people alive today, than yesterday, and more than the year before, and considerably more than 10,000 years ago. How does the maths work?

That is what he means, I think.

-Geoff

Bingo! sorry I should have explained.

[Geoff]

I was simply disappointed that most of the argument in this thread (while intriguing and interesting) has been centred around disproving my hypothesis rather than outlining actual experiences (which is what I wanted).

In terms of the substantive argument there is no law of physics I can think of which necessarily militates against the survival of a soul, after corporeal existence has ended. If anyone can point me to a law which dictates against it, I will accept that.

I think you are missing the point of the discussions. We have been outlining similar experiences in our own lives. In mine certainly where I considered myself to have been the recipient of an 'old soul' experience in the eyes of other people.

We have also attempted to explain why this occurs in the world, and in a logical way. A number of people have set out valid hypothesis as to why it is experienced the way it is. I dont notice anybody arguing a strong disapproval of anything you have said.

The most likely explanation is usually the right one.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

I have not noticed this in my life.

Sometimes a kid will know/do something amazing. And then promptly follow it up by sticking his finger in an electrical outlet.

[songbird36]

I think you are missing the point of the discussions. We have been outlining similar experiences in our own lives. In mine certainly where I considered myself to have been the recipient of an 'old soul' experience in the eyes of other people.

We have also attempted to explain why this occurs in the world, and in a logical way. A number of people have set out valid hypothesis as to why it is experienced the way it is. I dont notice anybody arguing a strong disapproval of anything you have said.

The most likely explanation is usually the right one.

-Geoff

I wouldn't say that your explanation is more *likely*. I would say that it is simply an explanation that fits (or sits) more comfortably with conventional views of the nature of human existence.

There are a lot of phenomena which exist (telepathy, seances, spirit communication etc) - I'm thinking of that Cockney guy on TV who's name I can't remember, that we still cannot explain. Yet it is difficult to deny the existence of these things or to simply "explain them away".

I think the nature of the soul (or whether it in fact exists) is one of these things.

[Sam172]

Do any of you believe in the concept of "old souls"?
A close friend told me once that he thought I was an old soul. I'm not sure how he came to the conclusion, but I just smiled at him and went back to watching the river run past.

[Geoff]

I wouldn't say that your explanation is more *likely*. I would say that it is simply an explanation that fits (or sits) more comfortably with conventional views of the nature of human existence.

There are a lot of phenomena which exist (telepathy, seances, spirit communication etc) - I'm thinking of that Cockney guy on TV who's name I can't remember, that we still cannot explain. Yet it is difficult to deny the existence of these things or to simply "explain them away".

I think the nature of the soul (or whether it in fact exists) is one of these things.

There are more things in heaven and earth etc etc. I wouldnt be at all surprised to see at some point in the future a scientific acceptance of one of those things (telepathy, for example, in some sense).

But souls being passed from one human to another? It isnt a very likely explanation to me. If it was we would all spend a lot more time with deja vu than we do.

-Geoff

[Lee]

I wouldn't say that your explanation is more *likely*. I would say that it is simply an explanation that fits (or sits) more comfortably with conventional views of the nature of human existence.

There are a lot of phenomena which exist (telepathy, seances, spirit communication etc) - I'm thinking of that Cockney guy on TV who's name I can't remember, that we still cannot explain. Yet it is difficult to deny the existence of these things or to simply "explain them away".

I think the nature of the soul (or whether it in fact exists) is one of these things.

Because of the nature of the concept of "soul" the previous theories expressed need not contradict the idea of us all having souls.

Talking of phenomena such as those you mention, I do not know whether you have heard of Derren Brown, he has done a series of programs in which he instigates, takes part in and controls these phenomona and then explains what he did is scientific in nature and not supernatural. It's very enlightening, funny and entertaining.

[Philo]

There are more people alive today, than yesterday, and more than the year before, and considerably more than 10,000 years ago. How does the maths work?

That is what he means, I think.

-Geoff

This only demonstrates that there are enough souls for those being born. These don't all necessarily have to be old souls. For all we know there could be a "waiting list" of souls looking for a body, which would certainly be one explanation for population growth.

[Lee]

This only demonstrates that there are enough souls for those being born. These don't all necessarily have to be old souls. For all we know there could be a "waiting list" of souls looking for a body, which would certainly be one explanation for population growth.

Perfectly valid point, I was knocking reincarnation which strictly speaking is not the same as the concept of an "old soul".

They should be seperated in the discussion hence forth.

[Geoff]

This only demonstrates that there are enough souls for those being born. These don't all necessarily have to be old souls. For all we know there could be a "waiting list" of souls looking for a body, which would certainly be one explanation for population growth.

Absolutely, I was just clearing up what Lee meant!

-Geoff

[Philo]

Perfectly valid point, I was knocking reincarnation which strictly speaking is not the same as the concept of an "old soul".

They should be seperated in the discussion hence forth.
Again, not necessarily. Isn't it part of the Hindu tradition that souls have to go through several levels of reincarnation, and repeat levels until they get it right? IIRC, they also had an the idea of a "new soul" as well.

We could also approach the idea of an old soul as a new soul that simply has the same "energy signature" as a previous soul, thus tapping into some universal harmonic that gives the person access to the old memories.

This is the kind of discussion that can be really interesting after a few pints, if you're with the right crowd in the right environment. I don't think I'd use it to strike up a conversation at the local pub on a Friday night, though. :thelook:

[Geoff]

Again, not necessarily. Isn't it part of the Hindu tradition that souls have to go through several levels of reincarnation, and repeat levels until they get it right? IIRC, they also had an the idea of a "new soul" as well.

We could also approach the idea of an old soul as a new soul that simply has the same "energy signature" as a previous soul, thus tapping into some universal harmonic that gives the person access to the old memories.

This is the kind of discussion that can be really interesting after a few pints, if you're with the right crowd in the right environment. I don't think I'd use it to strike up a conversation at the local pub on a Friday night, though. :thelook:

You'll have to organise your own beer then, and have a discussion of it on here.

Isnt the concept of a universal wheel where reincarnation in the next life is based upon past performance, a little odd?

I dont think anyone can logicallly argue this, it sits firmly within the realms of alogical religion.

-Geoff

[Lee]

You'll have to organise your own beer then, and have a discussion of it on here.

Isnt the concept of a universal wheel where reincarnation in the next life is based upon past performance, a little odd?

I dont think anyone can logicallly argue this, it sits firmly within the realms of alogical religion.

-Geoff

I think if you wish to partake in this discussion you have to leave logic at the door.

[Geoff]

I'll just go find that beer then...

[songbird36]

You'll have to organise your own beer then, and have a discussion of it on here.

Isnt the concept of a universal wheel where reincarnation in the next life is based upon past performance, a little odd?

I dont think anyone can logicallly argue this, it sits firmly within the realms of alogical religion.

-Geoff

A we're back to the predictable old broken record view that religion is inherently illogical.

Bah humbug. Philo you make some very good points - if souls are in fact an energy source, or repository, they could find a "home" in anything (even in an inanimate object temporarily while they wait for a human subject).

[Philo]

You guys go ahead. I'll have to catch up later (still at work :( ).

[Geoff]

A we're back to the predictable old broken record view that religion is inherently illogical.

Bah humbug. Philo you make some very good points - if souls are in fact an energy source, or repository, they could find a "home" in anything (even in an inanimate object temporarily while they wait for a human subject).

Allogical ie not to be argued about in a logical way to one end or another. As in go ahead, be logical or illogical it doesnt matter :)

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Dammit boo and myself are the ones that drag threads to a halt using "alogical"!

[Lee]

Why is it souls are always considered some form of energy? energy is something that existes in physics, if souls are supernatural and outside physics then surely they are not energy....

The whole concept of soul is hard to grasp simply because there is no logical framework in which to begin discussion....

I think the soul is our being, our consciousness that tracends reality and yet mirrors it, recording like a sketch pad the events before it, nothing clear cut and as defined as reality but a muddled reflection that trancends all else.....maybe.

[songbird36]

No the concept of the soul does not have to sit outside physics in the realm of the supernatural.

It could be regarded as akin in nature to energy or gravitational force. We just need to find an explanation for it.

[nBT]

hmm why do i always skip the interesting threads?

i agree with lee about children not having learned 'to be responsible'. im curious why (with SJ's being the bright example) adults lose the ability to respond like children. maybe this has some connections to songbirds 'old soul' question.

if i remember correctly child psygology develops from genes to culture. somewhere around 3 years the child develops 'the self', and is capable of precieving others. from that time he/she learns communication. wich is information regulation. it could be argued that before that time the childs consiousness is not completly 'woven' in the physical body. but cant say fer sure. just a rash thought.

with no end

[Lee]

No the concept of the soul does not have to sit outside physics in the realm of the supernatural.

