"Reincarnation"

[canispeaktodave]

I tend to agree, but the fear of death is pretty ingrained, which despite the distress that it causes is (as I indicated in my last post) probably a good thing.

The interesting thing about being aware of death is that most people don't believe its going to happen (well until your really old), which is vital to be able to live your life day to day. When a trauma happens, e.g. Cancer or a death of a close relative, that "believing its not going to happen" is lost fear of death becomes death anxiety. Every little palpitation becomes "am i having a heart attack", every headache a "have i got a brain tumor". This happened to me, when my Dad died and took me the best part of 4 years to get over. (This is not the reason for the original post, coincidental). It's amazing how the human body/mind can be aware of its own demise but be happy to live and do moderately dangerous things (driving a car, football, rock climbing) without thinking actually of death.

 

[Robert Oz]

That's why I think of me as more of a driver of the body. Just like electricity runs a circuit, consciousness runs the body. When you buy a new car, the old one is not aware you drove the last one, and if you had your memory wiped before driving the new one, you'd have no recollection of the last. Now think of the driver of the body as just a perspective in space and time and does not have awareness itself or consciousness, just a persepctive. That perspective is what I wonder if I will experience in the body or any other conscious entity.

But with regards to the reincarnation your describing, how is it still "you"?

If your consciousness, memory and self-awareness are transferred to a new body, I can understand calling it "you".

If your mind is wiped of all consciousness, memory and self-awareness and you become a vegetable, I can still understand calling it "you".

In both cases, something remains, whether it is your consciousness, memory and self-awareness or your physical body and brain. But in the reincarnation your describing, none of these remain. Your consciousness, memory, self-awareness and physical body and brain have all changed. How is it still "you"?

The "you" is still unidentified. If it is perception, there is no reason to think that perception is recycled.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Some things may be less likely to happen , merely because they already have happened.

The self seems to be defined by environmental and genetic factors interacting.

Absent cloning, it is vanishingly unlikely that any two humans from different generations will have identical genomes, so there will always be genetic differences.

The environmental factors start at conception and will again be different between two generations. Embryonic development. Nutrition. Exposure to disease, parasites, radiation etc.
Education. Childhood environment. Culture. TV. Radio. Friends. Siblings.Parents. All different.
And then there's the brain.

Right now, I can think the same thing two days running, but each time it feels different, because my environment is different and so am I. I'm older than yesterday. I've lost brain cells and gained weight. It's an hour since dinner and yesterday I thought the same thing in the morning- so my gut is different and so is my blood chemistry.
How similar do two brain states have to be at two different times, to feel the same?

In the absence of memory, how would I know I'm the same person I knew I was yesterday?
If memory is not transmitted after death, how would anyone be able to say he was the same person in any sense as someone who had lived before?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

If you're going to argue the possibility that "you" can die and then "you" can exist again, there has to be something about "you" that persists during the two lives and in between. Otherwise there is nothing about the two people that can be said to be the same. So, then, to find evidence for the hypothesis all you have to do is find a "you" existing between lives without a body.

You could call it the search for the Dave's Youon.

~~ Paul

 

[Gate2501]

CanIspeaktoDave, is this the concept with which you are struggling with your "driver" analogies?

It is a powerful illusion, nothing more. I believe that what we view to be continuity in our own consciousness is probably much the same.

 

[canispeaktodave]

CanIspeaktoDave, is this the concept with which you are struggling with your "driver" analogies?

It is a powerful illusion, nothing more. I believe that what we view to be continuity in our own consciousness is probably much the same.

I guess it would be, it would be the guy in the head watching the screen. Thanks

 

[dafydd]

I guess it would be, it would be the guy in the head watching the screen. Thanks

http://www.fustar.info/2006/12/02/193/

 

[Akhenaten]

http://www.fustar.info/2006/12/02/193/

Hah! Free will indeed!

First, canispeaktodave posts, then you, and now me.

Everything is fixed.

 

[Cuddles]

But with regards to the reincarnation your describing, how is it still "you"?

If your consciousness, memory and self-awareness are transferred to a new body, I can understand calling it "you".

If your mind is wiped of all consciousness, memory and self-awareness and you become a vegetable, I can still understand calling it "you".

In both cases, something remains, whether it is your consciousness, memory and self-awareness or your physical body and brain. But in the reincarnation your describing, none of these remain. Your consciousness, memory, self-awareness and physical body and brain have all changed. How is it still "you"?

The "you" is still unidentified. If it is perception, there is no reason to think that perception is recycled.

I'm reminded of the old story about my grandfather's axe. Sometimes the head needed replacing, and sometimes the handle needed replacing, but it's still the same axe. The trouble with canispeaktodave's idea is that he is simply throwing out the axe and buying a chainsaw, but trying to claim it's still the same axe.

