Past Life Regression

[thecorndogwalker]

Thanks for the responses on the PLR and Hypnosis. And the emails. If anyone has any questions on past life regression let me know.... Its fun, safe and really revealing... Its also great doing it with a group...

[Alex]

My apologies for what was originally here. I never see the forums so I forget that they exist.

My dismissal of Past Life Regression wasn't appropriately placed.

[mousepod]

There I went, going out on a limb to make sure Alex wasn't only target of what could potentially be a nasty argument, and he goes and retracts his statement.

I do not want to give the impression that I'm trying to insult anyone here at the LoT .

I'm sure that if the topic is brought up in a different manner, and I feel I can add something constructive to the conversation, I will do so.

Consider my snipe withdrawn, as well.

[Not Afraid]

Eh, who's to say. But, people are free to believe - and post about what they believe - here at LoT.

[3894]

Never look back, I say. But looking forward, in my next life I'm coming back as a super model.

Fair warning.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Well, you know 3894, Super Models don't live long. ;)

I'd like to come back as breast implants.

[Capt Jack]

if I can help it, I aint comin back.

[Gn2Dlnd]

My feeling about past life regression is that it's most likely revealing our subconscious image of ourselves, or how we'd like others to perceive us. In high school I know a girl who's father was featured on "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy. Through past life regression, he "discovered" he was a former King of Atlantis. He was, in real life, a man who owned a small security system intallation and monitoring company, and I think he thought of himself a something of a benevolent leader/caretaker.

That said, I'd be curious to know what my subconscious would dredge up, and I'd definitely like to know what Alex's has to say!

(I'm also curious to know what inflammatory remarks were pancaked, you guys are being entirely too civil)

[blueerica]

Civility is for the birds!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I would assume that thecorndogwalker is well aware of the skeptics and can respond accordingly. And personally, I think I would find that debate to be an interesting read. Still, I would imagine that he may not define "fun" as in debating your profession online with a bunch of people you have just met, and he should be the one to instigate such a debate if he so chooses. As it stands, it is probably best for those who are skeptical (myself included) to wait for an appropriate opportunity. This thread doesn't seem to be that vehicle and I think the editing of remarks was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Just my two cents...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Don't you just love :cakes: threads? I have no clue what transpired here, but as long as all is copacetic, I don't need to know. :)

I completely missed the conversation in the welcome thread! Like GD said there, he and I and some friends did a lot of hypnosis experimentation years back. Totally intriguing and fun.

Re: PLR, I agree with this man:
My feeling about past life regression is that it's most likely revealing our subconscious image of ourselves, or how we'd like others to perceive us. This is why I'm actually kind of scared of doing a PLR-style session. I'm worried I'd reveal something awful about myself. Doesn't mean I'm not going to go for it, but with trepidation.

[bewitched]

:confused:

Anyway...

I wonder if PLR would tell me about someone I have a "relationship" with, but have absolutely no ability to get along with. We both agree that we must have been married in a former life since our lives (despite our efforts to the contrary) seem to keep intersecting.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I'm worried I'd reveal something awful about myself. Doesn't mean I'm not going to go for it, but with trepidation.


Probably something to do with muffins.

[innerSpaceman]

it is probably best for those who are skeptical (myself included) to wait for an appropriate opportunity. This thread doesn't seem to be that vehicle and I think the editing of remarks was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
I have to disagree with you here, MBC. I'm rather instantly fond of corndogwalker myself ... but just because he's new around here is, imo, no reason to walk on eggshells. He started a thread called "Past Life Regression" - and if that's not invitation enough to discuss the topic in all its permuations, I don't know what is.

I'm not a big fan of pancaking either* - but as long as it's done in the time period for editing, everyone is free to edit their remarks.


(* for the benefit of corndogwalker - I will simply state that the verb, to pancake, is to go back and completely remove the text of some post, usually inflammatory in nature, and replace it with something innocuous ... as in "I like pancakes." To do this with complete authenticity, you must do it after the editing time has expired ... but it's come to apply to any such reconsideration and erasure of a post. We even have an emoticon for it!)



Anway, while I feel that past life regression is a bit on the hooey side, I'm sure it would be fun and illuminating to try it. However, it's really the least interesting aspect of hypnosis, as far as I'm concerned.

[lashbear]

I'm not too sure who would be revealed in my past lives, but I bet they all liked cooking !

...and I would even consider trying PLR with TCDW - that would make for an interesting Trip Report



PS: Please - nobody say anything bad about Shirley McLaine..... she could be any one of us ! :D

[thecorndogwalker]

I am so cool with whatever anyone wants to post.. Thanks for the responses and all the mojos and pm's.. I just thought it would be fun to start up a PLR thread.. I promise to never make anyone sizzle like a bacon if i put them under hypnosis...

Unless you like the frying pan...

But back to the topic... (should you believe)
I usually ask people if they ever been to a place they felt like they been to before, but never actually been there? Or met someone for the first time and had a strong reaction.. or watched a movie, gone to a museum or even saw a picture and felt so connected to that time period? It all has something to do with the past life..

i see it as just a belief system... i mean all eastern religions believe in it. heck some western religions... and although i dont really belong to a religious group.. i do find myself directed more to the spiritual side..

what i am really trying to say is that i usually quote the fundamentals of disney... "all you have to do is imagine!" pretty simple..

[mousepod]

Dear corndogwalker,

I feel I should "unpancake" myself just a little because I have strong feelings about the subject and people here in the thread don't seem to mind if I share them.

First of all, I'm sure you're a terrific guy. I don't think that you joined the LoT to further your profession or gain a new client list. The fact that you are contributing directly to the happiness of someone I respect and admire gives you major bonus points, and indirectly contributes to my own happiness.

But you need to know something about me. I am a skeptic. That may not be as conspicuous in my posts as in Alex's posts, but I am nonetheless. In the past, I have participated in many different religious and "spiritual" rites (from getting sober to getting married) and I don't feel damaged or regretful about any of them. In fact, I have the utmost respect for anyone's belief system if it makes them happy.

For me, there's a difference between a culture that is rooted in belief, and what is most often referred to as "new age philosophy". It's either part of a culture, or it's not. I don't ever hear anyone saying "Let's go down to the synagogue and wrap tefillin. It really centers me - you should try it!" or "Hey, wanna face mecca and pray for a minute - it's a kick." (Unless you're talking to a religious Jew or Moslem, of course). Yet I can't count the number of times someone I know who considers themselves atheistic or even "spiritual" has encouraged me to "try acupuncture (http://skepdic.com/acupunc.html) (or homeopathy (http://skepdic.com/homeo.html)... or reiki (http://skepdic.com/reiki.html)... or psychic (http://skepdic.com/psychic.html) readings... or regression therapy (http://skepdic.com/pastlife.html))... it's just fun (or "it can't hurt to try")". It's either a belief system or it ain't. You can't have it both ways.