It could be regarded as akin in nature to energy or gravitational force. We just need to find an explanation for it.

No, you are right the soul does not have to sit outside physics, *logic re-enters the conversation* I simply referred to it as such because that is how many see it.

The *spam* thread earlier attempted to explain the soul through science, the claim was that physical matter dictated to by the laws of physics could not create consciouness, otherwise wouldn't everything be conscious. The claim was that consciouness is outside of but connected to the physical reality of the world, this mysterious alternate to reality was where our soul resided and consciouness is it's window into reality....I don't think the guys right but it's a theory relavent to the discussion.

[Geoff]

No, you are right the soul does not have to sit outside physics, *logic re-enters the conversation* I simply referred to it as such because that is how many see it.

The *spam* thread earlier attempted to explain the soul through science, the claim was that physical matter dictated to by the laws of physics could not create consciouness, otherwise wouldn't everything be conscious. The claim was that consciouness is outside of but connected to the physical reality of the world, this mysterious alternate to reality was where our soul resided and consciouness is it's window into reality....I don't think the guys right but it's a theory relavent to the discussion.

Well, it sounds more reasonable the way you describe it. I would prepared to buy the idea of a soul as something outside of the universe with a window into our universe.

It was just the poor arguments I disliked, not the premise. The logical leaps to a conclusion!

-Geoff

[Lee]

Well, it sounds more reasonable the way you describe it. I would prepared to buy the idea of a soul as something outside of the universe with a window into our universe.

It was just the poor arguments I disliked, not the premise. The logical leaps to a conclusion!

-Geoff
Thats because he did not deal in facts, he was simply giving us a series of opinions disguised as facts. His arguments lacked substance and it was clear he was looking for evidence to fit *his* answer.

[songbird36]

Yes I asked the admins to get rid of him - he was a nuisance.

[Lee]

Yes I asked the admins to get rid of him - he was a nuisance.

I personally did not mind, he had an interesting thing to say, we discuss it, say whats wrong with it and the thread dies down, I don't think the informations source is of great importance, alterantively any user may have posted a link to his website and we would have discussed it in much the same way.

Back on souls...

Souls are always associated with strong emotion, do you feel emotion takes precident over intellect or logic when talking about the soul? the latter is always associated with the real world, science and rationality which are often posed as being directly opposed to the idea of the soul. Or is this situation a just reflection of the prejudices of individuals in either camp.

[Philo]

Ok, catching up a bit...



Isnt the concept of a universal wheel where reincarnation in the next life is based upon past performance, a little odd?

I dont think anyone can logicallly argue this, it sits firmly within the realms of alogical religion.

-Geoff
I'm not that familiar with the way it works. However, one person described it to me as going to school. You pass each grade, unless of course you fail and repeat a grade. Eventually you "graduate". It made sense to me at the time. The idea of an ever continuing wheel doesn't, unless we're talking about a soul spiralling out from the hub, eventually to be "thrown" from the outer edge of the wheel.

I think religion can be discussed logically. It's when people aren't willing to accept the possibility that their particular dogma may be wrong that things break down.

[Philo]

Souls are always associated with strong emotion, do you feel emotion takes precident over intellect or logic when talking about the soul? the latter is always associated with the real world, science and rationality which are often posed as being directly opposed to the idea of the soul. Or is this situation a just reflection of the prejudices of individuals in either camp.
Ooo, nice question. There was another ancient tradition along the lines that male and female were once part of the same being, until God split them up for some reason. So now our lives are spent trying to be whole by finding our other half. Perhaps the same idea can be applied to logic and emotion? Both are part of the same soul, and it's our life's work to reintegrate the two?

Yeah, I know: it's a completely alogical thought. The idea does fit the concept of duality in a number of religions, however.

[Lee]

Ooo, nice question. There was another ancient tradition along the lines that male and female were once part of the same being, until God split them up for some reason.

Well the first organisms we evolved from had no sex, they reproduced asexualy, single celled organisms and the like.

[Lee]

So now our lives are spent trying to be whole by finding our other half. Perhaps the same idea can be applied to logic and emotion? Both are part of the same soul, and it's our life's work to reintegrate the two?