If you redefine the word "axe" so that the claim can be true, it becomes a completely meaningless claim. Similarly, his claim appears to require redefining the word "you" to no longer have anything to do with actually being you, and is thus entirely devoid of any meaning at all. If you define "you" in such a way that it has nothing whatsoever to do with your body, thoughts, memories, or anything else, then sure, you can pretend that absolutely anything you like happens to you when you die. For example, I could define "you" as "a pink fluffy unicorn". When you die, you gambol for eternity in a field made out of chocolate and sharks.

In fact, this actually makes more sense than canispeaktodave's claim, since in my example "you" is actually defined as something. In his case, it is not defined as anything more than "not actually you at all", and the claim is even more useless than it may first appear.

 

[dlorde]

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.

With reference to (my) bolding, above - this part of your hypothesis is plainly fallacious. 'You' are the construct of the brain in your head. You were born and developed to be the person you are through a unique set of circumstances, involving your parents and a host of other events back into the mists of time. These circumstances will not happen again, therefore there is no chance of you existing again. You have one shot at life, make the most of it.

 

[Moochie]

"A Dream Within A Dream"


M.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Neglecting the confusing addition of consciousness, consider the shape of the continents on earth: I don't actually know what the globe looked like 100 million years ago, but what's the probability it will ever look exactly the same again? And even if it did, would we say those were the same continents, in any meaningful sense?

 

[wogoga]

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.

With reference to (my) bolding, above - this part of your hypothesis is plainly fallacious. 'You' are the construct of the brain in your head. You were born and developed to be the person you are through a unique set of circumstances, involving your parents and a host of other events back into the mists of time. These circumstances will not happen again, therefore there is no chance of you existing again.

What is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634697&postcount=285?

Cheers,
Wolfgang

 

[COTU]

A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream.
'What are you?' I cried to them as they drifted by.
'I am a bubble, of course' nearly a myriad bubbles answered,
and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed.
But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered,
'We are this stream', and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices,
but just a quiet certitude.​

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634697&postcount=285?

Cheers,
Wolfgang

Well, since you ask, it appears to me to be a string of non sequitur arguments:

It begins by arguing that much of the physical matter in our bodies is regularly replaced, yet we "feel" we are the same person, therefore souls. Uh, why? If I replace every brick in my house, one at a time, it will always "feel" like my house. So what?

Then it says the consciousness which emerges from each fetilised egg somehow distinguishes itself from all other near-identical fertilised eggs, therefore souls (at least I think it says so, it's rather long-winded). Again - why does this present any kind of puzzle needing souls to explain it?

Next it declares that since identical twins are born as two different consciousnesses, but have genetically identical bodies, therefore souls. That makes no sense at all unless you assume that consciousness does not arise from a brain's function but directly from an individual's genes. Who thinks that?

Then it declares the author's definition of soul = consciousness (as far as I can tell). Unhelpful added confusion.

Finally it makes some utterly unconvincing claims that such complexity couldn't arise from the relatively small amount of information in our genes and advances some unevidenced and unsupported claims for teleology, including the spectacularly stupid idea that if we evolved by random mutation then, consistently, all advances in human knowledge must also have come about by by a similar process of random copying errors in previous knowledge. Idiotic.


So, how's that?

 

[COTU]

I light a candle and watch the flame dance.
I blow the flame out and it is gone.
I light the candle again, and watch the flame.
Is it the same flame?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There was a young fellow who stated
He thought he was reincarnated.
Of previous existence,
It was his insistence
All memory'd been eradicated.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Note to self: limerick kills thread.
Let's try again.


Though reincarnation sounds queer
And evidence fails to appear
Howe'er much you doubt
It can't be ruled out
And monkeys might fly out my rear

 

[Third Eye Open]

Interesting. My first thread on this forum was about a similar idea. Mostly the replies consisted of ~enigma~ yelling at me that I didn't under stand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I learned a valuable lesson that day: People will automatically interpret anything you say as woo if you have a low post count.

Mainly my reason for thinking that I could exist again was because of a misinterpretation of the multiverse theory. I understood that to mean that there were an infinite number of other 'actual' universes out there, not quantum wave functions that haven't collapsed, or whatever it is.

From how I understand quantum mechanics, the statue of liberty could wave at me... if it could manage to exist for trillions of years (more?) but with an infinite number of universes, eventually there would be one in which the statue of liberty did wave its hand.

In the same way, the correct amount of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and whatever other atoms could randomly come together somewhere to form an exact copy of my brain in the exact state it was right before I died. (maybe it could even be made of virtual particles popping into existence briefly?) With an infinite number of universes, this would happen in one of them eventually.

That was how I understood it anyway, no I don't see any reason to think that there are an infinite amount of universes, or that matter will 'always' exist, so I no longer think that I am immortal. (was a very unnerving idea anyway.)