To think children may see things we can’t?

[Opal93]

My son is autistic and his language is disordered so it’s very hard to ask him what he actually means when he tells us something, but lately there have been a few instances where he has said things that have spooked us out a bit! Tonight he was at my mums, and he said “goodnight nana Marlene” (my mums mum who died when he was one) and started singing her favourite Doris Day song, word for word which he has never heard before and I didn’t know of the song until my mum told me today he started singing it and she has no idea how he knew it. My dad died when I was 16 and my son knows his photo. We were in a park the other week and my son pointed behind me and said “it’s grandad Stephen!” And I looked behind me thinking he probably saw a man that looked like the photo but there was nobody there. Another time, he started talking to my husbands dad about “nanny Margaret.” I didn’t realise he even had a nanny Margaret but apparently it was my husbands dads mums name. Then he said nanny Margaret has a big belly, and my FIL looked freaked out then and said she had a massive hernia that ruptured and killed her. I wouldn’t say I’m a believer in ghosts or life after death but it does make me wonder. Any other experiences of kids sensing things?

@SmallChairs

More unusual than a three year old who remembers a past life involving being in the wreck of the Titanic?

I wouldn’t discount that, either.

I’ve probably posted about it before on here, but when they were on holiday, a friend’s little grandson was taken to a site of Graeco/Roman ruins where none of them had ever been before.

He was still pre school and unable to read, so couldn’t have read anything about it. But as soon as they arrived he said, ‘I used to live here!’ and went on quite happily to point out the remains of his house, and his friend’s house - he even gave a slightly garbled but appropriate name for him - and the cave where they used to hide, and the remains of the pool (bath) where they would swim.

All the rest of the family were seriously spooked.
When they left he said, ‘Thank you for bringing me home.’

When a dd was present there was something similar, but less spectacular, from a niece of 3 at the time. Her mother is Singaporean Chinese and said that in her culture it wasn’t seen as anything unusual.

In both cases these ‘memories’ - if that’s what they were - stopped completely by the time they were about 5.

Animals, children and the dying can often see things in my perspective others can't.

The really poorly patients at a old nursing home I worked in were at the top floor would often speak of the children running around and hearing the giggles and talked to them.

None of them know it used to be a boarding school and before it was a old people's home there was a fire in which lots of children died sadly

It's not unpleasant to be up there but one of those areas where you catch glimpses of something.

No, of course not.

@SmallChairs
I think it was one poster who mentioned a scientist as part of an argument supporting the supernatural, not many? Debunking that one poster (not me btw) seems to have become a very large issue for you, when it’s a minor part of the thread.

My point was always that, if there is anything to the many, many supernatural ‘experiences’ that people have testified to for millennia, then it is unlikely to be the sort of thing you can prove in a lab. I wouldn’t even be looking for that sort of evidence tbh because I’m not interested in ‘proving’ anything of this type. I just like hearing about the unexplained.

I'm very religious and sensitive to things like sights/noises/feelings etc. I think if there were such things as spirits I would know. There just aren't (thank God).

if something has never been completely, scientifically disproved, then only an ignorant naive moron claims it "could t possibly be true".

My kids can’t remember day trips they took at age three in their current life never mind their past lives. To be fair, we’re probably pretty brand new as a family.

[quote Shakespeare79]@SmallChairs
I think it was one poster who mentioned a scientist as part of an argument supporting the supernatural, not many? Debunking that one poster (not me btw) seems to have become a very large issue for you, when it’s a minor part of the thread.

My point was always that, if there is anything to the many, many supernatural ‘experiences’ that people have testified to for millennia, then it is unlikely to be the sort of thing you can prove in a lab. I wouldn’t even be looking for that sort of evidence tbh because I’m not interested in ‘proving’ anything of this type. I just like hearing about the unexplained.[/quote]
But it’s far from a minor aspect of these threads in general, where you get frequent input from posters who appear to think science somehow supports their contention that their six year old talks to a great-granny dead since the 80s, or that NDEs have been proven to be pretty much like those bits in the film Ghost, and are unable to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources. These posters appear to genuinely labour under the delusion that if someone has written something about NDEs on their blog, or the Fortean Times, it has the same credibility as actual research, or that research itself can be flawed, partial, and subject to recall, discrediting, or modification.

If they can’t understand that distinction, or grasp that not everything on the internet is true, then you’ll forgive me if I think their recollection of something spooky that they were told happened when they were five, or when they were half-asleep in a dark room, or that has all the hallmarks of sleep paralysis, might also be wobbly.

@Kanaloa

My kids can’t remember day trips they took at age three in their current life never mind their past lives. To be fair, we’re probably pretty brand new as a family.

What, no Joan of Arc or Cleopatra or the usual suspects?

Nah. My son did really like trains as a toddler and knew lots about them, so possibly he was the inventor of the steam train in a past life? It could also be because he watched Thomas the tank, but surely it’s more likely that he was remembering his old life before he was reincarnated.

@SmallChairs

I am simply pointing out that the person she has suggested everyone should read as a scientist who provides evidence for life after death is someone whose work has been dismissed by the world’s major medical journal.

Just to point out I didn't suggest he provided evidence of life after death, his work is surrounding consciousness for a start.

No gotcha moment, also I didn't just point out one author either.

And of course they're not authors that provide "proof". They explore theories . What about the others I mentioned in my post? Such as Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia? Are they nutters as well?

Sneer all you like, I CGAF .

I think with ‘knowing’ loved ones have died or are in distress, it could be possible to detect that. Both death and distress give off a smell, I would expect that is distinctive for each person. I have heard ages ago and dimly, that particles can whizz round the world pretty fast, and also that they are so so small that we’ve all got a particle that was previously e.g. in Leonardo da Vinci in us. Given that death and extreme distress are both things that are important, it would not surprise me if we have evolved to be able to in some way detect that. I’m not at all woo, but I have had three occasions where I’ve known with absolute certainty that someone had died, or in one case was extremely worried. There literally was no way I could’ve known. The bizarre thing about the distress one was that it was very specific, that it was my mum and something was wrong with her womb. It turned out she was fine but she had had a scare, which she had been very worried about. I was a teenager living away from home, didn’t give the parents much thought generally. But that was such a strong feeling I called her out of the usual once a week (time before it was normal to have a phone!). And lo, she told me she had been worried but had been told that morning she was OK. That is the only time, it’s never been like, I’ve thought it but everything was fine. If it was coincidence it’s a very odd one. There must be some explanation for it, and I suspect a faint, faint, faint smell.
Pregnancy also does have a smell. Children maybe have better noses, or maybe they are just less shy about sniffing! Or cuddlier so the are closer. Once they know what it is though, they will know. As will adults. We’re mammals and that is important information for us as part of a group.

Hi pp who commented about the actual topic rather than dissecting it to death.

I have got to ask because I find it fascinating and odd. Why are certain people commenting openly being a bit sneery and actively trying derail the topic they openly don't seem to believe in. It seems to me with my very simplistic view on life, a weird flex but actions seem at odds with each other.

If you don't believe in the topic or find it interesting (valid perspective) why are you coming to grind that particular ax here.

Do you need to come on to MN of all places and throw around research and put down PP comments for some type of enjoyment ? As if to say look at all these peasants believing in this rubbish, I'm so much smarter and will let them know. Do you need some type of validation from users on MN to confirm your genius ? MN is a weird place to do that I suppose but each to their own.

Just "thinking critically" - what do you get out of this ? I mean it's MN it's not usually anything other than surface deep conversations. Why bother derailing a thread you clearly have utter contempt for ? Multiple times ? Surely if you thought it was complete rubbish you wouldn't bother commenting because it simply wouldn't interest you or maybe there's another reason.Either your trying to get some type of social/emotional kickback from this or your looking to be proved otherwise.

I can't quite be sure but it sure is dull.

I'm always willing to be educated by people but can we just make it vaguely interesting and on topic. I personally believe there's a difference between critical thinking and just being critical and sneery.

Try not for the latter, us "common foke" are easily confused and bored (this is sarcasm before anyone takes that literally- sad I have to even type this disclaimer)

@SmallChairs
I really think we’re seeing different things on this thread (and others) then. Usually, science is used as a counterpoint to any sort of ‘woo’ interpretations of the world. It’s unusual for scientific research to be cited as proof. And I think that poster has been back and commented on your response to the effect that it wasn’t about proof of life after death…

I get that you’re an academic and that your main aim on this thread has been to explain that most people (unlike you) can’t quite grasp what’s proper research and what isn’t. But that’s really not at the crux of this matter. Most people with ‘woo’ stories and beliefs don’t try to offer them as lab results; they’re anecdotes that make people think and wonder.