Further, I bristle when said encourager is also someone who makes a profit from the practice. At best, it just feels wrong. At worst...

Anyway, that's who I am and what I think. I am always open to a difference of opinion (that's why I'm a skeptic and not an unbeliever), and I promise to "keep an open mind". But you need to know I'm a big fan of evidence.

... and I like pancakes.

Your new friend,
Jesse

[BarTopDancer]

mmmm pancakes.

[Alex]

Well, if it is going to be open for discussion I'll first own up to what I originally said. In its entirety my post up there was:

and complete bull****

Anyway, my first three questions for thecorndogwalker are:

1. Do you believe that when you do this you are tapping into actual past lives had by the person?

2. If not, what do you believe is happening?

3. Approximately what success rate do you (and other practitioners) have for tapping into these past lives (or whatever you think is being tapped)?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

If all that you wrote was "and complete bull****," I think that was an appropriate pancaking. An intellectual discussion of belief systems is something that interests me. Being rude to a new member is not.

[thecorndogwalker]

Okay.. its all good.. everyone has an opinon.. it was probably my original threadstarter.. (my first post) i was actually responding to people who were chatting with me on the other thread -(welcome the corndogwalker!) who were asking me questions about past life regression...
In my original post i said it would be fun, responding to the fact that I do it with friends when we are hanging out.. (I believe it) But I dont care if someone does it... its different and exciting.. and i am not doing it for money... or looking to do it for money on this site.. I get that..

however.. i enjoy helping people and if someone really believes a certain procedure can help them change for the better and not really hurt themself. then by god lets do it...

if there werent skeptics then the world would be boring place...

plus the fact that i have a choice today to pick and choose things to enhance my spirituality doesnt hinder my belief system.. it just adds to it...

so, when i said it was fun... it is... but isnt life fun??

[Disneyphile]

Hell, I totally believe in past lives, and that people cross each other's paths when they sometimes have "unfinished business" from one of those past lives.

I like my beliefs - I'm happy with them, and they harm no one. :)

Corndogwalker, I'd love to chat about it. :D

[Alex]

So I had some questions about past life regression (as you offered in the first post). The mojo was nice, but I'd rather know the answers.

[Gemini Cricket]

I love fantasizing about past lives stuff. It's great. There are definitely places I have been to for the first time that I have felt I have been before. There are also time periods that seem more comforting than this one to me. I'm interested. It sounds fun.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

While I completely believe in a thing akin to past lives and future lives, and constantly interacting with the same kindred "spirits" lifetime after lifetime ... I just doubt hypnosis's ability to tap into such a thing. Too many people turn out to have been Cleopatra, if you know what I'm sayin.


I'd still love to try it, and see what happens. But if I'm not particularly interested in past lives and I don't want to quit smoking ... what other things can you do hypnotically, mr. corndogwalker?

[Gn2Dlnd]

But if I'm not particularly interested in past lives and I don't want to quit smoking ... what other things can you do hypnotically, mr. corndogwalker?

He gets me to leave doors unlocked.

[lashbear]

He gets me to leave doors unlocked.

and zippers ? :evil:

[Alex]

Even if reincarnation is real, it is statistically unlikely than any individual person now living had a string of previous lives, so if, as some claim, the success rate (in properly conditioned subjects) is more than 80% where do those lives come from?

When hypnotized and told to connect to an earlier life why is that result evidence of real events when being hyponized and told to act like a chicken (or Diana Ross) is not evidence that one was once a chicken (or Diana Ross)?

If it is just a parlor game, are the charlatons who do charge for it unethical?

If it is well established that hypnosis can be used to create strongly held false memories (most famously in discovering "repressed memories" of childhood sexual abuse and alien abduction), why is that not a more likely answer for recovered memories of past lives?

[Gn2Dlnd]

The word "charlatan" implies that the hypnotist (or psychiatrist, priest, chiropracter, dog whisperer, etc.) knows they're running a scam. If the person practicing a particular treatment believes in it and finds it useful, and the person receiving a particular treatment, whether or not they believe in it, walks away having received some benefit, would you consider that unethical? My roomate moved in as a smoker. He used hypnotherapy as an aid to quit smoking and it was successful. Was the hypnotherapist a charlatan? Was he unethical because he charged money? I'd have to say no. Whatever the hypnotherapists personal motives were, my roomate is much happier.

Your statement presumes that "unethical" or not, anyone who charges money for something you are skeptical about is a charlatan.

Don't worry. No one's going anywhere near your, or anyone else's, wallet on the LoT. Unless you want some cheese crisps.

[Alex]

No, my question does not presume that. My question presumes that if it is a parlor game, then the people who claim its truth are, whether knowingly or not, commiting a fraud. My question for thecorndogwalker is, if PLR is just a fun little game then what are his thoughts on people who charge for it and quite seriously defend its reality and efficacy.

I haven't said a word about hypnotherapy in general and its efficacy. Just past life regression and I feel I asked some valid questions for which I am interested in hearing thecorndogwalker's answers. Since thecorndogwalker feels it is therapeutic ("a certain procedure can help them change for the better") I'm interested in what he fundamentally thinks is happening when this is done.

So, to rephrase without the word charlatan:

thecorndogwalker:

1. When you do this, do you believe that the participants are, in reality, connecting and discovering details of actual past lives lived by that person?

2. How does this field account for the fact that a success rate is generally claimed for this procedure that is much larger than the ratio of currently living people to world populations in the past. For example, there are currently more than twice as many people as 40 years, three times as many as 100 years ago and six times as many as 200 years ago. This implies that only one out eight people currently living could have lived a life during the Rennaissance and only 50% could have a past life at all. Further defying the odds, why do so many people seem to have lived past lives of prominence (not necessarily current-day famous, but generally well above the statistical mean for the era)? Which Cleopatra is the real one?

3. If you do not believe that actual past lives are involved but rather PLR is a method for exploring how a person actually thinks about themselves, revealing their subconscious and this is known to practitioners, is it ethical for those practitioners to mislead participants in order to achieve this benefit?

4. PLR has many advocates who claim prominent examples of the therapy revealing historically verifiable information that could not possibly have been known to the participant or the therapist. But so far, most have not suffered thorough examination well, revealing either that someone involved actually knew the information, the information was actually vague and just attached to specific information, or the information was misinterpreted (such as thinking an unknown foreign language was spokent but wasn't). In your personal practice of this do you feel anybody has ever revealed such historical information and have you or the participant made any attempt to verify it?

5. Since hypnosis is most famously used to make people behave as they otherwise wouldn't. Since false memory implantation, particularly through hypnosis, is well established. Since hypnosis opens you up to suggestibility and behavior and speech known to not be true, what distinguishes PLR so that there is confidence that what is said is real and not just a response to suggestion?


So, yes, I am skeptical of past life regression. But I am honestly curious how you address such questions as a person who practices it. And if there were a "fun" group doing it I would be interested in observing (quietly, of course).

[innerSpaceman]

Even if reincarnation is real, it is statistically unlikely than any individual person now living had a string of previous lives
Huh?


Um, just what are the rules about reincarnation, Alex? How does that incarnation cap work exactly?

[€uroMeinke]

I think population growth creates a problem if you believe reincarnation only a human to human thing - if you include the rest of the animal kingdom, there are plenty of extinct populations to draw from. None-the-less, I suppose it does presume some finite number of souls which may come up against ideas you might have about the infinite nature of the universe.

[innerSpaceman]

Besides that it might be folly to apply mathmatics to something as mysterious as reincarnation, the statistical model makes the rather provincial assumption that souls are limited to the place and timeflow of our own Earth.

[JWBear]

Also that new souls aren't "born".

[Alex]

Well, that is what I'd like thecorndogwalker to address. In my reading on the subject I don't come across many reports of people reporting that they were once a groundhog or generic alien entity. But if they were that too would be interesting and then statistically the odds of having twice been a human in the last few centuries are pretty slim.

innerSpaceman, I don't intend to limit it to the place and timeflow of earth, those are just the vast majority of claims I've seen for recovered past lives. I do not intend to impose rules on reincarnation, but intend to respond to the fact that overwhelmingly the reported knowledge of past lives are from one human life to another human life (and generally within the same race). If there are extensive reports of people finding they were aliens in another universe I'd like to be aware of them (and again, if that is the case then statistically being a human twice would be pretty unlikely).

If it is simply immune to any rational consideration, I'd be interested in that claim as well (since PLR is generally presented in at least a pseudo-rational context).

That is why I am taking the opportunity offered by thecorndogwalker to ask him questions about PLR. I can certainly create contextual structures that deal with my questions (particularly if I am willing to put it outside the realm of rational evidence) but I'd just be making **** up. I don't think my questions are unreasonable and presumably the proponents of PLR have spent time thinking about them so I'm curious what their conclusions are.

To rephrase that part again (so that I don't seem to be imposing my own rules on reincarnation):

If cross-species, universe-wide reincarnation is real, it is statistically unlikely than any individual person now living has experienced a past human life. If it is limited to human-to-human transfer then it is statistically odd. So what would explain the claims (in looking around I'm seeing claims of more than 80% when the participants enter into the process believing that discovering past lives is possible) of a vast majority of participants finding just such connections.

If I am wrong and most PLR sessions actually find that nobody present (as statistics would lead us to expect) has previously experienced a human life but rather non-human terrestrial or non-terrestrial life (or if discovery is limited to human-to-human transfer, a smaller than half result, declining the farther back you go) then that is very informative and I appreciate having my understanding corrected, but my other questions are still intriguing to me as well.

[bewitched]

Personally, I think Alex has some interesting questions (and don't you feel validated?).

I'm on the fence about this. I have a hard time believing but then where does deja vu come in? Where do "connections" with other people come in?

On the other hand, I think a lot of "PLR" can be explained by the theory of parallel universes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000) (a subsection of superstring theory) which would confirm the experience of other lives.

[Alex]

I can't read the whole article but at least with the two paragraphs shown the text does not match the headline.

The headline mentions parallel universes but the text is discussing the implications of an infinite universe. Which, I believe, are different things (though maybe they are connected in the full article).

Since you raised it, though, I'd be curious how parallel universes (and which theory of them) would explain PLR? I don't konw where deja vu comes in, having experienced it many times myself I don't find it to be all the bizarre and requiring extraordinary explanation, any more than a mystical explanation is required for the fact that if I stare at stucco long enough I can find faces in it (the human brain is so inclined towards pattern recognition that it is easily fooled into seeing patterns where none exist). I don't know what "connections" with people means.

[flippyshark]

Only slightly on topic: i've never been able to get behind past lives as an explanation for deja vu. The reason? Most of the experiences I've had with deja vu took place when I was at home, at school, at Disney World, in other words, places which did not exist (my house, Disney World) or would have looked a lot different in any lifetime that preceded 1965.

Deja Vu is just an uncanny feeling that seems like remembering things at the exact moment they happen.

[flippyshark]

Only slightly on topic: i've never been able to get behind past lives as an explanation for deja vu. The reason? Most of the experiences I've had with deja vu took place when I was at home, at school, at Disney World, in other words, places which did not exist (my house, Disney World) or would have looked a lot different in any lifetime that preceded 1965.

Deja Vu is just an uncanny feeling that seems like remembering things at the exact moment they happen.

Sorry - couldn't resist

[lashbear]

LOL !

[bewitched]

Connections to other people meaning a sort of person to person deja vu. You meet someone and feel like you've known them forever.

Insofar as the article, it may not have been the best example. However, infinite space is an inescapable part of parallel universes. If all possibilities and all times exist, they can only do so on an infinite plane. A finite plane would, by definition imply a limited number of universes (since to assume infinity, there could be no constraints on time and space.)

That said, if you assume infinite universes, you must also assume that every outcome, every presupposition, must exist at every time. In some universe, I am married to you, Alex...and everyone else on this board.

Many people have theorized that deja vu and/or past life experiences are an aspect of "crossing over" into other universes. If a single particle of matter can exist in more than one universe at one time (which is a basis of Parallel Universes) then perhaps these things are brief glimpses, a brief existence if you will, in another universe.

Parallel universes also solve the paradox of time travel: if you go back in time, and kill your grandfather, how will you exist to go back in time? If all possibilities exist, you are not born...and you are born.

This also solves the population problem of PLR. If deja vu/PLR are based in the "experience" of parallel universes, population becomes a meaningless point since existence is outside of (or bigger than?) our 3 dimentional world.

