Philosophy Discussion Forums

ReasonMadeFlesh: The solution is that there never was a self in the first place. I mean there will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist, and everyone of them is YOU and YOU experience them one body at a time, and don't remember the gaps in your awareness nor register memories through other peoples bodies...

Your thesis is completely incoherent: (1) The definition of reincarnation is the repeated incarnation of a self. (2) You said: "There will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist." All you've really said is that human beings are conscious, because if consciousness, i.e., experiencing self awareness, depends on brains existing, then it (consciousness) does not incarnate let alone reincarnate. (3) You said "everyone of them is YOU" but if this You is not a self, what is it? (4) If everybody who has the experience of being self aware is "you," than why can't you "register memories through other peoples bodies"? (Actually I'm not even sure what that phrase means because it's as incoherent as the rest of your statement.)

Felix wrote:not a self, what is it?

A void that stares back at you, of course.

Jklint wrote:

Quotidian wrote:If you think it's all nonsense, stick to your guns.

I didn't say "nonsense" I said "nonsensical". Though the two may overlap a little their meaning still differs. As with most religions or religious philosophies, there is much brilliance contained in them. That does not make it correct or give it credibility just because it has a time honored ritual with it's corresponding mystic terminologies and where the lessons of "truth training" invariably follow. But the Buddha could also be eminently practical putting members of his own family in charge of the first Sanghas he established.

There are no accounts of the Buddha 'putting members of his family in charge of the Sangha'. I don't know where you got that idea but you won't find any sources for it.

-- Updated August 31st, 2014, 9:14 am to add the following --

It is depressing how many people are prepared to hold forth on the ridiculousness of reincarnation without even considering the evidence of children with past life recall that was painstakingly gathered through research.

@Okisites - you have set yourself an impossible task here if you're trying to persuade people about this question.

Quotidian wrote:
It is depressing how many people are prepared to hold forth on the ridiculousness of reincarnation without even considering the evidence of children with past life recall that was painstakingly gathered through research.

Children lie, they also do not have a fully developed brain, therefore all things which come from cannot be taken with more than a grain of salt. What interests me, however, is that on one hand, people believe what a child says no matter how ridiculous it is, but when a child says something that is actually true, we don't believe it.

Felix wrote:(1) The definition of reincarnation is the repeated incarnation of a self.

That is true - and that is also why Buddhists don't believe in 'reincarnation', strictly speaking. Buddhism emphatically denies that there is a single self that 'travels' from life to life. Instead it speaks in terms of 'the consequences of karma leading to continued existence in the six realms'. In practical terms, this is sometimes spoken of as a 'mindstream', or as being like a 'flow of consciousness' that becomes associated with various forms. A subtle but important distinction - and if you find it hard to understand, you wouldn't be alone in that! But that is why Buddhists speak in terms of 're-birth' - to distinguish their teaching from that of the Hindus which do believe in a reincarnating person.

Quotidian wrote:It is depressing how many people are prepared to hold forth on the ridiculousness of reincarnation without even considering the evidence of children with past life recall that was painstakingly gathered through research.

Are there any verified cases in the past 5 years that do not conform to the classic Fraud Model?

Fraud Model:
1. Occurring in remote places and non-recent. (technophobic, "blurry pictures", etc.)
2. Involving "innocent" subsets of people. (small children, elderly, handicapped, etc.)
3. Containing consistently non-even margins of error. ("legitimacy of randomness")

Are there any recent cases in the U.S. or other technologically-advanced areas that perhaps a "reincarnated" person can recall their previous life of someone whose history had been well documented (non-obscure, such as a celebrity, business tycoon, etc.) and that can be confirmed to a unquestionable degree?

The descriptions of the "data collection" from the Stevenson files sound too much like confirmation bias.

1. Occurring in remote places and non-recent. (technophobic, "blurry pictures", etc.) 2. Involving "innocent" subsets of people. (small children, elderly, handicapped, etc.)

I don't see that as indicative of fraud, it's the result one should expect because: (1) young children are the most likely to remember a former life, and (2) children in modern technologically advanced countries are likely to be conditioned early to discount their intuition and "be sensible." Psychic visions are out of the question and would be likely to result in a referral to a psychiatrist.

Felix wrote:]

I don't see that as indicative of fraud, it's the result one should expect because: (1) young children are the most likely to remember a former life, and (2) children in modern technologically advanced countries are likely to be conditioned early to discount their intuition and "be sensible." Psychic visions are out of the question and would be likely to result in a referral to a psychiatrist.

There's a reason why our countries are not governed by children at the stand, with the microphone in front of them, and the inspiring words of their past lives raging through the crowd of inquiring people.

It never was true - it will never be true. People accept lies easier than they accept truths. While you're distracting yourself with stories, there are people suffering in realities.

Spiral Out wrote:The descriptions of the "data collection" from the Stevenson files sound too much like confirmation bias.

Of course he was aware of confirmation bias, and also the likelihood of people trying to hoodwink him for material gain. Stevenson was a meticulous and careful researcher, who observed the same standards and methods as any other researcher. He followed the same methodology that would have been followed had he been investigating a non-controversial topic, like epidemiology or social psychology. It is only the fact that the subject is 'taboo' that there is a tendency to dismiss him out of hand.

There were cases from the USA and Europe, although it is true that more were reported from cultures where re-birth is culturally accepted.

Quotidian wrote: Of course he was aware of confirmation bias, and also the likelihood of people trying to hoodwink him for material gain. Stevenson was a meticulous and careful researcher

Logical fallacy - we're arguing the author's work, not the author. They have not proven their work, nor have those who believe his work.

Felix wrote:1) young children are the most likely to remember a former life

What are the biological factors that determine such a thing? What evidence can you offer to support this claim?

Felix wrote:(2) children in modern technologically advanced countries are likely to be conditioned early to discount their intuition and "be sensible."

Otherwise, aren't they likely to be conditioned to experience memories of past lives in the countries where it is their fundamental belief system and culturally accepted?

>>>

Quotidian wrote:Stevenson was a meticulous and careful researcher, who observed the same standards and methods as any other researcher. He followed the same methodology that would have been followed had he been investigating a non-controversial topic, like epidemiology or social psychology.

If he was so meticulous and careful then why is there not more clear and definitive verifiable evidence to support these stories?

The problem with these types of accounts is that there is invariably just a little too much doubt left on the table. It's always the same kind of "blurry picture" we get with UFOs, squatches, chupacabras, ghosts, aliens, Nessie, Yeti and Elvis.

If something is a real phenomenon then there should be at least one case of undeniable evidence to support it, especially with something like reincarnation due to the fact that there are so many billions of people on this planet who would be subject to it.

Felix wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh: The solution is that there never was a self in the first place. I mean there will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist, and everyone of them is YOU and YOU experience them one body at a time, and don't remember the gaps in your awareness nor register memories through other peoples bodies...

Your thesis is completely incoherent: (1) The definition of reincarnation is the repeated incarnation of a self. (2) You said: "There will never be the experience of nothing nor the absence of experience so long as brains exist." All you've really said is that human beings are conscious, because if consciousness, i.e., experiencing self awareness, depends on brains existing, then it (consciousness) does not incarnate let alone reincarnate. (3) You said "everyone of them is YOU" but if this You is not a self, what is it? (4) If everybody who has the experience of being self aware is "you," than why can't you "register memories through other peoples bodies"? (Actually I'm not even sure what that phrase means because it's as incoherent as the rest of your statement.)

One must transcend the subject object duality and the sensation of a self "trapped inside a body" to truly understand reincarnation.

Experiences simply exist, and they don't "belong" to anyone. Such a notion is itself an experience.

The universe doesn't have an outside, likewise, one is not "aware" of the gaps in awareness, hence the illusion of a fluid and continuous "self", who doesn't remember what is going on in other people nor what is external to the memories registered before it.

So long as experiences exist, there will never be the absence of experience nor an experience "of" nothingness.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
One must transcend the subject object duality and the sensation of a self "trapped inside a body" to truly understand reincarnation.

Can you explain to them how to, instead of making a statement out of it? Just some friendly advice.

Subatomic God wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
One must transcend the subject object duality and the sensation of a self "trapped inside a body" to truly understand reincarnation.

Can you explain to them how to, instead of making a statement out of it? Just some friendly advice.

You're very fast my friend, but I did just that as you were replying.

I won't repeat myself to them again though, because the substance of what I just said can be found if they dig through this thread.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
You're very fast my friend, but I did just that as you were replying.

I won't repeat myself to them though, they can dig through this thread.

Can you go into the Big Bang thread and show that I am not the only one that speaks of the zero point? It would be a great discussion, I'm sure. Come join the tea table.

That said, instead of re-explaining yourself, try recreating the examples under a new light.

Here's something I wrote:

Learn all the ways a man can fall.

Not just one way, for a man can always shift their weight.