We get it - you know about research. But as a pp has said - why keep popping up on threads like this to sneer at people, particularly when your area of expertise doesn’t seem directly relevant?

@Eeiliethya

And of course they're not authors that provide "proof". They explore theories . What about the others I mentioned in my post? Such as Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia? Are they nutters as well?

Sneer all you like, I CGAF .

Well, then I will refrain from saying anything about reception by their peers of work by the Fenwicks (who have also written books on ‘reincarnation memories’) and Parnia. Or Raymond Moody who believes he has had nine past lives… I would call them researchers whose own bias towards the paranormal/transcendent fatally flaws their work. I think you’ve made it very clear the level you function at, and that level doesn’t approximate any kind of debate.

It's strange how people who claim to remember living a former life have virtually always previously lived in the same country or, if they were anywhere else, they never seem to remember the language.

Do you need to come on to MN of all places and throw around research and put down PP comments for some type of enjoyment ?

As I've said upthread, for most people the concern is that there are vulnerable people who will start believing woo if it is put forward on platforms like this as genuine, and for some that can be actively dangerous to their mental health or those around them.

@Terhou

Do you need to come on to MN of all places and throw around research and put down PP comments for some type of enjoyment ?

As I've said upthread, for most people the concern is that there are vulnerable people who will start believing woo if it is put forward on platforms like this as genuine, and for some that can be actively dangerous to their mental health or those around them.

As if maybe they would have never considered superstition or the supernatural without reading it here? As if it isnt a common part of the human experience since ..... forever?

@Terhou

It's strange how people who claim to remember living a former life have virtually always previously lived in the same country or, if they were anywhere else, they never seem to remember the language.

Well, lots of things are strange. This particular approach at a ‘gotcha’ from sceptics seems a bit weak given that they are so confident about having the whole weight of science behind them. People tell a vast range of anecdotes about the unexplained- it’s a bit weak to say “Funny how they’re always/never [insert your chosen objection]” when they quite clearly are not, and it wouldn’t take much looking to find examples to disprove that statement

Whereas from my point of view it’s the woo-mongers who seem deeply confused about how science works, but seem to feel it gives weight to their ‘Just because there has never been a shred of evidence despite a lot of investigation doesn’t mean the dead aren’t communicating with small children, animals and autistic people via dropping feathers and repetitive numbers!, and if you can’t see that I pity you!’ position.

@SmallChairs

Whereas from my point of view it’s the woo-mongers who seem deeply confused about how science works, but seem to feel it gives weight to their ‘Just because there has never been a shred of evidence despite a lot of investigation doesn’t mean the dead aren’t communicating with small children, animals and autistic people via dropping feathers and repetitive numbers!, and if you can’t see that I pity you!’ position.

@SmallChairs Well, I got we’ll have to agree to disagree. Not everything is about scientific proof though. There is no scientific evidence for the paranormal but there is anecdotal evidence. You dismiss the thousands/millions of people with their own tales to tell because you are obsessed with the scientific method. Fair enough. You talk of thorough investigation- but how can that take place after the event? Most people who see/hear/otherwise sense something unexplained don’t have a full team of trained investigators on hand to confirm/disprove it. That, for me, is what makes your stance slightly odd.

*guess, not got

You’re misunderstanding me. My point about ‘scientific sources’ is that the people who are using them as evidence for supernatural realms or activities aren’t apparently able to distinguish between cranks with a blog and research with any credibility. And if they can’t tell the difference between ‘something I once read on a ‘woo’ conspiracist Reddit and credible science, then I’d be surprised if their muddled thinking didn’t extend to their own experiences. Virtually everything that appears on a Mn ‘woo’ thread is entirely explicable via coincidence, electrical faults, hypnopompic/hypnagogic hallucination, sleep paralysis, the hyper imaginativeness of small children, animals behaving like animals, suggestibility, nervousness in a new or remote place — and the human desire to see patterns in things, and not to have lost or dead loved ones forever.

Oh dear. Think we’re going round in circles now. I’m not talking about people on the “woo” side using so-called scientific proof. I’ve already said I think you’re massively over-stating the rate at which that happens. The vast majority of posts on threads about the unexplained are personal anecdotes that have no scientific link at all. And I’m saying that that is understandable since one-off weird occurrences can hardly be put under a microscope.

I’m not talking at all about those pseudo-scientific cranks you keep mentioning. But by all means continue showing off about how well-read you are and how nobody else understands what’s real and what’s not. I’m out.