A flaw with the belief in reincarnation?

[Eos of the Eons]

Therefore, the absence of "life" in its traditional sense may not necessarily warrant the absence of consciousness.

You'll need to come up with a good argument why it wouldn't warrant the absence of consciousness. Our brains are what make us conscious. When we are dead, our brain is dead...blah blah my usual arguments.

 

[Meadmaker]

Our brains are what make us conscious.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but the Buddha taught that our consciousness makes our brains, with a few steps in the middle.


One difficult thing about discussing reincarnation is that there are two "major" religions associated with reincarnation, Hinduism and Buddhism. The two religions teach very different things about reincarnation. Hindus talk about souls and rebirth. Buddhists talk about no-soul, or no-self (anata) and the principle of dependent origination, in which our mental states continue to perpetuate themselves in a long cycle of birth and death.

And just to confuse things, the Tibetan Buddhists talk more like Hindus and I don't know anything about Shinto.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Our brains are what make us conscious.

How do you possibly come to this conclusion? Minding my solipsism, I know that I can only be sure of my own consciousness. Therefore, I cannot make a sufficient correlation between a particular physical configuration and consciousness because I only have one piece of data to draw that correlation from. I could say just as easily that because I have a liver and I am conscious, all things with livers are conscious.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Try to compute how many souls are needed up until now.

Then try to look at the population growth for the next 40-50 years.

If you believe in reincarnation, you got a big problem.

Where in reincarnation theory does it say that all persons must be reincarnated? And all persons contain a reincarnated soul? Isn't possible that only 10% or those that die get reincarnated? Or that only 10% of the now-living population was reincarnated from someone else?

In other words, I don't see any reason why there has to be a 1:1 ratio between was & will-be, especially taking into consideration a possible time lag from one stage to another.

Surely there are better reasons why reincarnation is bunk.

On the lighter side:


Did you see my soul
Passing thru your eyes?
Wonder who's got my body, oh,
Wonder who's on my mind?
Wonder who's on my mind.

If you see my mother,
Tell her I did not die;
I've been reincarnated on
The other side of life,
The other side of life.

-- Diane Kolby, "Reincarnation"

 

[Iamme]

Where in reincarnation theory does it say that all persons must be reincarnated?

Iamme response: "It" doesn't,. whatever 'it' is. But if there were this 'it' for reincarnation law, then why suppose that some are (reincarnated), and not all?

(Sherman Bay)
And all persons contain a reincarnated soul? Isn't possible that only 10% or those that die get reincarnated? Or that only 10% of the now-living population was reincarnated from someone else?

Iamme response: Anything is possible. But with theories, one must present mor esubstance than supposition. Why again suppose something like only 10 % become reincarnated? Do you suppose some of us are like bad seeds, who don't 'take'. That some seeds live to grow, while others die?

(Sherman Bay)
In other words, I don't see any reason why there has to be a 1:1 ratio between was & will-be, especially taking into consideration a possible time lag from one stage to another.


Iamme response: A time lag has nothing to do with the ratio. It is entirely possible to have a time lag AND a 1:1 ratio. No?

(Sherman Bay)
Surely there are better reasons why reincarnation is bunk.

Iamme response: I can think of a pretty good one: The fact that we don't know we have been reincarnated. If you don't KNOW you have been reincarnated...then what makes you think you were? What is the sense? Anecdotal stories of people under hypnosis who clainm tney were Napolean or something? Are any of these stories truly credible? And how would one prove this? After all, we can't wake up some witness that co-existed with the reincarnated person before he/she was reincarnated, to ask them to verify intimate details. And things that ARE'T intimate, and are found recorded in history would not prove the story. All it would prove is the person has a knowledge of history stored away in their subconscious. And THAT is if one believes that the hypnotized person is truly hypnotized.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by lamme

I can think of a pretty good one: The fact that we don't know we have been reincarnated. If you don't KNOW you have been reincarnated...then what makes you think you were? What is the sense? Anecdotal stories of people under hypnosis who clainm tney were Napolean or something? Are any of these stories truly credible? And how would one prove this? After all, we can't wake up some witness that co-existed with the reincarnated person before he/she was reincarnated, to ask them to verify intimate details. And things that ARE'T intimate, and are found recorded in history would not prove the story. All it would prove is the person has a knowledge of history stored away in their subconscious. And THAT is if one believes that the hypnotized person is truly hypnotized.

