Quote from: 1aguar on December 29, 2015, 04:48:49 AM

If the only relevant criticism of these results is that the memory of the patient was contaminated, I think that further studies of the large amount of strong anecdotal cases reveals this criticism to be in error. To be sure, no one can defend their own memory from such criticism, so to state that the memory is wrong *somehow* is unscientific. Why not say that the medical workers had contaminated memories? Neither explanation provides a mechanism and this kind of hand waving argument is unsatisfactory, it also contradicts point 52 on the near-death site where a scientific study suggests that these memories are more real than normal memories.

A baby's memories are way more relevant than any memories we have later in life. why? Because the baby has a whole new empty brain to fill. Later in life we have a lot of baby memory to at least modify, if not negate. this whole topic of memories is irrelevant without considering baby memories.