"Reincarnation"

[canispeaktodave]

Hello all, first post, be nice.

Just to say I am an avid listening of Skeptoid and am in agreement with 99% Mr Dunning says on his podcast. I am a software developer by trade, so my mind is constantly running through possible outcomes of situations. This helps in programming, but is quite annoying in real life. Never have a moment's peace

I was having a think the other night after having problems sleeping and my head went to the subject of reincarnation. I did A-Level Maths and Physics, but that was 11 years ago, so I apologise if my following proof is crap.

So...

If you assume that before you are a twinkle in your father's eye that you do not exist. Also assume there is a probability that you will exist, we can prove that, because you do. We do not know the odds that you will live, 1 in a billion, 1 in a trillion, no idea of knowing. When you die and have rotted away, you do not exist again. So for all intents and purposes you do not exist again. Does that mean there is a probability that you will exist again as you are technically back to square one?

I really hope that makes some sense, and I am NOT suggesting any spiritual involvement. Just wondering if my reasoning is cogent or just non-sense.

Cheers!

 

[arthwollipot]

There's no reason to believe that existence is cyclic.

 

[canispeaktodave]

There is also no reason to believe it isn't cyclic.

 

[Tristan Chi]

In what sense would it be "you" who existed multiple times?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Are you talking about the chances that the same combination of DNA as you have would come together again?

 

[canispeaktodave]

I think of the human body as more like a car, and "you" as the driver. "You" are only capable of doing what the body allows you to do/think. I'm thinking of "you" as the "driver" of the body. "You", the perspective of looking out of the head experiencing the world. I do not think, in any way, that the new "you" would be related in any way your previous existance. As we all know, there is something that causes you to have a perceived extistance in your head, that's where "you" live. We catergorise living as experiencing the now. Is it not possible either we are all the same "person" experiencing live from different perspectives simultaneously but only perceive being "driving" one at a time?

Sorry for all the quotes, I am not a git IRL.

 

[arthwollipot]

There is also no reason to believe it isn't cyclic.

What's the more parsimonious explanation - that there is cyclic...ness... or that there isn't?

 

[canispeaktodave]

What's the more parsimonious explanation - that there is cyclic...ness... or that there isn't?

You could also say, what's the more "parsimonious" explaination; the universe existing or the universe not existing? It's more plausable that nothing happens than something happens. It's a fallacious argument.

 

[Lanzy]

You seem to be saying there is something to "you" not accounted for by the cells that make up your body. Are you?

or are you saying that an identical copy of your cells could accedentily be formed again someday in the future?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is the "driver" of your "car" made of? What is its nature?

If the new you is not "related in any way" to its previous existence, in what way is it the same you existing again?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You could also say, what's the more "parsimonious" explaination; the universe existing or the universe not existing? It's more plausable that nothing happens than something happens. It's a fallacious argument.

Not really - different events (non-events) have different probabilities, but although I see no way to quantify these, one explanation is simpler than the other and there seems to be no evidence pressing for the more complex version. There is evidence for the universe existing, rather than not existing.

How would these recycled consciousnesses cope with the increase in human population? Is there a limit to the number of humans who can be conscious simultaneously?

 

[canispeaktodave]

I'm not relating "you" to any DNA etc. Just the feeling of being the person driving the body, the perspective, the result of all the brain activity creating conciousness. I am having a hard time explaining this. "you" experience life in your own head and no-one elses. "you" also only experience the present, "you" only exist in the now. So is it not possible "you" being the essence experiencing your own experiences is the same as the "you" in other person's head?

In a rudimentary way, when you die do you then start experiencing live from another head? But in actuality are you experiencing everyone at once, but are only aware of one person at a time? Does that make any sense? This is what I get for not studying hard in English class.

 

[canispeaktodave]

Not really - different events (non-events) have different probabilities, but although I see no way to quantify these, one explanation is simpler than the other and there seems to be no evidence pressing for the more complex version. There is evidence for the universe existing, rather than not existing.

How would these recycled consciousnesses cope with the increase in human population? Is there a limit to the number of humans who can be conscious simultaneously?

I'm not thinking of "you" as one of a limited edition of souls. More like "you" as a subjective experience that everyone has in their and is just as real as light. No one argues that we are running out of light. Light is light. Electromagnetism is electromagnetism. You is "you" and you and you, etc.

 

[Bikewer]

Provide a model whereby the "you" (presumably a "soul" or something similar) could exist, and how it could sustain consciousness without any physicality.
It is manifestly demonstrable that "mind" is dependent on the electrochemical activity of the brain.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

OK I get the bit about my personal consciousness being a subjective experience and being real, but then you lose me. Sure I only experience the present, but I remember the past and remember that I was essentially the same consciousness ten seconds (or ten years) ago that I am now. I don't have an equivalent to memory projecting me into everyone else's consciousness.

 

[canispeaktodave]

I'm not getting my point across well. I am not talking about souls or anything spiritual...

In the insect world, the ant colony exists as a product of ants working together and can be observed and predicted. No-one is saying that an ant colony is a soul. The experience "you" have in your brain is a result of brain function. However, when you look through your eyes, "you" precieve the world. "you", the product of brain function experiences what your eyes see. I don't see it, Bob over the road doesn't. That perspective is what I am talking about. In the film Run Lola Run, you see the same events from different perspectives. When you watch a film you have a near as damn it way you can experience what someone else is experiencing without being in their head. That perspective and resultant conscious does not exist as an entity, but as we will all can contest we know we are alive and experiencing life. Therefore is that perspective the same for all of us, and therefore we are all each other experiencing ourselves at the same time, but also individually?

 

[Robert Oz]

I think of the human body as more like a car, and "you" as the driver. "You" are only capable of doing what the body allows you to do/think. I'm thinking of "you" as the "driver" of the body. "You", the perspective of looking out of the head experiencing the world. I do not think, in any way, that the new "you" would be related in any way your previous existance. As we all know, there is something that causes you to have a perceived extistance in your head, that's where "you" live. We catergorise living as experiencing the now. Is it not possible either we are all the same "person" experiencing live from different perspectives simultaneously but only perceive being "driving" one at a time?

"You" are a product of your consciousness, experience and memories. All evidence points to this being linked to your brain and body. If your consciousness (i.e. awareness of yourself as "you"), experiences and memories have not transferred from a previous life, there is no reason to believe the "you" has reincarnated from a previous life.

Since you are not aware of past "yous", you could also argue that "you" are in all living things, but unaware of it (just as you are unaware of past "yous"). You could also argue that "you" are also in non-living things, like a chair or a stone (since you consider the physical you from the essence of "you" as separate things).

The possibilities are only limited by your imagination. But without some objective evidence, there is no reason to conclude what you're concluding. If you have no awareness of "you" prior to existing, you need objective evidence that "you" existed in another form prior to existing in your current form. There is no such evidence.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The experience of being "you" is purely created out of you having the brain that you do, and having a continuation of consciousness from one moment to the next. Each brain creates a seperate "self" which experiences things. There is no "you" other than what your brain produces. So how could "you" exist again in another brain?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Does this work for cakes, too?
Is every chocolate cake actually the same cake, baked and eaten over and over again?

 

[Mashuna]

Does this work for cakes, too?
Is every chocolate cake actually the same cake, baked and eaten over and over again?

Get off my cake!