Not necessarily - for example, that is like saying just because one person has an ability to add numbers up quickly in their heads, that others should also be able to do so. Why don't we all have minds like Einstein? - scientifically speaking, is there any reason why we shouldn't have?  'Wired' differently perhaps?

Yes I agree there is the possibility that some people have evolved a different ability from others in this respect, but this is far outweighed by the possibility that those people who claim to see these things are lying, deluded or deceived.  We know that people tell untruths, we know that people see things that aren't there when brain chemicals are interfered with and we know that people can be suggestible such that they fully believe something is happening when it is not. Those observable mechanisms hold more probability of explaining a phenomnon  than proposing some new sort of 'energy' for which there is no device that can either measure it or detect it.

Look at it this way.  Going back into ancient history, men looked at the Sun and, becuase they had few other observations than that is was a visible disc which rose and set, they picked an explanation out of the air and proposed that it was a God.   When it was discovered, through observation, that the earth was a sphere, men bgan to think that the sun might be spherical to so, using a spot of logic they proposed that the sun rotated around the earth.  The old idea that the Sun might be a God started to diminish.  Then, using mathematical observations it became apparent that actually the Earth might orbit the Sun.   Various space missions have al provided consistent data with that idea and so we now would say that it's proven that the earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun is not a god.   But of course there is stil the possibility, however small, that all those observations are wrong and the original proposal that the Sun is a godlike being might be true, but if you ask which is more likely - the explanation which relies on a million different observations and that which relies on unprovable assumptions picked out of the air without reason,  then everybody will say that the one that relies on measurements oan observations is the right one.

So if someone says, "I can see humming birds coming in and out of everyone's ears", it's far more likely that such a person is deluded, decieved or lying than that they are in possession of a strange supernatural sense which allows them to see something that really is there but is invisibe to the rest of us.

I can tell you that my 'view' is based on what I have experienced personally and the experiences of others - in addition to what I have read.

For you to be able to do the same - initially you would need to put yourself into a similar position. If you are genuinely interested in investigating this, let me know and I will try and help - otherwise we will just be going around in circles once again, as we have done so many times before.

No thanks, I'm not interested in wasting my time for the reasons stated above.   To be fair to the arena of things people say they can see, where others cannot see them, I would have to investigate all the myriad of other claims for which there is not a shred of repeatable supporting evidence.   If someone said they could see a pink hipopotamus hovering over Buckingham Palace then I'd have to investigate that too.  And I've seen enough of what you've presented as 'evidence' and found it to be anything but evidence - for example your claims about 'energy' above which are an obvious attempt to use scientific phrases  without any real desire to view your observations scientifically.  Its a use of words which tries to fool people into thinking that there is a scientific basis to things for which there is no scientific basis. 

No Jan, it is for you to present proper scientific evidence - say a gadjet which detects this energy you say exists and powers a small light bulb with it - something like that.

We may have reincarnated - but that doesn't mean everyone does so. It all depends on what needs to be learnt. Again there is much research you could do personally on this Martin - if you really wanted to learn more, rather than being rather closed minded as to the possibilities

A|nd again there is no evidence whatsoever other than heresay and potential deception. It's not closed minded to properly assess the real evidence before believing something. As I say, there is no way to prove that reincarnation doesn't happen, but there is no real reason to beleive it does - there are far more likely non-supernatural, non- spirit-world explanations for all the phenomena supposedly observed.

??? strange analogy  - then I guess my analogy is to take this further. What are proteins made up of? Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur (or another element maybe). Each of these elements has different properties on their own or combined together in a different way. When they are combined as in the form of egg white, they behave in a certain way. When two of them combine together they become water. When one of them(H) is on its own, and you put a match to it, it pops or explodes. I could go on with that - right up to taking it down to particles and waves. What is heat? A form of energy but only a small part of the EM spectrum (energy). We know what it is because we can feel it and it affects our food when we cook with it. Why does it do this? Other types of energy behave in different ways.

But there is no part of the electromagnetic spectrum which behaves in the way you suggest 'energy' might behave.  That's the point! You have to rely on proposing some form of energy that we haven't found yet, which has equal status to proposing that pink hippos hover above Buckingham Palace.  You have no repeatable, measurable observation and you have nothing that can detect or measure the supposed 'energy' you say drives the procesess - it's not science, it's fantasy.

If you were a research scientist then you should be aware of what I have already added perhaps? There is physical energy but there is also much more. As a person with a scientific background - you should perhaps be more open to this?

No there isn't 'much more'. That's your hypothesis but it is not borne out by measurement. You can't present it as science because it isn't.