I hope I have explained this adequately. This is one of those things that I understand, but have a very difficult time actually verbalizing. That, and if I think about this long enough it makes me a little loopy.

[Alex]

There are several competing theories for a multiverse (and just as many well qualified people who don't think it exists or is an unscientific idea of pure metaphysics) and you seem to be combining characteristics of different ones. Also, the existence of any of the possible multiverse structures is not confirmed to any degree other than as implications of pure theory.

That said, if an infinite multiverse based on collapsing probability clouds does exist, you'll all have to admit I am right that free will does not exist (and you already have in some of them).

All that said, the multiverse explanation you offer for PLR still does not explain why the reported results of PLR seem to almost entirely fit into a very narrow band of the possible results, though it would nicely place PLR outside the realm of rational investigation (since any negative result could just be blamed on having contacted a past life in an alternate universe where things did happen as desribed or where "ook ook, grunt, sniffle" is valid medieval French.

[bewitched]

where "ook ook, grunt, sniffle" is valid medieval French.

It's not?

If a probability cloud collapses, that world never comes to fruition and never branches into more outcomes.

All outcomes exist, but some outcomes exist more often than others, i.e. some choices are made more often than others. Free will therefore, as we experience it, is associated with the probabilty of each individual outcome being chosen.

Most of my knowledge of many-worlds (or parallel universes) comes from DeWitt's interpretation of Everett. I am by no means an expert, more an "armchair" science geek..

I once read a very good paper explaining the different elements of Everett, I will try to find it tomorrow; no doubt he explains it much better than I do. One of these days I'm going to try to read David Deutsch's book- but I'm not sure that my attention span is that long.

[Alex]

Ah, we're using Everett's MWI in particular. Other proposed multiverses do use collapsing waveforms as the source of branching.

I'm familiar with Everett, DeWitt and Deutsch. There is good thoery in there and over the decades more pseudoscience new-age misinterpretation has attached to Everett than just about any other part of quantum mechanics (which draws pseudoscience like flies to whatever draws flies). Also it not hardly accepted reality among the physics community (the people who actually understand the math).

As laid out by Everett, the superpositioned infinite universes are non-communicating and information can not move between the universes. This would seem to argue against it as an explanation for past life regression.

But if in learning past life regression, this is the explanation offered by instructors I'd be very interested to learn this. thecorndogwalker?

[bewitched]

I absolutely do not understand the math; no way, no how.

It is entirely possible (even probable) that I am bringing in aspects of other theories. I agree, Everett et. al. is linear but I thought that it still allowed for a ''leakage" of matter (as opposed to non-communicating). It is also possible that I've confused the mechanisms used to detect other worlds with what I'm calling "leakage". It's been a while since I've actually read up on it so I'm sure other things I've read have influenced my memory of this particular theory.

As an aside, I should have mentioned that even though many-worlds allows for what we call free will, free will is obviously a subjective experience and doesn't require infinite choices.

I too would be interested to know if any of this is used in PLR.

[Alex]

In doing some refresher reading on Everett today I am reminded of a very important point. Everett has many supporters among quantum mechanics physicists. But that support is split into two camps. Most recognize that many worlds is a useful language for simplifying quantum mechanics but don't view these other universes as "real" in the same sense ours is. They are paper universes (kind of like square root of negative two is mathematically useful but you won't run into it as a physical object in the real world). Stephen Hawkings is an example of this camp.

The minority of many worlds supporters hold forth the idea that these other universes are just as real as ours. DeWitt and Deutsch are in this camp.

And of course there are many equally prominent quantum mechanics physicists who consider many worlds to be complete hogwash (polls tend to find about 50% accept some form of many worlds theory). As this Martin Gardner column (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_25/ai_77757761) points out, Roger Penrose is in this camp.

Everett's many world theory, where infinity allows all possible outcomes to be realized in proportion to their probability means free will can not exist (since if all outcomes occur then no "will" was exerted). I know some proponents of Everett's many worlds disagree (such as DeWitt; but there is almost universal agreement otherwise that a deterministic multiverse destroys free will), but I'm of the opinion that they do so by changing the definition of free will away from what most people mean by it.

[bewitched]

I believe, though would not swear, that Deutsch and Dewitt have reinterpreted Everett so that although there are infinite choices/outcomes not all of them are chosen an equal number of times. Some outcomes are chosen more often than others.

If there are some outcomes that are chosen with greater frequency, obviously the chance of any given outcome occuring is not equal across worlds. If you buy that, than our experience of free will (subjective as it may be) lies in the idea that the more heavily weighted outcomes are more "likely" to be chosen.

Whether or not free will itself exists, I have no idea. But I do believe that the experience of free will most certainly does.


(It made more sense when I was just thinking about it :rolleyes: )

[bewitched]

In regards to the Gardner article:

Personally, I don't take a firm position on either side; I find the concept of many-worlds facinating-- I like the idea that somewhere, sometime I am lying on the beach at my house in Hawaii and a really hot (heterosexual) butler is bringing me Champagne (granted, I would like it even better if it were in this particular world). I also believe that the universe is infinitely more complicated than anyone can ever know.

That said, the Gardner article strikes me as similar to many of the critics of Darwin (I use Darwin because I wrote my senior thesis on evolution and its critics). Most scientific theories inspire scorn, even mockery, both in their infancy and in their maturity (again, Darwin being an excellent example). IMO, it is this skepticism which inspires many of the most important advances in science.



BTW, what search engine do you use? You have better articles than me. (I use altavista)

[Alex]

Yes, DeWitt and Deutsch have done that. And very few of their colleagues agree with it. Also, the the probabilities that would go into free will are so complex (not to mention that there is no way to measure it since the universes are non-communicative) that it would be impossible to determine if a certain outcome was overrepresented in the multiverse. Since even DeWitt and Deutsch still believe that the multiverse is deterministic they have to do some interesting gymnastics to maintain free will as a theoretical artifact.

I won't with you that we have the experience of free will. That is what I've always said. We are hardwired to perceive free will, there is just no reason to believe our perception of it is correct.

Out of curiosity, do you know who Martin Gardner is? If not, he is one of the greatest proponents of the scientific method that we currently have. Anyway, it is true that many theories initially meet with disregard. That said, 99% of them deserve it. And of course there is the fact that Everett's theory is not widely disregarded, even among those who don't buy into it it is a respectable theory. There are just some fringe elements that aren't generally accepted.

