• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

This has been a very entertaining read for me. I must thank you all for this hillarious reincarnation/soul business. And I also learned a thing or two about entropy in the process.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from a brain's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" brain's development.
Click to expand...


Three variations of this statement:
  1. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from a plant's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" plant's development.
  2. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from an orchestra's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" orchestra's development.
  3. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from a city's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" city's development.
Are Italy's capital and Ancient Rome the "same" city?

Are Istanbul, Byzantium and Constantinople the "same" city?

Are the Vienna Philharmonic of today and the Vienna Phiharmonic of Gustav Mahler (around 1900) the "same" orchestra?

We* have no problem with the idea that the brain remains the same brain, although it develops, just as we have no problem with a river remaining the same river as its course gradually varies.
Click to expand...


The river is a good example in order to make explicit the fundamental difference between the "sameness" of the soul (the experiencing subject) and the "sameness" of its brain corresponding to the "sameness" of a river.

  • Two or more rivers can become one river.
  • Two ore more sentient subjects cannot become one subject.
  • One river can split into two or more rivers.
  • A subject cannot split into two or more subjects.
  • Whether we call the waters flowing at different times or different locations the "same" or a different river is in many cases an arbitrary decision.
  • There are no arbitrary decisions whether experiencing subjects at different times or locations are the same subject or different subjects.
  • A river can completely disappear by drying up, yet a new river emerging near the old one will probably be called the "same" river.
So the essence of the "same river" roughly is "the river with the same name".

If we consider people like Richard Dawkins (who ignore the old wisdom that divisible matter is confronted to undivisible souls) as the philosophical-scientific elite of today, then philosophy and fundamenal science (as opposed to technology) has reached a low point of at least 23 centuries.

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

The hallmark of genuine science are explicit quantitative predictions
 
Wolfgang, don't you ever get tired of this never ending cycle?
 
wogoga said:
Three variations of this statement:
  1. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from a plant's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" plant's development.
  2. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from an orchestra's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" orchestra's development.
  3. I don't see any problem with a consciousness, arising from a city's function, remaining the "same" consciousness throughout that "same" city's development.
Are Italy's capital and Ancient Rome the "same" city?

Are Istanbul, Byzantium and Constantinople the "same" city?

Are the Vienna Philharmonic of today and the Vienna Phiharmonic of Gustav Mahler (around 1900) the "same" orchestra?




The river is a good example in order to make explicit the fundamental difference between the "sameness" of the soul (the experiencing subject) and the "sameness" of its brain corresponding to the "sameness" of a river.

  • Two or more rivers can become one river.
  • Two ore more sentient subjects cannot become one subject.
  • One river can split into two or more rivers.
  • A subject cannot split into two or more subjects.
  • Whether we call the waters flowing at different times or different locations the "same" or a different river is in many cases an arbitrary decision.
  • There are no arbitrary decisions whether experiencing subjects at different times or locations are the same subject or different subjects.
  • A river can completely disappear by drying up, yet a new river emerging near the old one will probably be called the "same" river.
So the essence of the "same river" roughly is "the river with the same name".

If we consider people like Richard Dawkins (who ignore the old wisdom that divisible matter is confronted to undivisible souls) as the philosophical-scientific elite of today, then philosophy and fundamenal science (as opposed to technology) has reached a low point of at least 23 centuries.

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

The hallmark of genuine science are explicit quantitative predictions
Click to expand...

And how does your latest wall of text prove the existence of reincarnation ?
 
wogoga said:
Three variations of this statement
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Are you going to provide evidence that these things are conscious? What has it got to do with reincarnation anyway?
Are Italy's capital and Ancient Rome the "same" city?

...
Click to expand...
Semantics. Those questions turn solely on your chosen definition of "same". And have nothing to do with reincarnation.
The river is a good example in order to make explicit the fundamental difference between the "sameness" of the soul (the experiencing subject) and the "sameness" of its brain corresponding to the "sameness" of a river.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just an illustration of the nature of analogy - that it has limits. By the way, do I take it you do not believe in multiple personality disorders?
If we consider people like Richard Dawkins (who ignore the old wisdom that divisible matter is confronted to undivisible souls) ...
Click to expand...
I wonder if you're confusing "ignore" with "reject", and perhaps "wisdom" with "nonsense".
 
wogoga said:
Well, since you ask, it appears to me to be a string of non sequitur arguments:​
I'll add my corresponding statements in blue before your comments (in red):
A large proportion of your body's matter is regularly replaced. Your body as well as your feelings, thinking and behaviour change a lot in the course of your life. Your psychological properties which are accessible to empirical research would have had a different development under different circumstances. Nevertheless you probably are convinced that you yourself were the baby with your name and that you would still be you yourself, if you had been kidnapped as a baby and brought up in an exotic culture.​
It begins by arguing that much of the physical matter in our bodies is regularly replaced, yet we "feel" we are the same person, therefore souls. Uh, why? If I replace every brick in my house, one at a time, it will always "feel" like my house. So what?​
Your logical comparison is quite revealing. You assume
  • a constant person ("I", "my")
and consider equivalent the relationships of this person
  • to a changing house belonging to this person and
  • to the person's body (changing from birth to death).
By the way, do you claim here that a house "feels" in a similar way as we (and other animals) do?

You haven't answered this question: Would you still be you yourself (i.e the same experiencing subject), if you had been kidnapped as a baby and brought up in an exotic culture, yes or no?