Self-actualization - If I were Jung.

But just as every person is different wouldn't every soul place different demands upon it's bearer, I talk about the soul as being seperate from the physically real self, the two are still part of the same.

[Lee]

Yeah, I know: it's a completely alogical thought. The idea does fit the concept of duality in a number of religions, however.

Ah, duality the big fallacy of religion, there are no black and white situations in this world, what would be a good word that could replace duality but express a spectrum like quality where the centre of this spectrum was relative to the position in space-time.....hmmm

[nBT]

Ah, duality the big fallacy of religion, there are no black and white situations in this world, what would be a good word that could replace duality but express a spectrum like quality where the centre of this spectrum was relative to the position in space-time.....hmmm

hmm

[C.J.Woolf]

Can an "old soul" be called "enlightened" instead?

Myths contain truth provided you don't take them literally. It might be total hooey that one person is enlightened and another is not because the first one's soul has more life experience, but it sure appears that way to me and I think it's not a bad analogy.

However, I believe that what we call "wisdom" or "enlightenment" is a set of talents and skills -- it's the ability to perceive reality as it really is and to decide and act harmoniously with reality. You make reality your friend and not your enemy. Some are fortunate enough to have it naturally, some can develop it with practice... and some will never even see the need for it and hence never get it.

[Ascending]

The arguments in this thread have proceeded in a predictable direction.

I will be more interested to contribute further if I can see some evidence that INTPs are prepared (in the words of Hamlet) to acknowledge that there may be "more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in our philosophy". I

In all discussion threads on spirituality I detect a mindset that I would associate far more with strong sensates, which is to say that nothing exists unless we can apprehend it with our five senses. I find that argument very limited and rather disappointing amongst a group of highly intelligent rationals.
Am I right in understanding that basicly you wish us to believe things that there is absolutly no indication of. I do consider intuition a sense.

I have seen no arguments provided that could not be turned to support any idea I happend to make up on the moment.


The earth moves about the sun, what is the better explanation for this.

1.The earth moves about the sun because of gravitational forces.
2.The earth moves about the sun because of gravitational forces, that were created by a short blue alien race.

Both are completly possible.

Ockhams Razor. Really useful to have in the toolbox.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

[Lee]

which is to say that nothing exists unless we can apprehend it with our five senses.

Just for the record, we actually have more than five senses and I am not refering to intuition which just makes clever use of the information the proper senses gather.

[Architectonic]

Can an "old soul" be called "enlightened" instead?

Myths contain truth provided you don't take them literally. It might be total hooey that one person is enlightened and another is not because the first one's soul has more life experience, but it sure appears that way to me and I think it's not a bad analogy.

However, I believe that what we call "wisdom" or "enlightenment" is a set of talents and skills -- it's the ability to perceive reality as it really is and to decide and act harmoniously with reality. You make reality your friend and not your enemy. Some are fortunate enough to have it naturally, some can develop it with practice... and some will never even see the need for it and hence never get it.

Exactly.

[Eileen]

Just for the record, we actually have more than five senses and I am not refering to intuition which just makes clever use of the information the proper senses gather.

Elaborate, please. Veeerrryy interesting statement to me.

(And the intuition to which you refer is extraverted intuition--perhaps you know that already. It is a distinct process from introverted intuition.)

[Sir Isaac Lime]

post-hoc rationalizations :(

[songbird36]

Can an "old soul" be called "enlightened" instead?

Myths contain truth provided you don't take them literally. It might be total hooey that one person is enlightened and another is not because the first one's soul has more life experience, but it sure appears that way to me and I think it's not a bad analogy.

However, I believe that what we call "wisdom" or "enlightenment" is a set of talents and skills -- it's the ability to perceive reality as it really is and to decide and act harmoniously with reality. You make reality your friend and not your enemy. Some are fortunate enough to have it naturally, some can develop it with practice... and some will never even see the need for it and hence never get it.

It's not wisdom I'm talking about here - it's knowledge of an actual fact or phenomenon that the person had no way of knowing about. I'm talking about something a lot less vague and waffly than wisdom.

Example: A friend of mine described very accurately and with a huge amount of detail an overseas place that she told me she had never been to or read about. I could choose to disbelieve her (no doubt I would if I were an INTP), but because she is an honest and sincere person I choose to believe her.

[Lee]

Elaborate, please. Veeerrryy interesting statement to me.

(And the intuition to which you refer is extraverted intuition--perhaps you know that already. It is a distinct process from introverted intuition.)

Balance requirs that we use another sense that we are hardly aware of in everyday life. the vestibular system and those chemicals in the inner ear that help regulate balance, I think that is classed as sensory input and not in eof the ordinary five either.

Introverted intuition still uses information gathered by the senses, it just does not do it immediately, it cleverly constructs ideas out of memory, memory which was originally gathered by the senses.

[Birdsnest]

Its quite possible that intps may be old souls. One person in a course I went to was an aura reader and said I was an old soul, because she saw blue light emanating around my aura. Most of the population are "yellow" and are in the searching mode, they are people that are always searching. Blue is medium, it equates to about 6-800 lives that you've incarnated (and they say time is manmade, so you can incarnate in past or future).

Blue is the "perfecting" soul stage, and considered an old soul.

You have to take into consideration that this is an estimate, but the general heirarchy of what souls have to "learn" ie pain, searching, perfecting, teaching, etc is below:

I vaguely remember the order:

clear (first several lives) 5
grey (People with new karma, that have to learn "pain" ie, gladiators) 20
green (People with extreme karmic lessons, prisoners, slaves) 100
yellow (Searching souls, majority of population) 200-500 lives
blue (Perfecting souls that "just know things") 6-800 lives
orange (teachers) 8-1000 lives
gold (Famous teachers, Famous people that teach others, Book writers with a lot of followers) 1000-1400
white (Jesus, Buddha) 1500-2000 lives

You can move through the heirarchy faster if you "learn" your karmic lesson faster.

[Pierce]

I'm not a believer in the old soul theory; what interests me are the phenomenon that give rise to it.

I've witnessed many incidents that defy linear, cause and effect explanations with both children and adults. One of my remarkably intuitive sons, before the age of 3, would explain his oft uncanny statements with the simple declaration that, "the angels told me." Further inquiry only produced mild irritation that one might expect from someone trying to explain something so obvious as to be evident from simple observation. While I've always been unusually intuitive and spiritually perceptive, I was not able to perceive what he was experiencing, though I did not doubt his honest and uncomplicated explanations.

Over the years, I've come to view the old soul ideas as emmanating from a combination of heightened perception and perspective. Perception not through the natural 5 senses, but intuitive senses, which, like physical senses, become more objective with use. I wrote about it in another thread, so I won't elaborate on it here. The other factor, I think is perspective. A child and adult will view the same events with widely varying interpretations; as will a parent and a grand parent, or an employee and an employer.

The capacity and focus of perception provides for observation of the raw data, and perspective conditions the interpretation. Catagorizing and defining the modes of intuitive perception and the levels of perspective is of great interest to me, but I rarely find others that share this interest (even among INTPs).

[CoHo]

white (Jesus, Buddha) 1500-2000 lives

Fuck, I need more quarters

[CoHo]

yellow (Searching souls, majority of population) 200-500 lives

By this theory eventually everyone will be like Jesus or Buddha, and at basically the same time. I don't see a mass expansion of awareness occurring the last 10,000 years, why should it occur in the next?

[songbird36]

Actually it's interesting you should mention Jesus and Buddha. They were both individuals with extraordinary supernatural powers (such as healing in Jesus's case and levitation in Buddha's).

If spiritual energy can be concentrated and distilled over a number of lifetimes in this way, it would explain why some individuals possess extraordinary powers and energy, while others do not.

By the way, I am not saying that I believe all this myself, but I think there is enough in it as a possibility, to make it worth talking and debating about.

[Geoff]

It just seems so ridiculous... really. I am not narrow minded, but well I have a sister who claims to see auras. All I can say is when I get into a heated discussion with her over this, she usually claims my aura is 'red'. Aha.

There just seem to be people who are closer to the edge of the accepted universe. My sister has seen ghosts, her ex husband was regularly abducted by aliens, she has had problems with hauntings - a bad one after a session with tarot cards. Poltergeists. Dreams where she has predicted when people will die etc.
And honestly, she *firmly* believes all of this. Particularly the auras (aurae?).

My hypothesis is that people like this are the reason for the happenings around them, and not that there is anything outside of their own response to the universe.

Likewise old souls - the mechanism is just too unlikely to be a believable theory. Worthy of at least discussion, but I do not see a reasonable premise with any shred of likely truth.

-Geoff

[Lee]

It just seems so ridiculous... really. I am not narrow minded, but well I have a sister who claims to see auras. All I can say is when I get into a heated discussion with her over this, she usually claims my aura is 'red'. Aha.

There just seem to be people who are closer to the edge of the accepted universe. My sister has seen ghosts, her ex husband was regularly abducted by aliens, she has had problems with hauntings - a bad one after a session with tarot cards. Poltergeists. Dreams where she has predicted when people will die etc.
And honestly, she *firmly* believes all of this. Particularly the auras (aurae?).

My hypothesis is that people like this are the reason for the happenings around them, and not that there is anything outside of their own response to the universe.

Likewise old souls - the mechanism is just too unlikely to be a believable theory. Worthy of at least discussion, but I do not see a reasonable premise with any shred of likely truth.

-Geoff

I propose that the old soul phenomenon is as of a result of chickens, these chickens have a deep and full understanding of the universe, however thier physical form does not allow this knowledge and wisdom to be expressed and so these souls venture off to find new born human souls and imbue them with thier knowledge and wisdom, this is the cause of the old soul phenomemon.

[Geoff]

I propose that the old soul phenomenon is as of a result of chickens, these chickens have a deep and full understanding of the universe, however thier physical form does not allow this knowledge and wisdom to be expressed and so these souls venture off to find new born human souls and imbue them with thier knowledge and wisdom, this is the cause of the old soul phenomemon.

I think you'll find the egg theory came before this one.

-Geoff

[Lee]

I think you'll find the egg theory came before this one.

-Geoff

Eggs have nothing to do with the process because the spiritual energy has not developed sufficiently to harbour the knowledge and wisdom of a hatched chick......I mean honestly.....egg's with spiritual energy of that degree, I have never heard anything so absurd in my life.

[songbird36]

Likewise old souls - the mechanism is just too unlikely to be a believable theory. Worthy of at least discussion, but I do not see a reasonable premise with any shred of likely truth.

-Geoff

It's in the nature of inductive phenomena (like the discussion of God). If it exists at all it is unlikely to be something science will ever be able to devise a law for.

Science actually does have its limitations.

[cjs55]

Some pretentious clarification:

The reason most of us think it is unlikely has nothing to do with science but rather an intuitive application of experience and systems and finding the premise an unlikely fit into said system. Which is also how the whole God arument was going as well.

When we ask for 'proof', it is not necessarily scientific proof. We are simply trying to find a place to fit the premise into our understanding of reality. If it doesn't fit, we say its unlikely.

[C.J.Woolf]

Over the years, I've come to view the old soul ideas as emmanating from a combination of heightened perception and perspective. Perception not through the natural 5 senses, but intuitive senses, which, like physical senses, become more objective with use. I wrote about it in another thread, so I won't elaborate on it here. The other factor, I think is perspective. A child and adult will view the same events with widely varying interpretations; as will a parent and a grand parent, or an employee and an employer.

The capacity and focus of perception provides for observation of the raw data, and perspective conditions the interpretation. Catagorizing and defining the modes of intuitive perception and the levels of perspective is of great interest to me, but I rarely find others that share this interest (even among INTPs).
That's what I was trying to say in my previous post; well put. As an IT weenie, I also look at this in terms of data vs. information. We're all exposed to the same data, but differences in how we process the data leads to different information. Moreover, you'll never get everyone to agree on what the data is. Many of us are predisposed to ignore some data, while others (like Geoff's sister, I believe) are predisposed to invent data. What you get after such data distortion is often worse than no information at all.

[Pierce]

Many of us are predisposed to ignore some data, while others (like Geoff's sister, I believe) are predisposed to invent data. What you get after such data distortion is often worse than no information at all.

I doubt that she (Geoff's sister) is inventing data -- I'm not even sure it is possible to invent data (short of becoming a god). For a long time I was married to an unusual woman of remarkable emotional sensitivity. Her process for evaluating information was diametric to mine (emotional vs. rational) yet so oft were our conclusions congruent, I was chronically dumbfounded. Much of the "data" she considered was invisible to me (the rational mind filters out a great deal of what it considers to be extraneous white noise) and the speed of her process ran circles my more methodical, analytical approach. I would temper her excesses and we made a good team, but it required a great deal of mutual respect -- at length, I developed emotionally and she developed rationally. I say this to point out that there are modes of data gathering that we rationals are not very good at, but that does not mean that they are invalid; they may include such things as dreams, visions or even auras or other intangibles. The data gathering is half of the struggle.