You're not attempting to rule out reincarnation altogether, are you? If you are, then please refer to the definition of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

I'm not a "believer" in reincarnation either. I've just not seen a valid argument refuting it yet.

If, however, I had the slightest inclination toward it, then it would be with all religious connotations and magical memory inheritance from past lives aside. I see reincarnation as being existent in two mundane scenarios: 1) Consciousness is the result of an irreducible phenomenon 2) The phenomenon responsible for consciousness is reducible, but can endure in its needed organization after death and into the next life.

 

[Kopji]

I think that an underlying premise of at least some eastern philosophy, is that there is a common shared consciousness or underlying 'fabric' to the universe.

To this thinking, brains 'manifest' a small aspect of this fabric, and we perceive it as an individual person.

In the earlier example: a rock manifests the 'fabric' as a rock, and we describe it as having the 'nature' of a rock. A human would have the 'nature' of a human.

The opening argument for a 'flaw' seems based on a 'western' conception that reincarnation is part of a historic narrative where we make a journey from 'here to there'.

A simple way around the 'flaw' would be to believe that all things have a common 'spiritual' basis, and the material things we see are surface manifestations of that deeper spiritual reality.

 

[Iamme]

You're not attempting to rule out reincarnation altogether, are you? If you are, then please refer to the definition of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

I'm not a "believer" in reincarnation either. I've just not seen a valid argument refuting it yet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Batman Jr.---There are many subjects of discusion where people just plain don't know what they are talking about, and maybe should just not say anything. But regarding reincarnation...this subjectmatter is stranger than most in the sense that if there ISN't reincarnation...you don't know if there is or isn't. And if there IS reincarnation, you don't know if there is or isn't, either.

So you wonder what the sense is. Reading on the philosophies then would prove to only have entertainment value.

 

[Iamme]

I think that an underlying premise of at least some eastern philosophy, is that there is a common shared consciousness or underlying 'fabric' to the universe.

To this thinking, brains 'manifest' a small aspect of this fabric, and we perceive it as an individual person.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Kopji---This is some pretty deep stuff. If there is this universal fabric of consciousness...just where and how did the individual brain manifest, so IT could in turn perceive it as an individual person? By 'it' do you mean ...itself? By 'person' are we refering to the 'soul' of the person or the body of a person?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by lamme

Batman Jr.---There are many subjects of discusion where people just plain don't know what they are talking about, and maybe should just not say anything. But regarding reincarnation...this subjectmatter is stranger than most in the sense that if there ISN't reincarnation...you don't know if there is or isn't. And if there IS reincarnation, you don't know if there is or isn't, either.

So you wonder what the sense is. Reading on the philosophies then would prove to only have entertainment value.

Are you inferring that I don't know what I'm talking about? It wasn't clear to me whether you were attempting to place doubt in the belief or to refute it entirely. Sometimes people get dogmatic in the opposite direction. After all, you did provide your reasoning as evidence for reincarnation being "bunk" (see your response to Sherman Bay's post). But I see now that this is not the message you had intended to convey and I thank you for clearing up the confusion.

I probably shouldn't have put believer in quotation marks because it ends up making me sound sardonic. I'm really not a believer in the most literal sense of the word, and am actually an agnostic as I've said before.

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

You're not attempting to rule out reincarnation altogether, are you? If you are, then please refer to the definition of the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

I'm not a "believer" in reincarnation either. I've just not seen a valid argument refuting it yet.

In this, I was expressing that my opinion was consistent with yours in the actual "belief" in reincarnation, but not in its "refutation." Remember that it had appeared at the time to me that you were discounting the very idea of reincarnation itself in describing a reason why it is "bunk." Please, in the future, don't go patronizing people so quickly (or slowly for that matter). It’s not required in getting your point across and it certainly doesn't help others to find that point more appealing.

 

[Iamme]

Batman Jr. ---No, I was not inferring that YOU did not know what you are talking about. I was hoping when I made the post that you wouldn't see it that way. Just to clear things up. I am not the kind of poster who tells people that they don't know what they are talking about, as I have seen others here do. I would put it in some other way that is more palatable. I will try to adress your post tomorrow as I have to get off the computer now.

 

[Kopji]

Kopji---This is some pretty deep stuff. If there is this universal fabric of consciousness...just where and how did the individual brain manifest, so IT could in turn perceive it as an individual person? By 'it' do you mean ...itself? By 'person' are we refering to the 'soul' of the person or the body of a person?

Maybe something about the way our brains are constructed only allow us to perceive ourselves as an individual. What we experience as "self" would then be more like a human perspective, rather than an illusion.

All very dualist...

The topic question seems to ask if reincarnation is internally consistent. I'd say yes it can be, but not in the common sense that each individual goes from life to life like flowing along a stream. The metaphor would be more like being drawn from a pool.

I don't see how the truth of it would be testable though. An alternate hypothesis would be that we have a biologically evolved 'collective UN-consciousness': We share a commonly evolved recognition of 'archetype' patterns deeply buried and long forgotten until they are called up. (Jung?)

How would we ever test the two conflicting models?

So I might join Buddha in deciding that worrying about it was all pretty useless. I just do not see the need for metaphysics to describe our existence or what happens after we die.

I can say that we are wonderful and unique parts of the universe that come together for a short while, and then return. We hold within us the philosophers and great teachers. What an immensely precious moment in eternity we have, we should do what we can to make life worth living for each person. What better reason do I need?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

How do you possibly come to this conclusion? Minding my solipsism, I know that I can only be sure of my own consciousness. Therefore, I cannot make a sufficient correlation between a particular physical configuration and consciousness because I only have one piece of data to draw that correlation from. I could say just as easily that because I have a liver and I am conscious, all things with livers are conscious.

You cannot compare the brain to the liver. Everything with our types of brains are conscious. That includes animals. They don't have the exact same brains as we humans do, therefore they have different consciousness, but the same as well in that they are live thinking beings.

Without your brain you are not conscious. At all. Ever.

That's how I can draw the conclusion. There are babies born without brains, and they clearly are not conscious even though everything else is perfect.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

You cannot compare the brain to the liver. Everything with our types of brains are conscious. That includes animals. They don't have the exact same brains as we humans do, therefore they have different consciousness, but the same as well in that they are live thinking beings.

Without your brain you are not conscious. At all. Ever.

That's how I can draw the conclusion. There are babies born without brains, and they clearly are not conscious even though everything else is perfect.

How is it that the babies of whom you speak are so clearly not conscious? There exists a difference in appearing conscious and actually being conscious. It could be postulated that the brain merely facilitates the evincing of what you would consider to be "conscious behavior."

My underlying argument in all of this is that I can only be truly certain of my own consciousness. The fact that something seems aware to me does not automatically mean that it is, and conversely, the fact that something seems unaware to me does not necessarily mean that it is.

It might be good for you to read a bit about solipsism to see what I'm getting at here in a little more detail.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

How is it that the babies of whom you speak are so clearly not conscious? There exists a difference in appearing conscious and actually being conscious. It could be postulated that the brain merely facilitates the evincing of what you would consider to be "conscious behavior."

My underlying argument in all of this is that I can only be truly certain of my own consciousness. The fact that something seems aware to me does not automatically mean that it is, and conversely, the fact that something seems unaware to me does not necessarily mean that it is.

It might be good for you to read a bit about solipsism to see what I'm getting at here in a little more detail.

I'm sorry I'm reading this so late, I had to laugh at the part of the dead babies possibly being conscious.

You know you're conscious. You think well enough to post here. If you were not conscious you wouldn't be posting here.

There is such a thing as dead vs unconscious. Being dead is no consciousness ever. Unconscious is not devoid of consciousness, just you're asleep or knocked out or in a coma, ie not awake.

That is what I feel is being argued here. No brain (dead), no consciousness or unconsciousness. Nothing. Zip. This can be proven any number of ways.

Somebody in a coma isn't dead, and we can certainly tell why.

Being on a machine with the body breathing but the brain dead is not consciousness. Being on a machine with the body breathing and the brain still alive is still having some kind of 'consciousness', but being in a comatose state is very unconcious. Am I still spelling okay here?

Now awareness is another whole different topic. People can have different types of awareness. Autism, schizophrenia, etc. all change awareness.

Without a brain you most certainly will not have any kind of awareness. It is your brain that perceives all the incoming information and interprets it accordingly. You can even be quite aware when you are dreaming.

A tree is never conscious or aware. A worm is aware of the fact that it must do certain things to survive (eat) I don't know if worms feel hunger though, or what motivates them to eat. Humans think they are the most aware beings ever. I'm not so sure of that.

Is a very interesting topic worthy of discussion by those with more expertise on the topic, but I'm sure it is a very unstudied topic.

I better go to bed.

Hope I made some sort of sense.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Eos,

Would I be incorrect in saying that you determine whether something is conscious or not by observing what "conscious behaviors" it may be evincing (i.e. because I'm writing this message to you, I am therefore conscious)?

With the above in mind, consider the implications of someone "playing dead." In this scenario, we see how a person can trick those around him into thinking him unconscious even though it is quite to the contrary what state he is really in. He appears unaware, but he’s not! You could agree with that, right?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Playing dead? What about when you are sleeping? Both those scenarios have degrees of awareness. It has less to do with what it looks like you're doing, and more to do with what your brain is doing. We know looks can be deceiving, and we know the difference when someone is playing dead vs really being dead. When you're dead you have NO brain activity. Even drugs that make you look dead-you're unconscious, and not very aware, but when you wake up you're an aware being again. Almost dead and dead are almost the same degree of awareness, but still different.

Just talking common sense as I see it, you know?

Just remember, these are just my opinions on the subject. My reality based on facts we know about the human body.

Your side on the subject is interesting too. Anybody's is. That's why it is fun to discuss.

Thanks,

Eos

 

[Batman Jr.]

Believe it or not, you've almost got what I'm trying to say!

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Playing dead? What about when you are sleeping? Both those scenarios have degrees of awareness. It has less to do with what it looks like you're doing...

My sentiments exactly.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

...and more to do with what your brain is doing.

Stop there for a second. Hmmm...

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

We know looks can be deceiving...

Okay, you're back on track here.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

...and we know the difference when someone is playing dead vs really being dead. When you're dead you have NO brain activity.

Whoa!! Let's take a minute to think about this. We know that not everything is intuitive, that some things are quite different than they seem. From your posts above, I can see that you concede to at least this. The problem I find in your arguments is in the consistent use of the hypothetical that the brain is what makes us conscious. While what you say in the quote above may technically be correct—as the codification of death utilizes as its chief criteria the activity, or lack thereof, in the brain—in the sense we're talking about death, we're looking at whether or not it actually causes the cessation of consciousness (not assuming that the brain causes consciousness; we would be using circular logic if we did). Since consciousness cannot be related to any kind of behavior capable of being outwardly perceived, this is impossible to determine.

 

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Try to compute how many souls are needed up until now.

Then try to look at the population growth for the next 40-50 years.

If you believe in reincarnation, you got a big problem.

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

You only get a problem if you assume that humans are always reincarnated from other humans.

and

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Zillions of virtuous cockroaches waiting to be born as human.

What we call "overpopulation" means that the more virtuous cockroaches go faster to what amounts to "heaven" for them.

There are lots of cockroaches, and there were cockroaches 600 million years before there were humans.

"Overpopulation" means that God is finally rewarding them.

Brilliant! Evidence of the population explosion in the US after WWII as being caused by the increased use of pesticides!

J/K, of course.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Since consciousness cannot be related to any kind of behavior capable of being outwardly perceived, this is impossible to determine.

Death is quite easily perceived outwardly. The rotten corpse is a dead give away. If you are dead you are not at all 'possessing' consciousness.

I have already pointed out that it matters more about what is going on inside (the brain) than what appearances are on the outside.

On the outside you can have a perfectly formed baby. Inside there is no brain. No consciousness. You can determine that on the outside in that the baby will not respond to any stimuli and will rot away.

No brain, No consciousness. This can be perceived in any lifeless thing. Near death will show brain activity still. Death is death. Alive is alive. No life, no consciousness.

The End