can you remember being born?? i do

[Silentium]

So maybe this was put in the wrong place...o well. all i know, is that my story is true.

You actually do not know that. You know you believe it but that doesn't make it true.

 

[George-ananda]

You know you believe it but that doesn't make it true.

And Ladybug, know that Silentium not believing it does not make it false.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I definitely do not remember being born. I always thought that it was impossible to have memories before the age of 2 or 3.

 

[StarryNightshade]

The earliest memory I have is biting Christmas tree lights and causing half of our tree to go dark.

I was two, I think.

 

[Badran]

can you remember being born??

I don't remember anything from infancy.

The oldest memories i have include me both walking and speaking.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you thinking she's lying to us?

She may very well "believe" she remembers. So she doesn't have to technically be telling falsehoods intentionally to be wrong.

We'll never know for sure. I give it a serious chance of being real as her experience is not unique and there is much evidence such things do occur even though they don't fit a materialist's worldview.

We may never know for certain. But the evidence points against it without really a single shred of tangible evidence against it.

 

[George-ananda]

But the evidence points against it

What evidence is that?

 

[s2a]

Its the first memory i can remember...except...i was only a spirit. I remember all the sudden being consciously aware of my being...and didnt know where i was. I immediately looked down at my 'hands'...and when i realized i didnt have a body...and i just simply WAS...i thought...o boy...im on earth...this outta be interesting. So i observed the room...to this day i can describe it in detail to my mother...who initially was dumbfounded the first time i mentioned my memory...its very accurate...and very real. I told myself it was a good idea to look out the window...and memorize something...sketch it in my mind...so i would have conformation later or something...so i memorized the opposing windows architecture. Lol. The design of the bricks...i then thought i should search for a clock on the wall....i wanted to make sure i remembered what time i was there apparently...2:45pm. (I was born at 3:12 pm i later found out) I finally was 100% sure i was witnessing my mother in a hospital room when i hovered to the ceiling to get a full-on view. And then.....blackness....followed by what seemed to be a fast moving tunnel of light....and i was calmly inside for the ride....moving at what seemed very high speeds...hard to describe it really...but i passed a few images towards the end of the tunnle...like it slowed down just enough for me to make out a man turning the knob on a 50s style tv console...(i have no idea about that one to this day...but. lol.) That was it...thats all i remember...my next memory wasnt until 1 1/2 or so...so im wondering if anyone can relate? And please...if your going to be rude...take it somewhere else...i seriously experienced this...i believe its 100% true so my 'religion' was formed by the fact that i am a spirit...i dont classify my beliefs into one 'religion'...but ive cut and pasted what fit the facts i new...and what branched out of those facts. Im im happy with it so far...so dont bring me down. thank you...and sorry if that was long winded. Input please and thank you.

*rolls eyes*


Ty for "sharing"... welcome... just know it gets tougher from here

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What evidence is that?

The scientifically gathered information that we have on how memories form, what they are, studies on memory and its development. There are whole studies and droves of scientists that base their life work on understanding memory as a concept. So far nothing indicates (in fact its the opposite) that infants can create memories that are able to last till adulthood.

 

[George-ananda]

The scientifically gathered information that we have on how memories form, what they are, studies on memory and its development. There are whole studies and droves of scientists that base their life work on understanding memory as a concept. So far nothing indicates (in fact its the opposite) that infants can create memories that are able to last till adulthood.

And what do these scientists know about conscious spiritual experiences that occur before a spirit/soul fully incarnates a physical body? And her claim that she was given a 'gift' to remember this?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And what do these scientists know about conscious spiritual experiences that occur before a spirit/soul fully incarnates a physical body? And her claim that she was given a 'gift' to remember this?

That it doesn't seem to have anything to do with memory (if it happens at all) and that the development of (some) language is essential for even basic memories. Consciousness itself is severely limited without language, and once one develops language it becomes impossible to access pre-linguistic memories.

 

[George-ananda]

That it doesn't seem to have anything to do with memory (if it happens at all) and that the development of (some) language is essential for even basic memories. Consciousness itself is severely limited without language, and once one develops language it becomes impossible to access pre-linguistic memories.

The experiencer doesn't care if it has anything to do with memory, language or consciousness as scientists understand it. We are obviously dealing with a claim of something beyond current science's understanding. To the experiencer; It Happened; and if their experience precedes a scientific explanation then that's just the way it is. Do spirits/souls have memory??? Can a person be gifted with certain soul memories???

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The experiencer doesn't care if it has anything to do with memory, language or consciousness as scientists understand it.

Whether "the experiencer" cares or not is irrelevant. The fact is that certain things are necessary for memory and the memory is necessarily affected by particular thing. If there's a ghost in the machine carrying sense memories then, once it's in the machine, it still is constrained by how that machine works.

We are obviously dealing with a claim of something beyond current science's understanding.

We're not. It's quite easily explained by science. False memories are easily created. So are false childhood memories. This is a primary factor in DID (formerly multiple personality disorder) and the Socio-cognitive model (SCM).

Several studies have been conducted which demonstrate the capacity individuals have for “remembering” childhood events which never happened. Two such studies, published in a single article (Hyman, Husband, & Billings, 1995), explicitly connect this capacity with the possibility that recovered memories in those diagnosed with MPD/DID may be false constructs rather than genuine memory. In the first study, the researchers obtained permission from students in a psychology course to send their parents a questionnaire about events they (the students) experienced in childhood (ages 2-10). The questionnaires also limited these events to specific categories, such as getting lost or going to the hospital. After receiving completed questionnaires, the researches obtained a sample (N=20) from the total number of students whose parents completed questionnaires based on scheduling and completion of the experiment. The researchers then conducted two interviews with each student, spaced at least one day apart. Each student was interviewed by the same person for each interview. During the first interview, the subjects were asked to recall between two and five actual events which occurred at age five, and in addition one or two false events (either about a clown birthday party or an overnight hospitalization). The procedure for eliciting responses was the same for both true and false events: the interviewer first offered merely the age and the event title (e.g. overnight hospitalization), and then (if the memory was not recalled) provided other cues such as location or people who were involved. If the event was still not recalled, the interviewer went to the next item. In the first interview, 62 out of 74 true events were recalled and no false events were. The subjects were then asked to think about these events in the span of time before the next interview, but not to contact their parents.
In the second interview, once more the interviewer asked about each event. This time, however, the subjects were asked to supply additional information about the memory of the events (e.g. mental images, past discussions about the memory, etc). During this interview, 4 subjects (25%) recalled a false event occurring (two recalled the clown party, and two the hospitalization). Also of note was the fact that twelve actual events (25% of the total recalled) which were not remembered in the first interview were in the second. It is possible that the subjects simply remembered the events, but given the fact that a quarter of the subjects constructed false memories by the time of the second interview, it is also possible that the subjects simply constructed these memories of true events as well. The questions following the interview (about the recall) were designed to test the nature of the incorporation of the event into the subjects’ memories. Subjects paired false events with real ones, even when these amounted to actual contradictions (such as eating pizza at McDonald’s).
The second study (N=51) was an attempt to build off of the data which were collected from the first. The first study was controlled in a fairly rigid manner (e.g. a single age was used), and limited to two specific false events. The second study, while still controlled, used three different false events which were unlikely in nature, and therefore (perhaps) less likely to be believed as true. Several new true events were also added. Additionally, the ages at which the events occurred varied (2, 6, and 10) based on research into childhood amnesia (at very young ages, very few people can remember anything at all, and that the younger the age, the less is remembered). The authors posited that, as they theorized that self-knowledge is a factor in false recall, false events are more likely to be recalled at a later age, when total memory of events and self-knowledge was greater. As the second study was a more rigorous investigation into recall, the authors required subjects to add greater detail and accuracy to descriptions of recalled events. Finally, the authors added a third interview.
As before, the total amount of recalled events, both real and false, increased with each interview (True: 182/205, 191/205, 195/205; False: 0/51, 9/51, 13/51). The fact that recall of true events increased between all interviews in both studies suggests that at least part of this recall involved constructed memories, although the researchers simply state that it is unclear whether this phenomenon involved false recall or was caused by appropriate cueing or other factors. Once more, none of the false events were recalled in the first interview, and (despite the increased expectancy for detail and accuracy in recall), a significant number (13 or 25.5%) recalled false events by the third interview. However, as this study incorporated the greater detail in recall requirement for subjects, it was possible to divide the false recalls into six very clear and detailed accounts in which the false information was incorporated into memory and elaborated on, five less clear recalls, in which less was incorporated or the accounts given did not incorporate the false event at all but built off of the false information given, and finally two subjects who doubted whether the recalled event was really a memory. Additionally, several subjects recalled the false event, but were unable to describe it in the required detail in order to be included along with those subjects who were counted as falsely recalling the event. While age was not a factor in false recall, background knowledge was significant. Subjects who supplied background information during the interview were far more likely to be subject to false recall.

and if their experience precedes a scientific explanation

I'm going to pretend you meant precludes as I don't understand what you mean otherwise. In any event, there is a scientific explanation for this. It's quite common and well-known. People frequently remember things that didn't happen to them as the causes for this, as well as the nature of such phenomena, have been studied nearly as long as memory.

 

[George-ananda]

Whether "the experiencer" cares or not is irrelevant. The fact is that certain things are necessary for memory and the memory is necessarily affected by particular thing. If there's a ghost in the machine carrying sense memories then, once it's in the machine, it still is constrained by how that machine works.

And can there not still be mysteries in how the machine works; not understood crevices?

We're not. It's quite easily explained by science. False memories are easily created. So are false childhood memories. This is a primary factor in DID (formerly multiple personality disorder) and the Socio-cognitive model (SCM).

Several studies have been conducted which demonstrate the capacity individuals have for “remembering” childhood events which never happened. Two such studies, published in a single article (Hyman, Husband, & Billings, 1995), explicitly connect this capacity with the possibility that recovered memories in those diagnosed with MPD/DID may be false constructs rather than genuine memory. In the first study, the researchers obtained permission from students in a psychology course to send their parents a questionnaire about events they (the students) experienced in childhood (ages 2-10). The questionnaires also limited these events to specific categories, such as getting lost or going to the hospital. After receiving completed questionnaires, the researches obtained a sample (N=20) from the total number of students whose parents completed questionnaires based on scheduling and completion of the experiment. The researchers then conducted two interviews with each student, spaced at least one day apart. Each student was interviewed by the same person for each interview. During the first interview, the subjects were asked to recall between two and five actual events which occurred at age five, and in addition one or two false events (either about a clown birthday party or an overnight hospitalization). The procedure for eliciting responses was the same for both true and false events: the interviewer first offered merely the age and the event title (e.g. overnight hospitalization), and then (if the memory was not recalled) provided other cues such as location or people who were involved. If the event was still not recalled, the interviewer went to the next item. In the first interview, 62 out of 74 true events were recalled and no false events were. The subjects were then asked to think about these events in the span of time before the next interview, but not to contact their parents.
In the second interview, once more the interviewer asked about each event. This time, however, the subjects were asked to supply additional information about the memory of the events (e.g. mental images, past discussions about the memory, etc). During this interview, 4 subjects (25%) recalled a false event occurring (two recalled the clown party, and two the hospitalization). Also of note was the fact that twelve actual events (25% of the total recalled) which were not remembered in the first interview were in the second. It is possible that the subjects simply remembered the events, but given the fact that a quarter of the subjects constructed false memories by the time of the second interview, it is also possible that the subjects simply constructed these memories of true events as well. The questions following the interview (about the recall) were designed to test the nature of the incorporation of the event into the subjects’ memories. Subjects paired false events with real ones, even when these amounted to actual contradictions (such as eating pizza at McDonald’s).
The second study (N=51) was an attempt to build off of the data which were collected from the first. The first study was controlled in a fairly rigid manner (e.g. a single age was used), and limited to two specific false events. The second study, while still controlled, used three different false events which were unlikely in nature, and therefore (perhaps) less likely to be believed as true. Several new true events were also added. Additionally, the ages at which the events occurred varied (2, 6, and 10) based on research into childhood amnesia (at very young ages, very few people can remember anything at all, and that the younger the age, the less is remembered). The authors posited that, as they theorized that self-knowledge is a factor in false recall, false events are more likely to be recalled at a later age, when total memory of events and self-knowledge was greater. As the second study was a more rigorous investigation into recall, the authors required subjects to add greater detail and accuracy to descriptions of recalled events. Finally, the authors added a third interview.
As before, the total amount of recalled events, both real and false, increased with each interview (True: 182/205, 191/205, 195/205; False: 0/51, 9/51, 13/51). The fact that recall of true events increased between all interviews in both studies suggests that at least part of this recall involved constructed memories, although the researchers simply state that it is unclear whether this phenomenon involved false recall or was caused by appropriate cueing or other factors. Once more, none of the false events were recalled in the first interview, and (despite the increased expectancy for detail and accuracy in recall), a significant number (13 or 25.5%) recalled false events by the third interview. However, as this study incorporated the greater detail in recall requirement for subjects, it was possible to divide the false recalls into six very clear and detailed accounts in which the false information was incorporated into memory and elaborated on, five less clear recalls, in which less was incorporated or the accounts given did not incorporate the false event at all but built off of the false information given, and finally two subjects who doubted whether the recalled event was really a memory. Additionally, several subjects recalled the false event, but were unable to describe it in the required detail in order to be included along with those subjects who were counted as falsely recalling the event. While age was not a factor in false recall, background knowledge was significant. Subjects who supplied background information during the interview were far more likely to be subject to false recall.

That was a long-winded way of saying what we already know; False recall can occur. Let me also say; quite accurate recall can also occur. Her experience does not seem to be in the same domain as recall of normal events as you discussed above (have you read the full OP?). The science you’re calling on does does not include the existence of a spirit/soul that can incarnate a newborn right before birth let alone how that can or cannot be remembered (or if some people can be given a gift to remember select key events).

This falls in the domain of what is called paranormal. I have heard way, way too much in this field to believe current science’s attempts to ‘explain it all away’ as aspects of currently understood phenomena.

Her experience dovetails well with many other phenomena and teachings I’ve studied. So, I believe there is a quite reasonable chance that her story is a real event. None of us can say for sure. This blanket dismissal here is what I’m objecting to.

I'm going to pretend you meant precludes as I don't understand what you mean otherwise.

I meant ‘precedes’ as I said, not ‘precludes’. My statement was: To the experiencer; It Happened; and if their experience precedes a scientific explanation then that's just the way it is.

What I was saying is there may someday be a scientific explanation for her experience but there isn’t one in 2013. Eventually science may have a scientific explanation for all so-called paranormal things that includes dramatic new concepts and understandings. So, I was saying the experiencer's attitude is ‘it did happen as I say it happened’ and if there is no current scientific explanation, ‘it still happened’; ‘it is not just false memory’.. They understand that (except perhaps for veridical details) they have no way of proving this to others.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And can there not still be mysteries in how the machine works; not understood crevices?

Plenty. Explaining this isn't one.

Let me also say; quite accurate recall can also occur.

And when you can determine a way to test for these, please do. So far, every experiment has confirmed that contrary to what you state, the recall in question is quite consistent with created memories.

Her experience does not seem to be in the same domain as recall of normal events as you discussed above (have you read the full OP?).

Rather than cite a few hundred studies, I spent a few hundred words on 2. A different kind of detail. Nothing in the OP makes this unexplainable in the least.

if their experience precedes a scientific explanation then that's just the way it is.

"Precedes scientific explanation" simply means that the experience came first, which is always true. One cannot explain an experience via science before that experience happens. If you meant "precedes our ability to explain via scientific theories" then that would be different, but we can explain it now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And what do these scientists know about conscious spiritual experiences that occur before a spirit/soul fully incarnates a physical body? And her claim that she was given a 'gift' to remember this?

As legion stated, what does spiritual experience have to do with memory(which is a biological process that happens within the brain). Then there is the question of "do these spiritual experiences exist?" at least in the way that believers think.

However I'm simply weighing the evidence against each other. On the one had we have in depth studies on memory that seems to indicate one cannot remember one's birth and on the other we have some girl on the internet going to a religious site to give us a nice little anicdote of her birth memory.

Forgive me if I have doubt.

 

[George-ananda]

Plenty. Explaining this isn't one.

All you presented was a possible natural explanation; not that it is the correct explanation. Here is perhaps the core where we divide and will not unite in agreement: I feel that based on my study of the paranormal, the materialist explanations for many phenomena are forced and unsatisfactory and ultimately unreasonable.Yes, that is an opinion. I would probably agree with you on the OP story if it stood alone.

Yes, I understand science cannot accept unproven things (and well it shouldn’t). But what’s important to me in this case is not just science, but what do I believe is the most reasonable beliefs about the universe. In the latter I will consider analysed paranormal evidence.

So far, every experiment has confirmed that contrary to what you state, the recall in question is quite consistent with created memories.

The super-physical interpretation of the experience is also consistent with my super-physical beliefs about the universe.

Rather than cite a few hundred studies, I spent a few hundred words on 2. A different kind of detail. Nothing in the OP makes this unexplainable in the least.

Neither I nor the OP ever said this wasn’t explainable by materialist explanations (except perhaps the veridical details). We’re saying that we don’t believe it should be the assumed correct explanation.

"Precedes scientific explanation" simply means that the experience came first, which is always true. One cannot explain an experience via science before that experience happens. If you meant "precedes our ability to explain via scientific theories" then that would be different, but we can explain it now.

I meant the latter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All you presented was a possible natural explanation

When I drop a ball on the ground, I don't assume that magic makes it move towards the ground. When something as completely explainable as a type of false memory occurs, I don't look to memory spirits or reincarnation or any number of possible explanations. When we have quite plausible explanations, what is the point of examining any possible explanation? When you feel hungry, do you wonder if you're in the matrix or do you just eat? When you see an oncoming car, do you wonder if it is a vision/illusion or just get out of the way?

I feel that based on my study of the paranormal, the materialist explanations for many phenomena are forced and unsatisfactory and ultimately unreasonable

I have no problem with that and I am absolutely for studying the paranormal. I even served as a research advisor once for a study on the paranormal simply because I'd rather have it studied right. For me, however, studying what might be an explanation only makes sense if an explanation isn't staring one in the face. Here, it is.

 

[George-ananda]

When I drop a ball on the ground, I don't assume that magic makes it move towards the ground. When something as completely explainable as a type of false memory occurs, I don't look to memory spirits or reincarnation or any number of possible explanations. When we have quite plausible explanations, what is the point of examining any possible explanation? When you feel hungry, do you wonder if you're in the matrix or do you just eat? When you see an oncoming car, do you wonder if it is a vision/illusion or just get out of the way?

As I said before, if this case stood alone I would agree with you. But I see how consistent this is with a bigger picture. So in this case, I believe a super-physical explanation is quite reasonably possible although I'll never know for sure.

I have no problem with that and I am absolutely for studying the paranormal. I even served as a research advisor once for a study on the paranormal simply because I'd rather have it studied right. For me, however, studying what might be an explanation only makes sense if an explanation isn't staring one in the face. Here, it is.

I see two possible explanations staring me in the face.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I see two possible explanations staring me in the face.

In which case you pick the explanation not filled with superfluous requirements.