Everett's arguments are very much worthy of consideration and are an important part of the conversation for quantum mechanics. It is just important to keep in mind that it is just one theory, that there are other equally compelling answers being offered, and that there is a lot of pseudoscience crapbabble that gets attached to these theories by people who don't really understand them but like the credibility offered by using the terms.

And to answer your question I'm just using Google (and, at the risk of lacking humility (me? never), an expensively earned education in information retrieval).

[Strangler Lewis]

Do your spouses know you two are carrying on like this?

[Alex]

Lani's just glad I'm not doing it to her.

[€uroMeinke]

I haven't read any of the articles you speak of, so I'm not sure what is meant by "non-communicative" in this context, but if consciousness is singular among the multiverse, then perhaps freewill is the consciousness "choosing" a path to weave through the probabilities. So while a world exists where I've made different choices, I'm only conscious of the one path I've taken - or think I have taken. I'm sure though this is a metaphysical path unsupported by any science, though it is congruent with my own conscious apprehension of the world.

[Alex]

That's fine. Limit such things to unobservable metaphysics and there is no way to discuss it. Any answer is equally valid as any other.

[€uroMeinke]

That's fine. Limit such things to unobservable metaphysics and there is no way to discuss it. Any answer is equally valid as any other.

Has the multiverse been observed?

[Alex]

No, and you'll find that many quantum physicists therefore rule them outside scientific discussion, that they are pure metaphysics since it they have not been observed and pretty much every multiverse theory bars any possibility of observing them.

That said, where such concepts do crop up as theoretical artifacts they do describe certain physical properties that such things would have. You can't (or rather, shouldn't) simultaneously use quantum mechanical theory to support their existence and then disregard what it also has to say about their nature.

We can all imagine universes that allow whatever it is we want to allow and have whatever nature we want them to have. How about a universe where the bigger something gets the less space it occupies? Sure thing. All such speculations and imaginations are equally valid so long as they remain outside observation and prediction. But when real world observable claims are made, then there are methods for evaluating them and that alternate universe has condensed from metaphysics into the realm of physics.

Real world claims are made for past life regression, and that raises some interesting questions and I'm curious how the study of past life regression addresses them, and not just how the rest of us can make up things.

[3894]

I'm curious how the study of past life regression addresses them, and not just how the rest of us can make up things.

But that's exactly what interests me about past-life regression. Like art therapy, past-life regression is artistic self-expression with the therapeutic result of increasing self-esteem, self-awareness, and insight.

[innerSpaceman]

heheh, I think that particular forest is being missed for the trees.

Not to be the corndogwalker's defender or anything (I'll leave that to the Commodore), but is he going to get another 4 pages of scientific argument if he claims that past lives tapped into hypnoticaly might indeed be inklings of past lives? What's the point?

It seems to me he's perhaps being painted into a corner here, or being set up to be accused of chicanery.


Perhaps I'm being too sensitive ... and I really should have the patience to let corndogwalker respond for himself. But really, Alex, reincarnation and past-life regression is scientifically unlikely??!?!? Do frelling tell.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

No, iSm, I don't think you're being too sensitive. It seems plain to me that a respectful discussion is not being set up-- rather, a pre-emptive attack. Not an invitation to a conversation-- bait.

[Alex]

I see, so the only questions that are appropriate are of the type where I put my hands under my chin, look rapturously on the subject and say "oh, that's deep, please do tell me more!"?

As for what is the point? Is it not interesting to know what the practioners of something think is happening when they do it. They're the experts. And, while thecorndogwalker may not (though he seems to), many other practioners do claim extraordinary therapeutic power for it. That is a scientific claim. You can't simultaneously claim it is a real world phenomena but that it is immune to investigation. If art therapy made claims that what you drew would appear in reality on the other side of the planet (or in the next room) then I'd see them as more equivalent.

So far as I know (and I have read on this a fair amount, but would love correction from someone intimately familiar with it), the general claims of past life regression are that it puts you in contact with past unique human lives lived by the participant. If so, that raises some, I think reasonable, questions. Questions, that I would hope students and teachers of the program have wondered about themselves. And, whether I agree with their reasoning in how they deal with them, I would be very interested in what their conclusions have been.

3894, I agree with you, if PLR is anything, it is that. And that may very well be how PLR practioners think of it and I'd be very interested to learn that. Because, at least online with websites advertising sessions that cost hundreds of dollars an hour, or tape series that cost thousands, or books that hawk the sessions and tapes, they don't admit to that. They are very reassuring that they will put you into direct contact with your actual past lives and that the source of your current psychological problems will be found there (again, no claim that thecorndogwalker does that but I am curious how he views it).

If PLR is just a complex psychological placebo effect (only by misleading you about what is happening can the therapy work), wouldn't that be interesting to know as well?

This, to my thinking, these questions are respectful discussion. Not "oh, that sounds fun! Will there be sangria?" He invited questions. I apologize if having actual questions is rude.

[Prudence]

I don't think a respectful discussion is consistent with a mission to discredit the other participants. If one has nothing nice to say, one might consider saying nothing at all.

[3894]

If one has nothing nice to say, one might consider saying nothing at all.

Well, that's a message board conversation ender if I ever saw one. Right on a par with Oops, my colostomy bag just broke.

I don't see the disrespect in this thread. There's a building frustration at the lack of answers but that's it, IMO.

[Alex]

When I said nothing nice, I removed it. Since then I don't think I've said anything not nice.

Was my conversation with bewitched not nice? She offered an idea and we discussed its implications and relevance.

I don't think I'm on a "mission to discredit" but more of a "mission to examine." That's why I'd be very interested in watching some sessions. If I am wrong and the real world testable claims are true then they should hold up to skeptical examination quite well.

[tracilicious]

Personally, I think this thread is very interesting. I would love to see Alex's questions addressed for the same reasons that he asked them. And, I learned more about parallel universes. Plus, any thread in which Alex gets to bring up free will (or lack thereof) is a good thread to me. I love it when he does that.

[bewitched]

Respectfully, our discussion was neither disrespectful, nor were we attempting to paint thecorndogwalker into a corner. I find the idea of past lives facinating...I only offered another path to inffering its existence (or lack thereof). Once I introduced the idea of parallel universes (or multi worlds) the discussion merely segued, not as an attack on tcdw's beliefs but because Alex and I were discussing the different aspects of the theory and how it might apply here.



If an impression of disrespect was given, please know that it was unintentional.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I love it when he does that.If only he could do so by choice.

I see nothing wrong with the line of discussion in this thread. Alex's questions are entirely fair questions. To call what he's asked out of line or baiting would be saying that the only acceptable response is to offer no debate at all, which, to my mind, is exactly what the LoT is not about.

[bewitched]

If one has nothing nice to say, one might consider saying nothing at all.

I'm not aware of anyplace in our discussion that either Alex or I said something that wasn't nice. Perhaps if you point it out, I can clarify.

[bewitched]

Out of curiosity, do you know who Martin Gardner is? If not, he is one of the greatest proponents of the scientific method that we currently have.

No I didn't, but after this discussion I will certainly educate myself.

[Not Afraid]

I think the way this discussion is progressing is fine. Other than the first few posts, that were edited, I think the discussion has been intellectually stimulating and interesting. There is nothing wrong with question of beliefs, as long as it is done in a respectful rather and dismissive manner.

[Gemini Cricket]

I question whether challenging thecorndogwalker on his belief had anything to do with real discussion. It's not real discussion to challenge someone merely for the sake of being contrary. It's also not real discussion to overanalyze each and every word that gets posted just to get everyone in a bureaucratic nonsensical back and forth about semantics.

[bewitched]

past-life regression is artistic self-expression with the therapeutic result of increasing self-esteem, self-awareness, and insight.


Which makes me wonder if perhaps PLR is an "experience" in much the same way as Alex and I were discussing the "experience" of free will.

[bewitched]

I'm only conscious of the one path I've taken - or think I have taken.

Which, one could argue, is why free will is something we experience and not something that actually exists.


If I am reading correctly, most of what you are saying assumes indeterminism. Multi-worlds argues that the universe is deterministic (hence Alex's argument that free will cannot exist), but our experience of free will is merely a byproduct of being unable to see the future and that our "choice" was preordained.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I think the way this discussion is progressing is fine. Other than the first few posts, that were edited, I think the discussion has been intellectually stimulating and interesting. There is nothing wrong with question of beliefs, as long as it is done in a respectful rather and dismissive manner.

I just don't think that a respectful and even-handed discussion about differing beliefs can take place after it's started with an insult. Pancaked or not. Did the original pancake make the situation any better when it was edited? Nor did this one.

[€uroMeinke]

My read is - if all possibilities exist, there really is no choice, since in any situation all decissions are made - as they play out in all these multi-verses. Granted, this possibility of a multi-verse is not something that can (at this point) be scientificly scrutinized. However, if this does describe the metaphysical reality, it still doesn't jive with the phenomenological experience of reality - of just one universe. That just made me speculate that perhaps "consciousness" (and the experience of time) is a singular experience in which "choice" is really about what part of the multi-verse to focus on next (that is I don't experience an omniscient consciousness of the multiverse). Sort of how I can have a CD of a bunch of different songs, but only listen to one at a time.

In this way Freewill still may exist as a part of phenomenological consciousness - though not in the way we might ordinarily think of it. It would be more passive in the sense that playing a CD is more like choosing what music to listen to than actually making the music.

[Not Afraid]

I just don't think that a respectful and even-handed discussion about differing beliefs can take place after it's started with an insult. Pancaked or not. Did the original pancake make the situation any better when it was edited? Nor did this one.
I just don't believe that, once a mistake is made, then corrected, that the original subject should become forbidden.

We have a LOT of situations where tempers flair for various reasons. We just have to get over it, move on and prove once again that we can have civil discussions about all sorts of subjects.

[€uroMeinke]

I just don't think that a respectful and even-handed discussion about differing beliefs can take place after it's started with an insult. Pancaked or not. Did the original pancake make the situation any better when it was edited? Nor did this one.

Perhaps, but this is a bell that can't really be unrung. If corndiogwalker feels insulted by Alex's comments then it's perfectly acceptable for him to choose not to participate here. And if Alex wants to make any sort of amends that's up to Alex. Regarless, dicussion has continued and I don't see any value in shutting it down.

It's hard for discussions about beliefs to take place in an emotional vacuum, so perhaps a respectful even handed approach is ultimately impossible. Still I like that we try, and keep each other in check when our posts can be considered disrespectful. I don't really think anyone here wants to come off as a belligernat prick - but we all know those folks exist in the world too.

So I hope we can continue, in sincere curiosity, and perhaps earn back some of the respect we may have lost along the way.

[Gemini Cricket]

Let's say for a moment that I was a newbie. 7 posts maybe. I post something dear to my heart and get slammed for it. Does it make me want to stay? Does it make me think people on this board are cool when they call something I love "bullsh*t"?

[€uroMeinke]

Let's say for a moment that I was a newbie. 7 posts maybe. I post something dear to my heart and get slammed for it. Does it make me want to stay? Does it make me think people on this board are cool when they call something I love "bullsh*t"?

Probably not - but that ship has sailed. Aside from going back in time to prevent the exchange, what would you propose?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Let's say for a moment that I was a newbie. 7 posts maybe. I post something dear to my heart and get slammed for it. Does it make me want to stay? Does it make me think people on this board are cool when they call something I love "bullsh*t"?

Public GC mojo.

I'm really interested in what thecorndogwalker has to say, but if I were in the same position, I wouldn't want to interact with someone who replied so rudely.

[Gemini Cricket]

Probably not - but that ship has sailed. Aside from going back in time to prevent the exchange, what would you propose?
I would prefer cutting the newbies some slack from now on. Welcome them into the boat for a good number of posts, then smack 'em over the head with an oar.
;)

[Not Afraid]

Let's say for a moment that I was a newbie. 7 posts maybe. I post something dear to my heart and get slammed for it. Does it make me want to stay? Does it make me think people on this board are cool when they call something I love "bullsh*t"?

Maybe not, but that's what happened and it cannot be undone. So, we move on and, up to this point, the philosophical discussion has been going well.

We delve into subjects here on LoT that are banned from most other boards - especially of the Disney variety. Things will get ugly at times, but I hope we all can learn from both the seedier sides of our selves as well as from the better sides and return to having a good discussion even if there was some initial shyt smeared.

[bewitched]

Yes, but does God exist?














KIDDING!!! :D

[Alex]

I apologized for my first post and (it is in somewhat poor taste to discuss private communication but) thecorndogwalker privately acknowledged my post where I admitted what I had said with inappropriate grace (though perhaps it was sarcastic and in my obtuseness I'm missing it).

I don't really buy the idea that ideas from new members should be coddled. What I said would have been equally inappropriate if it had been in reply to some post by Steve or Lisa or Nephytys (it suddenly occurs to me I have no idea what her real name is).