It has obviously been possible to transform the consciousness of 'you' as a child, to the consciousness of 'you' as an adult, by continuous (small) changes. Do you assume that it would in principle also be possible to transform 'you' as a conscious subject, to 'me' as a conscious subject, by continuous changes? (A continuous transformation of your body, to a body identical to my body, by gradual changes is logically conceivable.)
Trillions of egg cells have been successfully fertilized during the transition from ape-like ancestors to us. In principle all these fertilizations can be numbered and we can attribute the number n to one having led to a reductionist R. R believes that the currently accepted physical and chemical laws are enough to transform a fertilized egg cell into a self-conscious person.

Nevertheless, the fundamental distinction between the fertilization n (and the body emerging from it) and trillions other ones remains a complete mystery to R. A reductionist explanation is impossible, because it would have to deduce this distinction from a material difference in the fertilized egg cells and such a difference is incompatible with the fact that for every reductionist another fertilization distinguishes itself.​
Then it says the consciousness which emerges from each fertilised egg somehow distinguishes itself from all other near-identical fertilised eggs, therefore souls (at least I think it says so, it's rather long-winded). Again - why does this present any kind of puzzle needing souls to explain it?​
Without understanding and accepting the puzzle, an explanation obviously seems superfluous.

From a purely materialist point of view, it makes absolutely no sense that you experience the world from your body and not from one of the many other bodies of the present, past and future.
The attempt to deduce individual consciousness from the fertilized egg cell leads to further problems. What I show here in the case of DNA is by analogy valid for the whole fertilized egg cell. In principle the DNA of one person can be continuously transformed into the DNA of another by small changes. Individual consciousness, however, is descrete insofar as it is impossible to imagine that the consciousness of one person can be transformed by continuous changes into the one of another.

Also the example of monozygous twins shows that a fertilized egg cell cannot be enough to determine individual consciousness. The twins originate from the same cell, but they experience the world as separate individuals.​
Next it declares that since identical twins are born as two different consciousnesses, but have genetically identical bodies, therefore souls. That makes no sense at all unless you assume that consciousness does not arise from a brain's function but directly from an individual's genes. Who thinks that?​
Try to understand the fundamental difference between continuity and discreteness (discontinuity).

You didn't comment on this:
A most impressive refutation of reductionism represents a thought experiment. We assume a machine capable of producing copies of everything which do not differ physically and chemically from the original. According to consequent reductionism such a copy of you would be capable of surviving, and more importantly, it would not be distinguishable from you at all. The copy would have all your memories and properties and would believe like you that it is you. Not even the question whether you are the original or the copy would make any sense.​
If we created such a copy of you, who would be 'you', you or your copy?
For what follows I assume that everyone of us remains independently of the circumstances of one's life the same experiencing subject. This subject I call soul. The concept 'soul' abstains from age and current physical and psychological states.​
Then it declares the author's definition of soul = consciousness (as far as I can tell). Unhelpful added confusion.​
Instead of
  • This subject I call soul
maybe I should have written:
  • For such individually experiencing subjects to be possible, I postulate the existence of discrete undivisible entities, which we can call 'souls' (or 'psychons'). To each individually experiencing subject corresponds one soul.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your delusions.They have no basis in reality.
 
The same city with different names.Definite proof of reincarnation there.
 
dafydd said:
Still no proof of reincarnation?
Click to expand...


Have you read #189, #270 and #317? Do you have a minimal knowledge of epistemology?

Can you give me the corresponding proof that the Earth is a sphere, which would have convinced somebody like you 1000 years ago?

According to you, did such a definitive proof of the year 1000 exist, or was there only a lot of (more or less trustworthy) evidence suggesting the sphericity of the Earth?

If one does not trample on logics and common sense by invocing the magic emergence of huge amounts of information out of nothing, then ontogeny is enough to definitively conclude that besides material information carriers, additional information carriers do exist (see).

In any case, reincarnation remains a scientific fact, even if I'm still the only one being able to recognize this fact.
In the same way, the movement of the Earth around the Sun was a scientific fact even at the time when the young Johannes Kepler (Copernicus' reincarnation) was the only one being able to recognize this fact.

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

One billion malnourished humans and all the focus on climate change! Perverted!
 
wogoga said:
In any case, reincarnation remains a scientific fact, even if I'm still the only one being able to recognize this fact.
Click to expand...


Moreover, you are the only one able to recognize this fact without the necessity of any proof whatsoever. You should be very proud.
 
wogoga said:
Have you read #189, #270 and #317? Do you have a minimal knowledge of epistemology?

Can you give me the corresponding proof that the Earth is a sphere, which would have convinced somebody like you 1000 years ago?

According to you, did such a definitive proof of the year 1000 exist, or was there only a lot of (more or less trustworthy) evidence suggesting the sphericity of the Earth?

If one does not trample on logics and common sense by invocing the magic emergence of huge amounts of information out of nothing, then ontogeny is enough to definitively conclude that besides material information carriers, additional information carriers do exist (see).

In any case, reincarnation remains a scientific fact, even if I'm still the only one being able to recognize this fact.
In the same way, the movement of the Earth around the Sun was a scientific fact even at the time when the young Johannes Kepler (Copernicus' reincarnation) was the only one being able to recognize this fact.

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com

One billion malnourished humans and all the focus on climate change! Perverted!
Click to expand...

Prove that Kepler was the reincarnation of Copernicus.Go on,I dare you.The rest of your post was nonsense,and nothing to to with proving the existence of reincarnation.
 
I didn't read every page of the thread (sorry) but does psychon = metachlorian?

And wogoga --- do you know who you were previously? And if so, how do you know?
 
Last edited:
A couple of questions for wogoga:
  1. What is the mass of a psychon?
  2. Are there such things as antipsychons, or are psychons their own antiparticles (like photons)?
Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom