ESP and Reincarnation

[Tapio]

Plants and minerals don't have a consciousness so they cannot be part of reincarnation.

No aim of any sort. Totally random.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now, I'm starting to be fairly confused by your definition (and lack of one) of reincarnation. Seems there's absolutely nothing even remotely tangible in the way you construct your belief (which doesn't mean it couldn't be believed, but it sure makes it hard for 'an outsider to your head' to grasp).

There is one question already asked, but left unanswered that might clear things up a bit. Since you couldn't understand it the way LissaLysikan asked it, I'll try to rephrase what I think s/he was trying to ask.

What is your belief of the difference of a consciousness the first time it is formed with a consciousness after reincarnation? This leads me to ask more. Do you believe that the possibly reincarnated consciousness has a 'beginning', as in 'the first time' it it incarnated? If not, how do you believe a consciousness begins and where does consciousness end if it's not reincarnated?

Mind you, these are sincere questions, which I don't think you've answered before in this thread. Thanks.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question too, but something is confusing me.

Bob, you've said that you've come to this conclusion through long years of consideration, and that you're not about to abandon this belief. My question is simply why?

What can possibly distinguish a world in which Bob's version of reincarnation does happen from one in which it doesn't? How does Bob's version of reincarnation provide any information on how the universe works? What use is Bob's belief? What purpose does it serve? How... why... gaah! I just don't understand how or why someone might come to such a strong and firmly held conclusion about something that has no discernable effect on the universe as a whole! I don't get it. I don't get it at all. It confuses me.

I'm not contributing to the discussion here, so I'll go back to lurking and see whether any of my confusions are alleviated.

 

[BobG]

I'm interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question too, but something is confusing me.

Bob, you've said that you've come to this conclusion through long years of consideration, and that you're not about to abandon this belief. My question is simply why?

What can possibly distinguish a world in which Bob's version of reincarnation does happen from one in which it doesn't? How does Bob's version of reincarnation provide any information on how the universe works? What use is Bob's belief? What purpose does it serve? How... why... gaah! I just don't understand how or why someone might come to such a strong and firmly held conclusion about something that has no discernable effect on the universe as a whole! I don't get it. I don't get it at all. It confuses me.

I'm not contributing to the discussion here, so I'll go back to lurking and see whether any of my confusions are alleviated.

I don't get any of these questions!

For example, asking "What use is Bob's belief?"

I mean really! What do you mean?

Bob

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't get any of these questions!

For example, asking "What use is Bob's belief?"

I mean really! What do you mean?

Bob

I mean, does your belief actually tell us anything about the world? Other than, of course, the fact that you believe it. I don't see why you've spend so much intellectual capital on this.

Furthermore, I'm still interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question. Is there any way to tell the difference between a consciousness that hasn't been reincarnated and one that has? If not, then how can there be a distinction between the two?

 

[BobG]

I mean, does your belief actually tell us anything about the world? I don't see why you've spend so much intellectual capital on this.

Of course. It tells you that reincarnation is a possibility and it explains what reincarnation means to me.

Intellectual capital doesn't get used up like gasoline so why worry about it. If nothing else, it's cerebral exercize which is always beneficial.

If you mean why do I spend my time on this, I enjoy it and it's fun.

Furthermore, I'm still interested in the first-incarnation-blank-slate vs. reincarnated-blank-slate question. Is there any way to tell the difference between a consciousness that hasn't been reincarnated and one that has? If not, then how can there be a distinction between the two?

There is no way to tell the difference between a new state and a reincarnated state.

I don't know what you mean by the second part of your question? It is what it is!

Bob Guercio

 

[BobG]

Thanks for the clarification.

What is your belief of the difference of a consciousness the first time it is formed with a consciousness after reincarnation? .

Considering only the blank state, there is no difference.

Do you believe that the possibly reincarnated consciousness has a 'beginning', as in 'the first time' it it incarnated?

Yes.

 

[shuttlt]

So you just choose to believe this. You have no reason to believe it other than you choose to. Were there any other beliefs you thought you might choose, but decided not to?

 

[Tapio]

Considering only the blank state, there is no difference.

So to cut it short, your belief is that the only aspect of us that might reincarnate is our consciousness, which you call 'the blank state'. And now you say you believe there is no way to differentiate a 'new blank state' from a reincarnated one. Fine.

But in order for you to even begin constructing a belief in reincarnation, you must have some idea of how to differentiate these two kinds of 'blank states'. Since you don't believe that the 'blank states' can be told apart, there must then be something else than this 'blank state' which enables you to differentiate a 'new blank state' from a reincarnated one (which I think the highlighted word in your post also implies).

What do you believe this 'something else' is?

 

[Fishstick]

As an example of these animals that I am referring to, there is a species of birds or butterflies, I don't remember exactly, that migrate by orienting themselves with the earths magnetic field.

I cannot give you any details on the specifics of these senses that I'm talking about because they have not yet been detected and I certainly am not able to use mine if it exists.


Bob Guercio

There is nothing paranormal about this sense. The animal (a pigeon, for example) has a small but concentrated amount of magnetite in the beak, which is used for orientation during migration. Bees and some tortoises do this too.

 

[Tyooby]

Bob, I can understand that people believe in reincarnation because they (think) they have recollections of past lives, or because it makes sense to them because it explains certain aspects of reality (e.g. karma). But apparently neither one of these reasons for believing in reincarnation applies to you. The only other reason for believing I can think of is indoctrination. Is this the case with you? Have you started believing in the existence of reincarnation because someone has convinced you it exists? Or do you have another reason?

 

[BobG]

So you just choose to believe this. You have no reason to believe it other than you choose to. Were there any other beliefs you thought you might choose, but decided not to?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean?

People choose religions for all sorts of mindless reasons, in most cases because they were raised and brainwashed in it. Others choose a religion because they marry somebody of that faith.

I've thought about reincarnation and many other things for years and it is my conclusion that it is possible to be reincarnated although it is a very rare event.

Simply put:

In the year 1500 I wasn't here.

In the year 2000 I am here.

Presuming that I don't get reincarnated in the next 500 years, in the year 2500, I will not be here.

So I ask you, from my perspective and my perspective only, what is the difference between 1500 and 2500.

Absulutely none! So if it happened before 2000, it could happen again after 2000.

Bob

 

[EHocking]

I've thought about reincarnation and many other things for years and it is my conclusion that it is possible to be reincarnated although it is a very rare event.

Simply put:

In the year 1500 I wasn't here.

In the year 2000 I am here.

Presuming that I don't get reincarnated in the next 500 years, in the year 2500, I will not be here.

So I ask you, from my perspective and my perspective only, what is the difference between 1500 and 2500.

Absulutely none! So if it happened before 2000, it could happen again after 2000.

Bob

So... your proof of reincarnation is that you didn't exist 500 years ago and you won't exist in 500 years time?

In that case, using that logic:

I am God.

 

[BobG]

But in order for you to even begin constructing a belief in reincarnation, you must have some idea of how to differentiate these two kinds of 'blank states'.

Why?

 

[BobG]

There is nothing paranormal about this sense. The animal (a pigeon, for example) has a small but concentrated amount of magnetite in the beak, which is used for orientation during migration. Bees and some tortoises do this too.

Agreed! However, if we have a sense of this nature which I tend to think we do, it is too underdeveloped to be detected but it is suffieciently developed to be used by some of us now and then.

By the way, I am not one of them.

Bob

 

[BobG]

Bob, I can understand that people believe in reincarnation because they (think) they have recollections of past lives, or because it makes sense to them because it explains certain aspects of reality (e.g. karma). But apparently neither one of these reasons for believing in reincarnation applies to you. The only other reason for believing I can think of is indoctrination. Is this the case with you? Have you started believing in the existence of reincarnation because someone has convinced you it exists? Or do you have another reason?

No.

Nobody in my circle of assoiciates believe in reincarnation and, of course, nobody in my circle of friends agrees with me.

However, if I find anybody on this forum who agrees with me, I want to collaborate to help others to understand this.

Bob

 

[BobG]

So... your proof of reincarnation is that you didn't exist 500 years ago and you won't exist in 500 years time?

Here we are plowing old ground again; however, I still feel that your response deserves a reply.

I've said it several times already that I have no proof of reincarnation!

Bob

 

[Tyooby]

However, if I find anybody on this forum who agrees with me, I want to collaborate to help others to understand this.

Bob

I think you should begin by defining what it is that reincarnates, and explain how you think it's possible and why it's plausible for this reincanation to take place.

 

[BobG]

I think you should begin by defining what it is that reincarnates, and explain how you think it's possible and why it's plausible for this reincanation to take place.

I've already done this to the best of my ability! Please reread all my previous posts on this subject.

If in the future I am able to present a better argument, I gladly will!

Bob Guercio

 

[Tyooby]

I've already done this to the best of my ability!

Then I don't think you'll find anybody who agrees with you, because I don't think your explanations make your version of reincarnation sound possible or plausible in any way.

For example, what's this blank slate/state or consciousness you speak of? How could it exist before you're born and after you die? What's it made of? How was it created? Does it have a purpose? Does it have an end? Why would it incarnate and reincarnate? What makes you think one blank state could be the reincarnation of another? They would have to have some common essence, that for example you and I don't share. Whats that essence? etc.

 

[Giggywig]

Agreed! However, if we have a sense of this nature which I tend to think we do, it is too underdeveloped to be detected but it is suffieciently developed to be used by some of us now and then.

By the way, I am not one of them.

Bob

You seemed to have defined both ESP and reincarnation to be completely untestable and unfalsifiable and then chosen to believe in them. Fine by me, not the choice I'd make but it's not my problem. But this seems to contradict that in the case of ESP. If it is "sufficiently developed te to be used by some people now and then", then it is absolutely testable. Yet, those who claim to have it can't pass scientific scrutiny. You are then left with the usual excuses for why it didn't work under controlled conditions, when the obvious reason is that it doesn't work at any time.