I started this thread off on the wrong foot. That was classless of me and I do regret it and meant it when I apologized (hopefully if there is one thing clear about it me, it is that if I don't feel an apology is appropriate and meant I won't offer it).

[Disneyphile]

Yes, but does God exist?


I was God in a previous life. So, yes, I exist. :p



;)

[JWBear]

I was God in a previous life. So, yes, I exist. :p



;)

I don't know why, but this reminded my of a T-shirt I once saw that read; "We're all just part of God's alcohol induced hallucination”.

[Strangler Lewis]

Yes, but does God exist?



If you go from universe to universe killing your other selves, you take on their power. When you kill the last one, you become invincible--the closest thing to God. Or so said Professor Li.

[€uroMeinke]

I would prefer cutting the newbies some slack from now on. Welcome them into the boat for a good number of posts, then smack 'em over the head with an oar.
;)

Ok - then let me try to do what you have been dancing around:

to Alex (and perhaps in the context of this thread MousePod as well): Sometimes you come across as an insensitive prick, my sense is that you know this already and probably don't really care about that possible public perception, but you should know (as should everyone else on the board) that those perceptions can colors people's willingness to engange you in conversation - that also might not matter to you, but if it does you might want to think about how you post.

To corndogwalker (and perhaps the rest of the posting community):I hope you realize that each member of this community speaks for themself here and not for anyone else in the community. No one expects you to like everyone or requires you to respond to anyone's post (though in the absence of contray evidence might make erroneous assumptions about) you). There is in fact an ignore feature on this board that anyone can employ to block out the posts from people they'd rather not hear from (though we all know it just makes you click a button to read the post anyway). Still I hope you know that there are plenty of people here that welcome you (possibly even Alex and MousePod) and look forward to reading your contributions.

[bewitched]

I was God in a previous life. So, yes, I exist. :p



;)


Hmmm, maybe I was just a god, rather than The God. :p


In any case, I'm sure I was hot...:D

[€uroMeinke]

Ok my last post took too long post - sorry for that, but in the interest on not pancaking, I'll let it stand.

[Alex]

to Alex (and perhaps in the context of this thread MousePod as well): Sometimes you come across as an insensitive prick,

I have no argument with that. Though from my perspective it frequently looks like the other person is an overly sensitive wimp unwilling to examine the thoughts they profess.

But I know that I am generally regarded as overserious, humorless, and prone to try and force "serious" conversations where people generally want levity and buttslaps.

I know that it is mostly my fault, and to a large part I don't care how I'm perceived. It is just the way I am. That said, people generally assume I am being more serious than I actually am, and frequently I am not starting them out of some serious mission but rather because I enjoy them.

But yes, I'm a prick by most standards.

[€uroMeinke]

Aww Jeez Alex - there's one for the quotes - appologies again for taking this public, but my sense was that you'd prefer it that way at least so you could respond for youself - which you certainly did - at least in this universe...

[Gemini Cricket]

Yes, but how will new members know how to utilize the Ignore function if they just got here? It's easier for them to just bail.

I for one am going to use the Ignore function as suggested. No need to respond to my posts, Stroup.

[Alex]

No beefs. I have no problem discussing me publicly. I'd like to think I'm pretty self aware and self honest and certainly capable of defending or abusing myself (generally without rancor).

[Alex]

No need to respond to my posts, Stroup.

That would be good advice if you were the only one who could see my replies. But if that were the case this platform would be called vEmail, not vBulletin.

[cirquelover]

I personally enjoy the conversations here on LoT, even if some are over my head! It's great to see others points of view and learn something, whether I agree with them or not is a whole other story but I feel I always learn something.
I personally believe in PLR because that is how my dad brought me up. I enjoy learning about what others believe as well. I have always been fascinated with other cultures and their beliefs also. The only one, that I know of, that I have left to find is a Quran in English. I'm curious to find things out for myself and read what it has to say.

I certainly hope Corn dog was not scared off LoT and can enjoy the many fun and interesting conversations that take place here.

I have never felt the need to use an Ignore feature, if I don't want to read what they have to say, I just don't read it. Ok, I'll stop rambling now. Sorry everyone, my husband is gone and I must be craving adult interaction:blush:

[Ghoulish Delight]

Jeebus, I take one two hour lunch and this is what happens?

This thread is reminding me that I need to get my hands on the new Hofstadter book when it comes out in March.

[Disneyphile]

No beefs. I have no problem discussing me publicly. I'd like to think I'm pretty self aware and self honest and certainly capable of defending or abusing myself (generally without rancor).I highly respect this aspect in people. :)

No doubt about it, Alex has ginormous cajones! :snap:

(Even if we have opposing beliefs on things.)

[Not Afraid]

Enormous cajones but a small penis.......

(HEY! I don't know about ANY of this, but it sure made me think about the SUV Watch quote by Alex that appears on occasion.)

And, that folks, is about as drama as you're ever going to get on LoT. I hope you enjoyed the show. We will no go back to being boring and adult-like. ;)

[bewitched]

I'll be adult-like or boring; but not both. ;)

[Not Afraid]

(I don't think we're boring at all, but we DO tend to be more "adult" than some of the other boards I have played on.)

[BarTopDancer]

I like blue box macaroni.

[lashbear]

(I don't think we're boring at all, but we DO tend to be more "adult" than some of the other boards I have played on.)

don't know WHAT you mean.... Oh Goddess Of The G-String :evil:

http://users.tpg.com.au/adslgroh/pics/Gstring.jpg

[bewitched]

(I don't think we're boring at all, but we DO tend to be more "adult" than some of the other boards I have played on.)

I'm offended by that. ;) :evil:

[innerSpaceman]

Alex, it's not that you shouldn't ask questions. But ... and I'll admit it's more a product of the dialogue between you and Bewitched ... the plethora of evidence you have raised against PLR's veracity, in something approaching a dozen posts, seems like ganging up on the poor guy before he has a chance to respond.

In fact, making suppositions based on nothing but my own impatience for a corndogwalker response, I think you've scared him off. He's new here ... and is not as intimately familiar with your real world cynism and exhaustive scientific explanatomes as the regulars here undoubtedly are.

I just think the back and forth between you and Bewitched, while there's nothing whatsoever wrong with it, may have seemed a little daunting to a new member.



Or at least that's the excuse I'm granting him for totally wussing out on this thread.


For all I know, he's on a beach in Bermuda ... and not inclined the check the internet.


* * * * * * * * * *



Now to go and read the last two pages of this thread which have been created since the post of Alex's that I was responding to. I hope my entire post is not made moot ... but who knows.