The other half lies in interpretation. In addition to the obvious aspects of perspective and vantage, one must consider the condtion of the interpretative process. Like a bloated computer program, or an excessively complex, or inaccurate equation, many people take a long, circuitous, maze-like route to process their data, and along the route the data becomes corrupted and their conclusions flawed. The maze-like process itself becomes the lens through which they view all things and it colors and taints all their thought. The process is convoluted -- crooked -- and it reminds me of an ancient children's rhyme...


There was a crooked man,
And he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence,
Beside a crooked stile;
He bought a crooked cat,
Which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together,
In a little crooked house.

In fact, I think we are all crooked and we all walk our crooked paths, earn our cooked finances, establish our crooked relationships and live in the crooked little houses of our own making, unable to see what lies beyond the limits of our mental systems. Occam's razor is sometimes helpful, but inadequate to set us free from ourselves.

[Apostasius]

I doubt that she (Geoff's sister) is inventing data -- I'm not even sure it is possible to invent data (short of becoming a god). For a long time I was married to an unusual woman of remarkable emotional sensitivity. Her process for evaluating information was diametric to mine (emotional vs. rational) yet so oft were our conclusions congruent, I was chronically dumbfounded. Much of the "data" she considered was invisible to me (the rational mind filters out a great deal of what it considers to be extraneous white noise) and the speed of her process ran circles my more methodical, analytical approach. I would temper her excesses and we made a good team, but it required a great deal of mutual respect -- at length, I developed emotionally and she developed rationally. I say this to point out that there are modes of data gathering that we rationals are not very good at, but that does not mean that they are invalid; they may include such things as dreams, visions or even auras or other intangibles. The data gathering is half of the struggle.

The other half lies in interpretation. In addition to the obvious aspects of perspective and vantage, one must consider the condtion of the interpretative process. Like a bloated computer program, or an excessively complex, or inaccurate equation, many people take a long, circuitous, maze-like route to process their data, and along the route the data becomes corrupted and their conclusions flawed. The maze-like process itself becomes the lens through which they view all things and it colors and taints all their thought. The process is convoluted -- crooked -- and it reminds me of an ancient children's rhyme...

In fact, I think we are all crooked and we all walk our crooked paths, earn our cooked finances, establish our crooked relationships and live in the crooked little houses of our own making, unable to see what lies beyond the limits of our mental systems. Occam's razor is sometimes helpful, but inadequate to set us free from ourselves.

How does one adjudicate different ontologies, modes of data gathering, or interpretations? Are all equally valid? If so, are all equally sound?

Is there no way of straightening our crookedness? Are we resigned to a type of arthritic self-deception?

[Pierce]

How does one adjudicate different ontologies, modes of data gathering, or interpretations? Are all equally valid? If so, are all equally sound?

Is there no way of straightening our crookedness? Are we resigned to a type of arthritic self-deception?

Distilled, "What is truth?"

Facts do not represent truth. Facts represent data. Truth, I liken to meaning. Further, I don't suppose that truth is arrived at by the correct assemblage of the correct facts. Facts are a product of truth rather than the other way around. Since I ascribe to the theory of a creator God, my assumption is that the universe and everything in it, both the real and the surreal, are formed from the top down rather than the bottom up. Dimensionally speaking, this would mean that a line is derived from a plane, and that no collection or arrangment of lines can comprehend planeness. So, to knock at the door of truth plying facts is both endless and futile.

While there is no value in denigrating anothers' truth, to suggest that all interpretations are equally valid and/or sound reduces the very idea of truth to the lowest claim of truth. It's like a man claiming that chaff and gold have the same value -- not very discriminating. In such a view, truth is meaningless.

Certainly, each person's perception of truth is relative, but that does not mean that truth itself is relative. In my view, God is Truth, and what we seek is apprehended through relationship with God rather than the acquisition of and arrangement of facts. The logical process of collecting and evaluating data is useful in discriminating between various models of ontology in the same way a connoisseur discriminates between good wine and bad, but the train of logic does not have truth as a final destination. A spring boad, a leaping off place, is what it provides.

Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

As for straightening our crookedness...

Isaiah 42:16 - And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.