"Reincarnation"

[Jack by the hedge]

Stegosaurs once existed and now don't. Do they have a chance of existing again? Well, hypothetically - yes - it's not actually impossible. If they did, would they be the same stegosaurs as previously ? Umm, no. I don't see any worthwhile reason to think that at all.

 

[canispeaktodave]

Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.

I appreciate that, thanks.

 

[canispeaktodave]

Stegosaurs once existed and now don't. Do they have a chance of existing again? Well, hypothetically - yes - it's not actually impossible. If they did, would they be the same stegosaurs as previously ? Umm, no. I don't see any worthwhile reason to think that at all.

But they had consciousness of some degree, maybe not self aware. I am not limiting my idea to humans, anything that has an emergent consciousness from higher brain function. That consciousness may be as unified as any other scientific field. Different sources that produce light do not produce different versions of light, its light. Maybe the same for consciousness.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There are an infinite number of things that there is no evidence for and no reason to believe that they are true. What's so special about this one? Why not stick to hypothesising about things that evidence suggests might be true?

 

[JohnG]

In the film Run Lola Run, you see the same events from different perspectives.

I think Rashômon would have been a more apt example. From what I remember of Run Lola Run, the gimmick wasn't so much the same story seen from different perspectives, but rather that Lola was somehow able to undo past mistakes, resulting in a better reality than she originally existed in.

No one argues that we are running out of light.

I would The universe is expanding and growing darker because of it. Also don't astrophysicists predict there will be a time in the far future when all of stars will have burnt out?

Reincarnation is a myth that was thought up to comfort those who fear death or who grieve for loved ones that have died.

Only this, and nothing more.

Sorrow for the lost Lenore

I tend to agree. All talk about some survival after death (whether it's heaven, reincarnation or some other form of immortality) stems more from a fear of death rather than some rational determination that we do not truly die. A healthy fear of death is a no doubt good evolutionary trait which keeps most people out of all manner of dangerous situations. Without it, most of us would probably be dead before we were 20. Like all good things, though there is a down side. Fear of death leads to a frightening and depressing contemplation of our own (and our loved ones) mortality. Death isn't the least bit pleasant, clever or desirable but that doesn't automatically make it impossible.

When the power of imparting joy is equal to the will, the human soul requires no other heaven

-Percy Bysshe Shelley


ETA: Oh and welcome!

 

[Robert Oz]

Yes, but to get the evidence you need an hypothesis. My hypothesis is that I once didn't exist in my current form and now I do. Therefore when I die and don't exist, will I have the same chance of existing again. I don't need evidence to form that hypothesis. But I would need evidence to PROVE the hypothesis. And to just say, there's no evidence is fallacious. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How to test my hypothesis? I have no idea. That's why I posted here, see if the hypothesis could be proved, not disregarded due to no-one currently looking for evidence for it.

The Higgs Boson has not been proved to exist yet. However, due to the fact the hypothesis is cogent enough to look for the evidence, they are.

So what makes the hypothesis "you reincarnate into another life-form after dying" any different to "you turn into a unicorn and gallop into a land of rainbows after dying"?

If no continuing consciousness or memories transfer between bodies, how are you defining "you"? It seems that you are linking your subjective self to the "consciousness" noun. "Consciousness" is a property we both have individually, just as we both have our own "body" and "brain". What makes you think your "consciousness" or "sense of you" should be treated any differently than your "body" or "brain"?

I guess the main question I'm asking is:

What is "you" and why do you think it's less a part of you alone than a body or brain?

 

[canispeaktodave]

There are an infinite number of things that there is no evidence for and no reason to believe that they are true. What's so special about this one? Why not stick to hypothesising about things that evidence suggests might be true?

That's hardly scientific method If we all thought like that we'd have no TV, no radio, no Internet etc. Life advances because people come up with an hypothesis and then set out to prove it, a cogent one of course.

As for my evidence. I didn't exist before I was born. That is evidence. I exist now. That is evidence.

 

[Tristan Chi]

I wish to recommend the fascinating novel Altered Carbon, wherein the concept of a reproducible self is taken to its extremes. To a materialist it's totally stringent.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Have I misunderstood (apologies if so)?

Is it your conjecture that there may be one vast consciousness in the world, and each person/creature is only aware of their own small portion of it?

If that#s the gist, can you think of any way in which a world like the one you imagine would be any different from a world in which consciousness was a result of an individual's brain activity, and had no connection with any other consciousness?

 

[canispeaktodave]

So what makes the hypothesis "you reincarnate into another life-form after dying" any different to "you turn into a unicorn and gallop into a land of rainbows after dying"?

If no continuing consciousness or memories transfer between bodies, how are you defining "you"? It seems that you are linking your subjective self to the "consciousness" noun. "Consciousness" is a property we both have individually, just as we both have our own "body" and "brain". What makes you think your "consciousness" or "sense of you" should be treated any differently than your "body" or "brain"?

I guess the main question I'm asking is:

What is "you" and why do you think it's less a part of you alone than a body or brain?

That's the problem I cannot explain it. That's why I am so adament you don't think I am taking on any supernatural ideas. I wonder if someone can translate this for me. I see out of my eyes, but before I was here I could not. Therefore my perspective on the world was created when I was created. I am the only person in my head (i hope!). When I die, will I see the world from the perspective of another conscious being? Am I seeing out of my eyes and your eyes right now? But only able to percieve myself as being inside me? I guess its similar to thinking whether time is linear or all happening at once and we just percieve time as linear? In the same way we percieve ourselves as being only in one head at a time?

 

[Robert Oz]

I tend to agree. All talk about some survival after death (whether it's heaven, reincarnation or some other form of immortality) stems more from a fear of death rather than some rational determination that we do not truly die. A healthy fear of death is a no doubt good evolutionary trait which keeps most people out of all manner of dangerous situations. Without it, most of us would probably be dead before we were 20. Like all good things, though there is a down side. Fear of death leads to a frightening and depressing contemplation of our own (and our loved ones) mortality. Death isn't the least bit pleasant, clever or desirable but that doesn't automatically make it impossible.

I would argue that all talk about some survival after death stems from a combination of a fear of death and - like canispeaktodave - a struggle with self-awareness or consciousness. I can, to a degree, understand the difficulty canispeaktodave has with reconciling a concept of "I" or "me" with a finite life. The problem is, the uncomfortable feeling one might get from self-awareness and the idea of its death is not evidence of an afterlife.

 

[Moochie]

I think Rashômon would have been a more apt example. From what I remember of Run Lola Run, the gimmick wasn't so much the same story seen from different perspectives, but rather that Lola was somehow able to undo past mistakes, resulting in a better reality than she originally existed in.




I would The universe is expanding and growing darker because of it. Also don't astrophysicists predict there will be a time in the far future when all of stars will have burnt out?





Sorrow for the lost Lenore

I tend to agree. All talk about some survival after death (whether it's heaven, reincarnation or some other form of immortality) stems more from a fear of death rather than some rational determination that we do not truly die. A healthy fear of death is a no doubt good evolutionary trait which keeps most people out of all manner of dangerous situations. Without it, most of us would probably be dead before we were 20. Like all good things, though there is a down side. Fear of death leads to a frightening and depressing contemplation of our own (and our loved ones) mortality. Death isn't the least bit pleasant, clever or desirable but that doesn't automatically make it impossible. When the power of imparting joy is equal to the will, the human soul requires no other heaven

-Percy Bysshe Shelley


ETA: Oh and welcome!

Having contemplated my own demise for nigh on 60 years now, all I can say is that your statement makes little sense. Death may, indeed, be quite pleasant -- as pleasant as birth. Death may not be clever, but why would anyone weigh it this way? Finally, death may not be desirable to some, but one cannot make such a sweeping statement encompassing all living creatures.

I sometimes think that death threatens those who have some or much unfinished business in this fantasy we call a life. My answer is to finish that business. As the "good book" says, never put off till tomorrow what you may finish today. (Disclosure -- I tend to put off till tomorrow most of the time.)


M.

 

[canispeaktodave]

Have I misunderstood (apologies if so)?

Is it your conjecture that there may be one vast consciousness in the world, and each person/creature is only aware of their own small portion of it?

If that#s the gist, can you think of any way in which a world like the one you imagine would be any different from a world in which consciousness was a result of an individual's brain activity, and had no connection with any other consciousness?

That's what I am going for! I just find it hard to understand how I am able to look out of my head and know I exist when once I did not. And therefore when I do not exist again, will it happen again? Not in a religous way, but in a parallel existence all at once but individually too.

 

[The Atheist]

eRR=//r

 

[Marduk]

That's the problem I cannot explain it. That's why I am so adament you don't think I am taking on any supernatural ideas. I wonder if someone can translate this for me. I see out of my eyes, but before I was here I could not. ?

you seem to be trying to say that you are the sum of your experiences, and that basically your personality is a function of your memories overlaid with your experience of nurturing. Basically nurture and nature. This is not paradigm busting at all, its universally accepted. What you need to explain is how someone else could be born after you are dead that also has your memories and has been subject to exactly the same nurture and nature. They would effectively be you reborn, but you wouldn't be alive in them in the real sense. Of course if some trauma occoured they might begin to think that they were actually you reborn and to all intents and purposes this subjective experience would from their perspective be indistinguishable from what we think reincarnation is. The movie boys from brazil touched on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)

 

[Robert Oz]

That's the problem I cannot explain it. That's why I am so adament you don't think I am taking on any supernatural ideas. I wonder if someone can translate this for me. I see out of my eyes, but before I was here I could not. Therefore my perspective on the world was created when I was created. I am the only person in my head (i hope!). When I die, will I see the world from the perspective of another conscious being? Am I seeing out of my eyes and your eyes right now? But only able to percieve myself as being inside me? I guess its similar to thinking whether time is linear or all happening at once and we just percieve time as linear? In the same way we percieve ourselves as being only in one head at a time?

Believe it or not, I have had thoughts like this before and sort of understand what you're struggling with. It's not so much the idea of reincarnation or even an afterlife, but more a question of where the concept of self or the concept of "I" comes from. That is a valid area of study and, I'm sure, it's being studied. There is still no evidence to suggest or even observation to form an hypothesis that this concept of "I" leads to reincarnation. All evidence would suggest the concept of "I" has a finite life with the rest of you.

 

[Marduk]

As the "good book" says, never put off till tomorrow what you may finish today.

Its actually originates with an old french proverb

le bien que tu peus faire au matin, n'attens pas le soir ne l'endemain,
do not wait for the evening or the next day (to do) the good which you can do in the morning

 

[Robert Oz]

That's what I am going for! I just find it hard to understand how I am able to look out of my head and know I exist when once I did not. And therefore when I do not exist again, will it happen again? Not in a religous way, but in a parallel existence all at once but individually too.

But if the reincarnated "you" has no knowledge, understanding or memory of the previous "you", how is it "you"?

 

[Moochie]

Its actually originates with an old french proverb

le bien que tu peus faire au matin, n'attens pas le soir ne l'endemain,
do not wait for the evening or the next day (to do) the good which you can do in the morning

Thanks -- I didn't know that, but it makes just as much sense.

The point is, when I lay me down to sleep, I want to do so with a clear conscience. When I am able to do that, it bothers me not whether I awake or not. I figure that to some extent it's out of my hands.


M.

 

[The Atheist]

That's what I am going for! I just find it hard to understand how I am able to look out of my head and know I exist when once I did not. And therefore when I do not exist again, will it happen again? Not in a religous way, but in a parallel existence all at once but individually too.

I think you're just trying to figure out Pascal's Mistake by another means.

The key to any religion or philosophy which deals with human consciousness (your "you") is to find the most plausible way of creating the possibility of that consciousness not being 100% determined by our material bodies and no more.

Going back to your start, if the odds of you existing once were [say] a trillion to one, then there must indeed be some odds of existing again - I can understand that part. Those odds will be particularly small, but as Douglas Adams was good enough to point out, in an infinite universe, anything's not just possible, but actually certain to happen. That infinite number of monkeys have been typing for a while now.

Ultimately, you can create odds for anything - be they invisible pink unicorns, Loch Ness monsters or reincarnation. I'm happy to list yours at the very generous price of a googol to one. That's immeasurably shorter than the real odds of it happening, but I can only get 100 noughts on my calculator.

I always figure the end result of hypotheses like these is simply this:

So what?

If you are reincarnated but have no conception of that previous reincarnation, what on earth is the point? Why would you care?

Now, if could show me a system where reincarnation is kind of a Get out of jail free card where I get a brand new body as a child but know what I already know, then Yeah, baby! Yeah!

Pascal wasn't a bookie.

Nice, if fruitless idea.

Have you checked out Buddhism?