If necessary, I'll pancake it.

[tracilicious]

I think that Alex asked questions, thecorndogwalker obviously (and understandably) chose not to respond, so the discussion continued in his absence. I like that we can discuss things openly here, call each other out when we think we're out of line, and then carry on with civility.

I dunno, maybe thecorndogwalker should consider this a very advanced form of welcoming. You are so accepted already that we feel free to debate with you! Do stick around. :)

[thecorndogwalker]

Yikes,, whats a sensitive boy to do? LOL

Welcome back the wacky world of the LOT.. First off, let me just tell you all that I havent really been online too much to respond to much of my thread.
I am still getting used to this site.. (which I think is great)

Plus nobody has to walk on eggshells with me, but I will first off say that I am not here to defend or argue with anyone... but i understand as much as i get passionate about things (past life regression) being one of them. I understand there is people who dont believe in something and will have their opinon..

So I will answer some questions.

I am a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist, I practice many different types of theraputic techniques with my clients in my practice. I do dream therapy, handwriting analysis, guided imagery, and alot more. Some of these things have not been proven scientifically, just like astrology, palm reading, etc. But when a person is seeking something more, and has a belief in a specific thing to make them feel better or help them cope with something they are stuck with and they are not hurting anyone else. Then let them be done.

I know several people that use Disneyland as therapy, I dont judge them. I look as them as people who want some contentment in their life.. AMEN.

So, I use hypnosis with the permission by the client in an office setting in a professional matter to help people heal, whether it is to help them quit smoking, stop biting their nails or even decrease the fear of flying or dogs, or getting on the matterhorn... its a process, it all happens with the subconsious mind... there are knowns, positive or negative in the subconsious mind and with the use of hypnosis, which is typically a highly suggestible state a person will be fed back information they had given to me in a cognative state therefore creating a postiive or negative known and creating a pathway to success..

Now, you have to believe it to work... Just like everything else.. I know their is alot of Penn & Teller's out there that want to disprove everything... That's society today.. less faith and more instant gratification.. I am the same way sometimes... I am ****ing human...

However the other times (about 75%) I try to be spiritually functional in my day to day life.. Now that has nothing to do with my practice, I know alot of atheists, a-holes, and non believers that are therapists, and they have a great practice.. I just choose to give something different to the people around me... It helps me sleep at night...

So, for the PLR.
I believe it. I believe in the soul. I know I have a soul, I believe that my soul has been around before and will be here again after this outer shell that I call a body dies. Where does it go? Well who knows? But I do have this internal feeling that some how or another my soul is like a computer, collecting information and data, and that computer keeps going, it just has different shell each time.

The people I have done regressions on, and I have done plenty.. some do it for fun (yeah for fun) and get something out of it. Some do it because they have this gnawing feeling or idea of some memory they cant place, and have this certain feeling or thought of a place, person or time that is not a part of their current lifetime..
We do the regression. I use hypnosis as a tool to get to the past life.. Now its not all Vincent Pricey stuff here guys.. Some people get a small image or quick thought.... But they get something, Some get more information, some see nothing, its different for everyone... but Some people I work with feel a sense of relaxation or a new sense of direction... Maybe something in the crook of their mind was revealed.. Who knows.. Everyone does things to make them self feel good.

Some write posts on websites, some defend their posts on websites, some eat corndogs, some believe in the soul. Some dont.. I just have to get away from trying to control others to believe what I believe in and really let the universe guide the people who want specific answers be guided to me.

So, I will tell you today, I just finished with a client at my office and thats what inspired me to write this response...
There was this new client I am working with that has so much going on and walked into my office so sad and broken and my heart went out to her. And guess what after my little 55 minute session with her, she walked out smiling, relaxed, feeling confident and full of well-being..
I felt so ****ing good because I helped her achieved that, I did it with her, not to her.. I didnt control her mind, I didnt tell her to feel that way.. I listened to her and then i suggested specific things that she actually told me she wanted to feel...

Did it work, hell ****ing yeah!!!!

Hypnosis is such a natural state of mind, but people dont really know that!
If you ever been in a car and missed your exit on the freeway or ever just drove your car from home to work and really didnt know how you got to work.. Or gone to a movie theater and forgot there was people around you, then you have been hypnotized... its simply a over load of information..

So, as I try to wrap up this thread, because I rather talk about something else. Like the Lashbear event or bacon. I will go back to one of my original statements...
Its fun if you try it. but so is breathing..

So take a breath.. focus and write carefully.

Later gators....

[Alex]

Thank you for explaining more on what you do. There is much in there that I would be interested in discussing more, particularly this:

Now, you have to believe it to work... Just like everything else..

But I'm going to try and only come off as a prick in the movie thread and when being ignored by Gemini Cricket so I'll just leave this thread be as well.

[Not Afraid]

You're limiting your "prickiness" to one thread? That's some control! ;)

[Alex]

If nothing else, my backup plan is to only post in that thread. Or just deny it if accused.

[Not Afraid]

LOL!

[bewitched]

Thank you for explaining what your do tcdw. I totally respect your point of view; personally, I'd be open to PLR, maybe slightly dubious, but open all the same.

And frankly, if people get something from it, if it helps them along in life...more power to you (and them). :)

[Gn2Dlnd]

:)

for you, Alex, because I know you have smileys turned off, this is what I posted, : )

Mensches, all of you.

[lashbear]

Mensches, all of you.

What about the Womensches ?

[thecorndogwalker]

or transgensches...

[innerSpaceman]

So, can I be hypnotized into liking corndogs? (or mustard, for that matter?)

[lashbear]

So, can I be hypnotized into liking corndogs? (or mustard, for that matter?)

From what I understand, you can't be hypnotised into doing anything you don't want to do....

...but you could be hypnotised into thinking that the Mustard is (for example) applesauce or something else you find palatable. Then you would eat it.

[innerSpaceman]

What about Snickers??

[Ghoulish Delight]

Actually, "You like " is a hypnotic suggestion that's likely to work...sort of. In a short term, single session, you'd probably go ahead an eat it and act like you like it, but you'd still be aware that you don't [I]really like it.

As for long term suggestion, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to change your tastes via hypnosis, but it probably depends on your own suggestibility.

[Tramspotter]

:cakes: For what I was thinking of posting.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Oh sweetie, you're late to the party.

And after you've gone to all the trouble of getting out your sh!t-stirring stick.

[Tramspotter]

Actualy it was for Marla's post but now that you bring it up...

:cakes: to the OT too :evil: