• 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 - Some Thoughts

Oxymoron said:
I'm not sure I understand your comparism.:blush: I'm not saying the idea of self is coming from some "otherworldly" signal, of course it isn't. I agree more closely with the line of thinking that yes, our sense of self or me-ness is a result of the memories, emotions etc., that have been created by our own experiences through life. :) I'm just thinking out loud here, and questioning whether or not those memories or sense of self would be destroyed upon trauma to the brain, or just our ability to access them. Perhaps this is where I'm comparing our brain function to that of a T.V. antenna? Maybe you could elaborate your perspective a bit more? :D
Click to expand...

Oliver Sacks (again) told of a person who commited a grisly murder while under the influence of PCP, and had no memory of the crime when he came down from his high. Years later, he suffered a head injury, and the memories of the crime came flooding back, unbidden, like a waking nightmare.

This is probably a case of what you describe, but there's no reason to believe that the memories were ever anywhere but in this guy's brain. He just didn't have CONSCIOUS access to them.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Oliver Sacks (again) told of a person who commited a grisly murder while under the influence of PCP, and had no memory of the crime when he came down from his high. Years later, he suffered a head injury, and the memories of the crime came flooding back, unbidden, like a waking nightmare.

This is probably a case of what you describe, but there's no reason to believe that the memories were ever anywhere but in this guy's brain. He just didn't have CONSCIOUS access to them.
Click to expand...


Okay, I understand now. But I was never implying that memories exist anywhere but the brain. How could they for craps sake!:p
 
KingMerv00 said:
How does a believer in reincarnation explain that thoughts, memories, and emotions can all be altered by blunt force trauma to that roundish thing on top of the neck?
Click to expand...

And to add onto that, what about sociopaths who happen to be born this way, or made this way through abusive upbringing? Downs syndrome? Other mental illnesses?
 
Oxymoron said:
I'm not sure I understand your comparism.:blush: I'm not saying the idea of self is coming from some "otherworldly" signal, of course it isn't. I agree more closely with the line of thinking that yes, our sense of self or me-ness is a result of the memories, emotions etc., that have been created by our own experiences through life.
Click to expand...

I agree with you I think. Our brains are initially a semi-blank slate created by genetics. We are born with certain instincts and tendencies but our personal experiences change who we are as we live.

None of this is mysterious. Our personalities, memories, and emotions are the direct result of the physical properties of the brain.

:) I'm just thinking out loud here, and questioning whether or not those memories or sense of self would be destroyed upon trauma to the brain, or just our ability to access them. Perhaps this is where I'm comparing our brain function to that of a T.V. antenna? Maybe you could elaborate your perspective a bit more? :D
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but I guess it could be possible. Maybe if the cells or nerve connections that "held" the memory were isolated from the rest of the brain by trauma? The memory would still exist in a sense. In theory you could reconnect the cells and remember something you forgot.

I don't think there is a need to elaborate on the TV antenna idea since I think misunderstood you. The "message from beyond" idea is reserved for the believers of souls.
 
The idea of reincarnation is incoherent. What does it mean to say that some person born in the future will be me?

Then again, what does it mean to say that when I wake up tomorrow I will be the same person I am today (except in a physical sense)? If I woke up as someone else, in someone else's body, how would I know? I'd have their memories, not mine.

We can imagine all our consciousnesses continually being switched around like this from person to person and we would all be completely oblivious to it. This indicates to me that the idea of continuity of consciousness is completely empty of any meaning. There are just lots of individual moments of consciousness and what ties them together is the physical continuity of the body they happen in and, in particular, its ability to form memories.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I agree with you I think. Our brains are initially a semi-blank slate created by genetics. We are born with certain instincts and tendencies but our personal experiences change who we are as we live.

None of this is mysterious. Our personalities, memories, and emotions are the direct result of the physical properties of the brain.



I'm no expert but I guess it could be possible. Maybe if the cells or nerve connections that "held" the memory were isolated from the rest of the brain by trauma? The memory would still exist in a sense. In theory you could reconnect the cells and remember something you forgot.

I don't think there is a need to elaborate on the TV antenna idea since I think misunderstood you. The "message from beyond" idea is reserved for the believers of souls.
Click to expand...


Got it. I suppose the idea of reincarnation is a nice fantasy. I got into a discussion on another thread when I posted questions about entropy and the First Law of Thermodynamics. I was curious if one could argue in favor of the idea of reincarnation, since we are all made up of energy which as we know, can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred. So after some basic scientific explainations, I came to the agreement that when we no longer possess the capability of transferring or transforming energy in our bodies, ie: the heart stops and the brain no longer is functioning on its own, so too, do we lose our sense of self. I suppose our memories and such are created using energy and electric impulses, so it goes to reason that without the latter, the former will cease to exist.

:relieved: I think I may have short circuited on that paragraph, I hope you understand my meaning.:)
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron said:
I was curious if one could argue in favor of the idea of reincarnation, since we are all made up of energy which as we know, can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
Click to expand...

I would say that you cannot argue that idea logically.

I've heard this argument before and it really doesn't make any sense because it doesn't match reality. "Me-ness" is not made of energy. It is at complex array of nerves with electrical energy running through it. When the brain decays, the nerve cells are destroyed and the electrical signals stop as your body reaches equilibrium with the environment.

It would be correct to say that the atoms that made up your nerves and the electrons from your mental impulses are now scattered all over the earth but both ingredients that make up "you", the array and the electricity, are gone.

Suppose I take apart a building brick by brick and mail the pieces all over the world. Would anyone in their right mind still call it a building?
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I would say that you cannot argue that idea logically.

I've heard this argument before and it really doesn't make any sense because it doesn't match reality. "Me-ness" is not made of energy. It is at complex array of nerves with electrical energy running through it. When the brain decays, the nerve cells are destroyed and the electrical signals stop as your body reaches equilibrium with the environment.

It would be correct to say that the atoms that made up your nerves and the electrons from your mental impulses are now scattered all over the earth but both ingredients that make up "you", the array and the electricity, are gone.

Suppose I take apart a building brick by brick and mail the pieces all over the world. Would anyone in their right mind still call it a building?
Click to expand...

:) I couldn't agree with you more. It was something I stumbled across and you're absolutely correct it doesn't jive with reality. I suppose reincarnation is an idea that some people need to cling to in order to excuse their lack of contentness with the life they are leading. Maybe it's just the thought that if you screw up this time around, you may be able to get it right next time. Or the idea that you can better yourself over the course of many lifetimes instead of trying to fit it into 80 years. I know that doesn't encapsulate the idea of Buddhism, but hey, that's a whole other thread.;)
 
Oxymoron said:
:) I couldn't agree with you more. It was something I stumbled across and you're absolutely correct it doesn't jive with reality. I suppose reincarnation is an idea that some people need to cling to in order to excuse their lack of contentness with the life they are leading. Maybe it's just the thought that if you screw up this time around, you may be able to get it right next time. Or the idea that you can better yourself over the course of many lifetimes instead of trying to fit it into 80 years. I know that doesn't encapsulate the idea of Buddhism, but hey, that's a whole other thread.;)
Click to expand...

Oddly, I don't find reincarnation as comforting anyway. I am utterly neutral towards the idea.

If I can't remember my previously lives, I don't learn or derive joy from them. Basically, it is just a new "you" living random lives again and again and again.

From my perspective, a universe with reincarnation would feel identical to a universe where my being is snuffed out at death.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Oddly, I don't find reincarnation as comforting anyway. I am utterly neutral towards the idea.

If I can't remember my previously lives, I don't learn or derive joy from them. Basically, it is just a new "you" living random lives again and again and again.

From my perspective, a universe with reincarnation would feel identical to a universe where my being is snuffed out at death.
Click to expand...


Again, I would have to agree with you. What would be the difference, indeed! :)
 
KingMerv00 said:
Hmm...

If reincarnation was proven to be true, could you collect on your own life insurance? Would it be illegal?
Click to expand...
How would you prove, to the court or insurance company, that you the hedgehog, or you the bengal tiger, were Ted the recently deceased accountant, or that you, Joe Baggadonutz, was the recently deceased KingMerv?

That'd be tricky, wouldn't it?

But the inverse wouldn't be too hard, in terms of showing that you are not the recently deceased Tim, the accountant. The insurance company would have some fun proving you were. :)

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
How would you prove, to the court or insurance company, that you the hedgehog, or you the bengal tiger, were Ted the recently deceased accountant, or that you, Joe Baggadonutz, was the recently deceased KingMerv?

That'd be tricky, wouldn't it?

But the inverse wouldn't be too hard, in terms of showing that you are not the recently deceased Tim, the accountant. The insurance company would have some fun proving you were. :)

DR
Click to expand...

Maybe some kind of PIN?
 
KingMerv00 said:
Hmm...

If reincarnation was proven to be true, could you collect on your own life insurance? Would it be illegal?
Click to expand...

You could always put a clause in your will, or in your life insurance policy, a secret password or something, like maybe the equation for the Information Paradox or something, that might be fitting. :p

Darth Rotor said:
How would you prove, to the court or insurance company, that you the hedgehog, or you the bengal tiger, were Ted the recently deceased accountant, or that you, Joe Baggadonutz, was the recently deceased KingMerv?

Um, I think it's actually Joey Baggadonutz. ;)

That'd be tricky, wouldn't it?

But the inverse wouldn't be too hard, in terms of showing that you are not the recently deceased Tim, the accountant. The insurance company would have some fun proving you were. :)

DR
Click to expand...
 
Some day in the far future, the Sun will die and the Earth will be lifeless. reincarnation would then cease to exist (if it existed at all) as there would be no lifeforms to reincarnate to. A bit of a dead end belief.

Unless.. we reincarnate as aliens...
 
Oxymoron said:
I'm not saying that I believe in reincarnation, but in answer to your question; when a person experiences blunt force trauma to the brain, and as a result has those emotions, memories, etc, affected, isn't it fair to say the persons ability to access those components have been altered? Not necessarily the components themselves? My sentence structure sucks here, but I think you get my drift. It would be interesting to get a professional medical opinion on this matter. Is it the memories that are affected by the trauma, or just our ability to access them. hmmm. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Well memory is a wierd thing to begin with. Someone on the board , I think it was Mercution stated there are recent theories that meories are reconstructed and not really stored. Which would fit with many current models of how the brain works.

The wierd thing about the human brain is that it constructs almost everything to begin with, we do not directly percieve the visual field we see, our brains construct it. Especialy that part in the visual field occupied by the optic nerve.

People in head trauma situiations often have faulty memories of what happened they are 'confabulated', they may know they were on Green ST, for example but they will think they were headed to a friends house when they were actualy going home from work.

Memory is a very strange thing, it is like a bunch of associated knot strings that store multiple copies of redundant information with diffenet data stored in different ways on different strings and all the clues to different strings. For example the recall of memorised poetry. It is kind of fun to recall long passages, but since I am not trained in oral history I kind of get it in pieces and by reciting the pieces I have I can recover other pieces until I have most of the original piece.

Some of my friends misremember things from high school that they think happened, or I misremember things that i think happened in high school.
 
Oxymoron said:
I'm not sure I understand your comparism.:blush: I'm not saying the idea of self is coming from some "otherworldly" signal, of course it isn't. I agree more closely with the line of thinking that yes, our sense of self or me-ness is a result of the memories, emotions etc., that have been created by our own experiences through life. :) I'm just thinking out loud here, and questioning whether or not those memories or sense of self would be destroyed upon trauma to the brain, or just our ability to access them. Perhaps this is where I'm comparing our brain function to that of a T.V. antenna? Maybe you could elaborate your perspective a bit more? :D
Click to expand...


Not your fault at all, you seem to be using more of a computer data retrieval model here. There are immaterialists who maintain that thoughts exist outside our heads and that they are retrieved by the human body from the other world. So thinks like being drunk and aphasia are not proof that the organic brain is the seat of consiousness but that the brain is a reciever of consiousness.

Back to the sense of me-ness. It is a construct of the human experience. the buddha taught that the perception of the self is an illusion.
 
A few months back (7 months), I considered the possibility of a "me-ness" to be a property of fundamental matter. My idea was that fundamental matter had an identity in-itself; that while all things might be identical at its most fundamental level, there was still at least a difference of location. I considered also the idea of consciousness to be in a range, where things could be very highly conscious, and not very conscious. I did not bother to determine where we stood in this range, or where a tree might, but I speculated it had to do with the complexity and self-reference of an entity's function. In this sense, fundamental matter creates consciousness through its separation and acknowledgment of separation from the outside world -- which would mean that while consciousness might be indistinguishable between one life to the next, the consciousness has an in-itself identity which can not be duplicated.

I attributed the conglomeration of matter to the idea of particles and forces -- consciousness was only possible if there was an exchange of forces going on.
 
Last edited:
I view reincarnation the same as the rest of the views on an "Afterlife".

I think they all come from an unwillingness to accept that when we die, that bit of consciousness that we view as "Us" dies also.

How can a thought die? How can our intellect die?

Well, it happens when ya quit breathing, and the blood flow stops, more or less :)

Of course, if your lucky, you may leave behind some traces of yourself in the form of books/pictures/memories in others...

But, your outa here!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom