Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote:As I said, Subatomic God, your conception has nothing to do with reincarnation, in fact all you are really saying is that all life is conscious.

False. I am saying that the feeling you have right now, of being a thing inside a body which feels as if it looks out at everything else, as part of the universe, will be "joined onto" someone else after that. Reincarnation is true so long as consciousness exists. I do not remember experiencing other people in dreamless sleep - although I know that is the case and I do not remember it when I wake up since the memories are not registered in this brain which I am aware through, as a process, in the universe, information integrated into a system aware of it's past by virtue of memory one body at a time.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
False. I am saying that the feeling you have right now, of being a thing inside a body which feels as if it looks out at everything else, as part of the universe, will be "joined onto" someone else after that. Reincarnation is true so long as consciousness exists. I do not remember experiencing other people in dreamless sleep - although I know that is the case and I do not remember it when I wake up since the memories are not registered in this brain which I am aware through, as a process, in the universe, information integrated into a system aware of it's past by virtue of memory one body at a time.

There are carvings of dinosaurs on the walls of caves when dinosaurs were extinct. I have this theory that when things are created in the physical realm, the Universe stores it as memory, which explains why dogs and birds are influenced by dinosaurs. So instead of saying the people actually saw dinosaurs, what if the people dreamed of dinosaurs? That the Universe is reliving itself inside of our imagination?

I don´t think reincarnation is scientifically proven but I get the feeling that it may be real. I have no idea how it works, even though I have read and listened to what believers say about it. For all I know, we may not all reincarnate. It shouldn´t matter too much because it wouldn´t make much of a difference if we don´t remember and cannot prove it. The important thing is that we be ourselves in our current life. I take it into account only because my behavior is important to me. I try to do my best because, first of all, it makes sense to me, and second, because I am not too crazy about human experience and would not like to have to repeat it. Suicide is another reason why I take reincarnation into account. The idea has crossed my mind in the past but just to think that I might come back and in worse conditions than what I was in, makes me go with the flow.

There may be exceptions to why a person might commit suicide that I would consider. However, my life has been pretty easy up to now. I think I´m fortunate, so I wouldn't risk it.

Suicide is another reason why I take reincarnation into account. The idea has crossed my mind in the past but just to think that I might come back and in worse conditions than what I was in, makes me go with the flow.

We've all heard or read stories of earthbound ghosts with "unfinished business" preventing them from going into the light. They can't leave their incarnate lives behind because they're hindered by the karmic equivalent of leg-irons, manacles, straitjackets.

Me, I call it climbing Dante Alighieri 's Mount Purgatory (with an eternal Summit from which no one returns.)

Logic_ill wrote:I don´t think reincarnation is scientifically proven but I get the feeling that it may be real. I have no idea how it works, even though I have read and listened to what believers say about it. For all I know, we may not all reincarnate. It shouldn´t matter too much because it wouldn´t make much of a difference if we don´t remember and cannot prove it. The important thing is that we be ourselves in our current life. I take it into account only because my behavior is important to me. I try to do my best because, first of all, it makes sense to me, and second, because I am not too crazy about human experience and would not like to have to repeat it. Suicide is another reason why I take reincarnation into account. The idea has crossed my mind in the past but just to think that I might come back and in worse conditions than what I was in, makes me go with the flow.

There may be exceptions to why a person might commit suicide that I would consider. However, my life has been pretty easy up to now. I think I´m fortunate, so I wouldn't risk it.

Once you understand the truth of nonself, reincarnation is a necessary corollary.

ReasonMadeFlesh said: I am saying that the feeling you have right now, of being a thing inside a body which feels as if it looks out at everything else, as part of the universe, will be "joined onto" someone else after that. Reincarnation is true so long as consciousness exists. I do not remember experiencing other people in dreamless sleep - although I know that is the case and I do not remember it when I wake up since the memories are not registered in this brain which I am aware through, as a process, in the universe, information integrated into a system aware of it's past by virtue of memory one body at a time.

o.k., your idea is clearer to me now. But how is it any different than the following (rather obvious) conclusion?: Consciousness exists as long as conscious (self-conscious?) organisms exist and conscious organisms possess psychic or intersubjective awareness.

The whole point of reincarnation is that individual souls proceed from life to life (i.e., they reincarnate) in an evolutionary journey of consciousness. Your conception lacks this key component, does it not?

Felix wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh said: I am saying that the feeling you have right now, of being a thing inside a body which feels as if it looks out at everything else, as part of the universe, will be "joined onto" someone else after that. Reincarnation is true so long as consciousness exists. I do not remember experiencing other people in dreamless sleep - although I know that is the case and I do not remember it when I wake up since the memories are not registered in this brain which I am aware through, as a process, in the universe, information integrated into a system aware of it's past by virtue of memory one body at a time.

o.k., your idea is clearer to me now. But how is it any different than the following (rather obvious) conclusion?: Consciousness exists as long as conscious (self-conscious?) organisms exist and conscious organisms possess psychic or intersubjective awareness.

The whole point of reincarnation is that individual souls proceed from life to life (i.e., they reincarnate) in an evolutionary journey of consciousness. Your conception lacks this key component, does it not?

Not in the sense that we go from "life-to-life" in the sense of an essential self which is transported. You will wake up in new bodies but not in the classical sense. Look... There will always be the sensation of a background hum of "yourself" as you exist inside a body looking out through your eyes, that you are having right now, in other people, and they are all "you", only you can only experience it one at a time. Why and how do I know this? Because each brain can only remember what has gone before it hence illusion of continuous self, being disconnected from the rest, and everyone will feel as if they are the self upon which the universe is centered. One is not aware of nor registers in memory the gaps in our awareness. This is why, the experiences you are having everyday, will continue after you are dead, and for everyone (sigh - nonself) it will *feel* as if nothing has changed and that they came into the world for the "first time" even though there was life before and that they will leave the world and enter darkness forever in death, I'm saying that is an illusion.

Your experience will continue after you are dead, just in a different way, and you won't remember it either.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
Your experience will continue after you are dead, just in a different way, and you won't remember it either.

Incorrect. The experience is based on the animation, much like there's no "tornado", like there's no "self" - what we're seeing and experiencing is not a "thing in itself", but the result of many "things creating a self", but does not exist in itself, but through what advocates its "self".

Theophane wrote: Although if reincarnation/rebirth was a reality, it would seem to displace or at the very least compete with my own Christian understanding of the soul & afterlife.

Yes I know it is a problem here, because of which most of the theist find it difficult to consider it as a possibility. But I must say as it found to be occuring, and Jesus never said anything about it, then it means Jesus is not a God, BUT it is not like that, and for that I have a site for you and all Christians here in the forum. it is very great logical explanation that Jesus actually taught Reincarnation. The site is as follows:-

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.html

I think, if you read this article, it will be difficult for you to believe in Jesus, if you do not believe in Reincarnation. But you need to read it fully. It is a pretty long article, I had been reading from at least 5 hours.

Secondly belief in Heaven and Hell does not require Reincarnation to be untrue, because there is always a gap between past life and future/present life. So you can still believe in Heaven or Hell, but the thing you need to discard is eternal damnation or eternal stay in heaven, which is good to be discarded because it does not portray God to be just God. On the other hand, Reincarnation is must to justify just, merciful, loving, fatherly and judicial nature of God, and if Reincarnation along with Law of Karma is believed seriously, then I believe it can influence great moralistic effect on human behavior. The concept of Reincarnation is such Godly thing that can have great godly effect in positive way, unlike fear of hell and love of heaven.

So everyone should read the article in the site given above seriously, where it clearly shown that Jesus is a believer and actually preacher of Reincarnation, all on the basis of Bible and Jesus own words. Jesus did not preached it clearly because there is no need to teach it as everybody at the time of Jesus believed in Reincarnation obviously.

For example:-

Jesus asked “Who do people say I am?” (Mark 8:27)

They said, “Some say John the Baptist, other say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets” (Mark *:28)


@ Subatomic God and ReasonMadeFlesh

I think, you both are not on the realistic level as probably science will require, and being too philosophical before the necessity of being so. Firstly, I think, you both are neglecting the phenomena previously stated in OP, as occurred and occurring around the world, and secondly I think you both trying to formulate the “process” before understanding the effect or phenomena. That means, you both are not focusing and trying to understand, what was the occurrence are actually revealing, and trying to formulate the process behind it i.e. without consideration of actual phenomena which is being revealed in occurrences or incidents.

For better understanding, I believe you need to consider how science formulate natural phenomena. I think, the science first see the phenomena in a effect or influence form, as it is visible. Then science identifies these effects or influence as a natural phenomena. And after that starts the formulation of the process, how it could be occurring as a phenomena. That means, first something is observed as phenomena and then perfectly probable assumptions is ascertain, such that it most probably cannot be fallible, and always found to be true.

Generally the formulation of process is simply an assumptions, that nobody had seen it actually occurring as a process, but it considered to be correct as far as it explains the visible phenomena, or predicts it correctly. Otherwise such assumptions are discarded, and it is always easy to discard such assumptions because nobody had seen it actually occurring, but it is just formulated to explain the visible and understandable phenomena. So before presenting the assumption of the process how it is occurring, I think, you both should consider what is occurring. And then you should formulate your theory(or assumption) of process, according to phenomena that is visible and understandable. That means, your assumptions or formulation of process should be in line with what is actually occurring. Otherwise it will not make any sense.

In short, you’re not giving any reference to the actual phenomena that is observed, with the assumptions and formulation of process that you are throwing toward us is not really convincing. So you must reconcile your assumptions and formulation, with what is observed to be as visible or understandable phenomena. So that it can make us really understand the reality.

So please formulate your hypothesis according to phenomena mention in OP, if you agree to the phenomena that it was real and cannot be neglected.

Thank you, Okisites.

Okisites wrote:

@ Subatomic God and ReasonMadeFlesh

I think, you both are not on the realistic level as probably science will require, and being too philosophical before the necessity of being so. Firstly, I think, you both are neglecting the phenomena previously stated in OP, as occurred and occurring around the world, and secondly I think you both trying to formulate the “process” before understanding the effect or phenomena. That means, you both are not focusing and trying to understand, what was the occurrence are actually revealing, and trying to formulate the process behind it i.e. without consideration of actual phenomena which is being revealed in occurrences or incidents.

For better understanding, I believe you need to consider how science formulate natural phenomena. I think, the science first see the phenomena in a effect or influence form, as it is visible. Then science identifies these effects or influence as a natural phenomena. And after that starts the formulation of the process, how it could be occurring as a phenomena. That means, first something is observed as phenomena and then perfectly probable assumptions is ascertain, such that it most probably cannot be fallible, and always found to be true.

Generally the formulation of process is simply an assumptions, that nobody had seen it actually occurring as a process, but it considered to be correct as far as it explains the visible phenomena, or predicts it correctly. Otherwise such assumptions are discarded, and it is always easy to discard such assumptions because nobody had seen it actually occurring, but it is just formulated to explain the visible and understandable phenomena. So before presenting the assumption of the process how it is occurring, I think, you both should consider what is occurring. And then you should formulate your theory(or assumption) of process, according to phenomena that is visible and understandable. That means, your assumptions or formulation of process should be in line with what is actually occurring. Otherwise it will not make any sense.

In short, you’re not giving any reference to the actual phenomena that is observed, with the assumptions and formulation of process that you are throwing toward us is not really convincing. So you must reconcile your assumptions and formulation, with what is observed to be as visible or understandable phenomena. So that it can make us really understand the reality.

So please formulate your hypothesis according to phenomena mention in OP, if you agree to the phenomena that it was real and cannot be neglected.

Thank you, Okisites.

As I said before, our understanding of reincarnation is above the original understanding of reincarnation, therefore it would be best to work with our consensus rather than one that still remains a mystery and within ambiguity.

Subatomic God wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
Your experience will continue after you are dead, just in a different way, and you won't remember it either.

Incorrect. The experience is based on the animation, much like there's no "tornado", like there's no "self" - what we're seeing and experiencing is not a "thing in itself", but the result of many "things creating a self", but does not exist in itself, but through what advocates its "self".

That's what I meant, I just mean that there will always be experiences so long as there is consciousness, and notice my language, I'm not saying it's "MY" experience in the sense that I "become someone else" after my funeral, rather, experiences constitute and define a self, one body at a time, and selves are always being produced. What I mean is, you will "become someone else" after you are dead in a peculiar sense, but it requires a lot more depth than just that notion prima facie, because ultimately you wonder why I should be me or experience this person as opposed to another. 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...

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
That's what I meant, I just mean that there will always be experiences so long as there is consciousness, and notice my language, I'm not saying it's "MY" experience in the sense that I "become someone else" after my funeral, rather, experiences constitute and define a self, one body at a time, and selves are always being produced. What I mean is, you will "become someone else" after you are dead in a peculiar sense, but it requires a lot more depth than just that notion prima facie, because ultimately you wonder why I should be me or experience this person as opposed to another. 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...

Then why would you say "your experience will continue after death"? That is very misleading.

Subatomic God wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
That's what I meant, I just mean that there will always be experiences so long as there is consciousness, and notice my language, I'm not saying it's "MY" experience in the sense that I "become someone else" after my funeral, rather, experiences constitute and define a self, one body at a time, and selves are always being produced. What I mean is, you will "become someone else" after you are dead in a peculiar sense, but it requires a lot more depth than just that notion prima facie, because ultimately you wonder why I should be me or experience this person as opposed to another. 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...

Then why would you say "your experience will continue after death"? That is very misleading.

"Your" in the larger sense of the word "your".

There will be experiences after death so long as consciousness is produced, and it will be in different people, but they won't "exist" while you are in the dark forever (which is the laymans intuition). They ARE yours as well.

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
"Your" in the larger sense of the word "your".

There will be experiences after death so long as consciousness is produced, and it will be in different people, but they won't "exist" while you are in the dark forever (which is the laymans intuition). They ARE yours as well.

No. Experience is created by animation - animation is created by energy. When energy leaves, that's not the experience - when energy animates, that's the experience.

Subatomic God wrote:

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
"Your" in the larger sense of the word "your".

There will be experiences after death so long as consciousness is produced, and it will be in different people, but they won't "exist" while you are in the dark forever (which is the laymans intuition). They ARE yours as well.

No. Experience is created by animation - animation is created by energy. When energy leaves, that's not the experience - when energy animates, that's the experience.

I mean "experience" in the sentient subjective experience sense that Chalmers' uses.