Does Reincarnation Make Sense?

[Soma]

How can animals possibly rise or fall in the cycle of rebirth if animals are not subject to judgement as man is?

An animal acts towards an end -- namely, to survive and propagate the species -- but it is not endowed with morals, ethics, a sense of right and wrong, etc. There is no way to judge an animal and its actions.

So, how do animal souls become human? If a human falls and becomes an animal, how can he possibly rise again?

It makes no sense. :confused: :confused:

[Mageth]

How can animals possibly rise or fall in the cycle of rebirth if animals are not subject to judgement as man is?

It makes about as much sense as the notion that man is subject to judgment.

An animal acts towards an end -- namely, to survive and propagate the species -- but it is not endowed with morals, ethics, a sense of right and wrong, etc. There is no way to judge an animal and its actions.

Ever seen the Westminister Kennel Club Dog Show?

Further, we judge animals and their actions all the time. We select and keep pets that we like, and sometimes, unfortunately, it's necessary to imprison or terminate animals whose behavior we deem dangerous (e.g. vicious dogs).

So, how do animal souls become human? If a human falls and becomes an animal, how can he possibly rise again?

Who says animals or humans have "souls" that can become anything? That makes no more sense than the idea of reincarnation.

[Soma]

^^^I was hoping for someone who actually believes in reincarnation to elucidate upon some of the more confusing aspects of it. ;)

[Mageth]

Then you're probably posting on the wrong board. ;)

[Monk]

I have read about rebirth in my Lam-Rim book.As I understand it it says that a human rebirth is rare and precious,the future rebirth being dependant on either strongest karma (which is the more familier,good or bad karma),the predominant thought at death or the body being disturbed in various ways as the consciousness leaves (such as someone touching the corpse).

All sentient beings are subtle mindstreams,which gain imprints from strong actions or motivations which later ripen into results when conditions are conducive to it.

Animals would find it difficult to gain a human rebirth because they have difficulty gaining any merit,though some can by what would seem chance,such as a dog circumambulating a stupa.I believe i have read boddhisatvas and buddhas have taken the form of animals before to help animals gain merit for better future rebirth.

Considering global human population through history versus the population of animal sentient beings i could see how it could be considered rare.

I remember the chance of a human rebirth being compared to a gold hoop floating ontop a huge ocean,and a turtle swimming in the ocean and the chance of the turtle coming up for air and putting his head through the hoop.

[bagong]

The quick answer is that Buddhism distinguishes between 3 kinds of kamma (karma):

1. kamma ripening in this lifetime: di.t.tha-dhamma-vedanîya-kamma
2. kamma ripening in the next birth: upapajja-vedanîya-kamma
3. kamma ripening in later births: aparâpariya-vedanîya-kamma

The pa.tisandhi-viññâna (relinking-consciousness) arising from the death of an animal will (mostly) be determined by kamma of the 3rd type, as an animal has only a limited ability to generate any new kamma.

OK, that's the quick answer. A complete answer would have to point out that your question is based on certain preconceived notions of personhood and moral agency that are *not* shared by Buddhist philosophy. The central tenet of Buddhism is anattavâda (doctrine of no-self); rebirth and kamma cannot be understood independently from this doctrine and all its implications.

I don't have the time to get into it right now, but suffice it to say that Buddhist reincarnation is *not* the belief that souls travel from body to body, and kamma is *not* reward/punishment for good/bad deeds.

[monkey mind]

In the Buddhist doctrines of reincarnation, it isn't a matter of judgement. As in, there isn't an objective outside force which decided your next birth. I think it might be different in Hinduism.

Of course even in Buddhism there are many different ideas of how reincarnation works, with some sects maintaining that it's not even a Buddhist teaching at all. My understanding of the concept of reincarnation comes form exposure to a number of different reincarnation theories. The way I would answer your question regarding how animals can be reborn higher is this.

1) Rather than thinking of good karma and bad karma, think of karma as "heavy" or "light". The heavier your karma, the more suffereing you will endure in life. Presumbly, animals suffer more than humans. They are more liable to be killed, or face starvation and disease in the wild, or they become beasts of burden or food when domesticated. Living these lives of suffering would lighten your karma, enabling you to achieve a higher rebirth.

Think of it this way, if you are very poor and your primary concern is obtaining food from day to day it would be very difficult for you to have high aspirations such as being a CEO some day. Once you stabilize your life and are living a bit more comfortably, then you will look towards the next step. The heavier your karma is, the harder it is to aspire to a higher life. When it is lightened you will be able to aspire to a higher life.

2) Since you are not judged by an outside force, what ultimately decides your next birth? My favourite answer to this question is that basically you do. The best "explanation" of this I've read of this is from the Yogacaara school of Buddhism. Basically this school of Buddhisms holds that there is an aspect of your mind called the "alaya conciousness" where you karma is stored. When your body dies, this alaya conciousness runs out to find a new body to inhabit. Obviously this alaya conciousness will seek out the familar, according to its affinities. Therefore, if your alaya conciousness enjoys a so called "animal like" lifestyle, it will rush to find an animal body.

My answer from Bagong in that I've gotten my understanding primarily from the Mahayana school of Buddhism, where as it seems Bagong is talking from a Therevadan viewpoint.

I should say I don't necessarily believe in reincarnation. To the question does it make sense though I would say yes. In fact there are plenty of different ways of explaining it that make sense. Like I said, I think my favourite is the yogacaara (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm) way. Of course explaining it in a way that makes sense doesn't in any way prove it's reality. ;) I guess some people find it comforting or usefull or whatever.

[andy_d]

Some good answers here already, but i'd have to say for myself that the what seems to be impeding your understanding of the concept, Soma, is your concept of judgement.

In Buddhism at least, judgement is a foreign concept. This is the biggest single misunderstanding westerners have. Karma isn't judgement applied by some external agency to reward or punish actions. As Monk said, it's just impressions in the mind that later ripen.

Whatever you do, say or think leaves impressions in your mind, which then influence later thoughts, words, and actions. This is the same whether the mind is a human or an animal.

Sometimes these impressions will ripen quickly, sometimes they take longer. If you subscribe to the idea that the mind is indestructible and therefore does not die when the body does, then it follows logically that impresssions in the mind from a past life can have an influence in the current time, and that present actions may have repercussions far into the future.

So it's not about judgement, it's just about cause and effect over a relatively long time span.

[Farren]

In my attempts to make sense of buddist philosophy (what I have made sense of I like a lot), I've come up with the following understanding.

You (the individual) are like a wave. To say "you are" is not to say "you are not the ocean". "You" is a temporary definition for a fuzzy phenomenon, a space-time-matter extrusion from the universal backdrop.

During its brief life a wave interacts with its environment and carries the results of this interaction back into the ocean. This is effectively "Karma". From this perspective the Karma of one wave may eventually feed into the Karma of many after its "death".

This makes Karma simply seem like laws of physics. The "morality" dimension of Karma seems to emerge from a number of understandings.

Whole being death does not equate to complete biological death. Prior to feeding your life energy back into the ecosystem, there is a long, slow period of tissue death, and an even longer period of microorganisms in your body (some in symbiotic relationship with it) dying off or undergoing generational change.

Much Eastern medicine is based on a kind of fractal idea that a healthy, harmonious whole translates to many healthy individual parts (cells etc). Evidently, if you're food for species microcrobial and otherwise this means that when your tissues decay, you're good food, producing healthy, harmonious consumers.

This thinking extends down infinitely past the quantum scale. In other words, at some infinitesmal level, there is "good" and "bad" energy, and your efforts as a whole being to be "good" (enlightened) or "bad" affect your energy down to this level. Many meditative practices of Buddism, and similar systems (chi Gung from Daoism for instance) focus on whole body enlightenment rather than mental enlightment.

It seems as if buddism does not make any kind of life/nonlife split either. All is chi in Zen. All is conscious. At higher levels, this engenders respect for animals. Budda said a dog can achieve enlightenment.

[happyboy]

while i have infinitely more respect for many eastern faiths than i do western ones, the simple fact remains:

1) there is no reincarnation.

2) there is no life after death, in any shape or form.

consciousness is signals in the brain, and when the brain stops functioning, consciousness winks out, going nowhere other than obilivion. as much as i respect the buddhist faith, especially zen buddhism, i cannot believe in it anymore than i can believe in the christian God. it's a well-meaning fantasy, nothing more, nothing less.

happyboy, sad to see so many people wasting their lives chasing a non-existent enlightenment

[Farren]

Originally posted by happyboy
while i have infinitely more respect for many eastern faiths than i do western ones, the simple fact remains:

1) there is no reincarnation.

2) there is no life after death, in any shape or form.

consciousness is signals in the brain, and when the brain stops functioning, consciousness winks out, going nowhere other than obilivion. as much as i respect the buddhist faith, especially zen buddhism, i cannot believe in it anymore than i can believe in the christian God. it's a well-meaning fantasy, nothing more, nothing less.

happyboy, sad to see so many people wasting their lives chasing a non-existent enlightenment

Happyboy

sad to say I think this is a bit of a kneejerk. You've decided you don;t like the idea of reincarnation. a whole lotta ppl say, well, in buddism its not really reincarnation... and proceed to qualify.

You say, hell, they're talking about reincarnation, and thats religious, right? I don''t agree.

I am an athiest. I don't believe in God. I don't conduct meaningless rituals. I do, however, find merit in Buddist ideas re Karma and Daoist ideas about chi. Not superstitions, ideas, with a fascinating world view attached to them which, if you understand them, compliment rather than contradict scientific reason.

A few obvious problems with your positions:

Its signals in the brain

This is philosophically extremely difficult to defend. a) your spinal chord has Ganglia, which do some of your "thinking" for you. b) your endocrine (gland) system creates mood which regulates consciousness (all over the body). c) By seriously examining the biological components of your consciousness, you will find that every inch of your body is involved.

When you reach that point, you'll realise there's never a definable (precise) boundary where the energy that constitutes you ends and the universe begins (at a quantum level). So you're not definably distinct from your background. Get into information theory and you'll see that there's no clear point where the internal dialog of your identity (your software, if you like) is distinct from the hum of your culture. And so on, and so on...

This is not "religion", its a philosophical world-view, one that many sceptics and scientists have arrived at, and one that Daoism and from what i can see buddism shares.

happyboy, sad to see so many people wasting their lives chasing a non-existent enlightenment

You've obviously been raised in a Christian environment, where words like "enlightenment" relate to faith and belief. "I believe in God! I am saved!" etc

Please believe me when I say buddist enlightenment is a thouroughly different concept. [i] Its a physical state[i] people are trying to achieve. In buddism (and there are superstitions and "peasant" buddism if you like which clouds this fact) spirit and matter are the same thing. You're trying to reach a happy harmonious state of that matter, not some higher ground of the "soul"

[Farren]

Check out these three books

"The Emperors New Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind" (by Roger Penrose, who jointly worked with Stephen Hawkings for Black Hole Theory and is Dean of Maths at Oxford)

and

"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav

[monkey mind]

Some good posts here; reminded me of an explanation of rebirth that I've read once. It was from the book translated by J.C. Cleary called 'Pure Land Pure Mind'. It was basically translations of writings from 2 Pure Land masters from China in the 1600s. One section of the book was letters one of the masters wrote in response to questions he received. In response to the question what is rebirth, he basically just answer that "it's a gathering an scattering of affinities" (i'm paraphrasing from memory)

Which I found a really fascinating explanation. My girlfriend said she didn't understand rebirth until she read that explanation. And it makes perfect sense. Certainly, the atoms which make us up will scatter upon our death, only to gather again in another form somewhere else. Over the course of our lifetime our thoughts too scatter and gather. Our knowledge, our likes dislikes etc.

So the teachings of rebirth ( a lot of Buddhists seem to like that term better than reincarnation) don't have to be, and often times haven't been, interpretted as an afterlife. You are right though happy boy in pointing out that it's a nice fantasy. Very comforting. Personally, I really don't know one way or the other ;)

Happy Boy might like this article (http://www2.gol.com/users/doubtboy/rein.html) written by a zen priest.

Also, I think that if chasing enlightenment is considered a waste of life, then living is a waste of life. I mean, we're all going to scatter eventually ?

[paul30]

The other animals are clearly superior to humans.

We humans are clearly undergoing penance for a lot of bad karma.

If we are good, and lucky, we may come back as something better, like a cat or a blade of grass.

[monkey mind]

Originally posted by paul30
The other animals are clearly superior to humans.

We humans are clearly undergoing penance for a lot of bad karma.

If we are good, and lucky, we may come back as something better, like a cat or a blade of grass.

Nietzche says that the animals probably look at us as the animal that has lost it's healthy sense of animal reason. The mad animal, the sad animal, that happy animal, the laughing animal.

Personally, I don't think my cats are always so satisfied with life. The older one definately seems to want something more than kibbles, water and a scratching post.

[happyboy]

animals have the better deal. they don't have this annoying thing called "sentience," so they don't have to worry about the garbage we worry about.

happyboy, who wishes intelligence had never developed in that early proto-human race

[AdamWho]

Yes reincarnation makes sense as a qualitative theory. Things around us die and are reborn, the whole circle of life thing. Being conscious and self aware beings it is only natural to extend this naturalistic concept to our "souls".

The one shot deal with Christianity never made any sense to me. I personally don't believe in reincarnation anymore but it is a whole lot more plausible then the Christian after life.

[reverendmoss]

The idea of reincarnation is peanut butter on the roof of my mind. Who's idea was it that we come back whole? I see 'the soul' more as a drop of water, going and returning from the sea. Still water, still wet. Here salty, there snow. This evidence of past-life regression could be nothing more than dipping into the well. An isolated thought, feeling, or experience culled from the Akashik record, the collective unconciousness, and labeled as our own.
My wife has a crazy story of riding by a house at age 3 with her dad and saying, 'I lived there when I was an old woman with only one leg.' He laughed it off. Years later he tells her the story and she runs with it. Does some research on the house; its tenants, its history. She finds a record from tax histories and the local newspaper of a woman who lived in the house during the early part of the 20th century who had advocated women's rights as a young woman (hence getting into the paper). She died in the house with hip problems. She'd had one leg amputated. Does this mean my wife 'was' this woman - or did she happen to inherit that memory in the cosmic grab bag? Maybe part of her river is water from the old woman. Some could argue the three year old had a lucky guess.:rolleyes:
------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by happyboy
animals have the better deal. they don't have this annoying thing called "sentience," so they don't have to worry about the garbage we worry about.

happyboy, who wishes intelligence had never developed in that early proto-human race

Happyboy, I'm worried about you. :( You see yourself as nothing more than a set of electrochemical reactions. You see sentience as annoying. You wish humans didn't have it.

This ability to ponder our own place in this cosmic dance is what makes humans wonderful. I am a mad animal. The laughing animal. The questioning animal.

reverendmoss, sad to see happy boy looking for enlightenment by denying he's looking for it.

No one is going to shake you and show you this thing. You're not even going to take this missive to heart because you've already dismissed me as a lunatic and a crackpot. The fact that you read these threads and post here puts you in the category of seeker - embrace it, man.

[bagong]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Yes reincarnation makes sense as a qualitative theory. Things around us die and are reborn, the whole circle of life thing. Being conscious and self aware beings it is only natural to extend this naturalistic concept to our "souls". Once again I must stress that the Buddhist theory of reincarnation does not involve souls transmigrating - in fact the single most important doctrine of Buddhism is that there is no soul!

Perhaps the simplest explanation of Buddhist reincarnation is found in the Milindapañhâ ("Milinda's Questions"), a section of the Pâli Canon giving non-technical answers to questions on Buddhist doctrine, set as a conversation between the Bactrian Greek king Milinda (Grk. Menander) and the monk Nâgâsena:

The king asked: "When someone is reborn, Venerable Nagasena, is he the same as the one who just died, or is he another?"

The elder replied: "He is neither the same nor another."

"Give me an illustration!"

"What do you think, Great King? When you were a tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, were you then the same as the one who is now grown up?"

"No, that infant was one, I, now grown up, am another."

"If that is so, then, Great King, you have had no mother, no father, no reaching, no schooling! Do we then take it that there is one mother for the embryo in the first stage, another for the second stage, another for the third, another for the fourth, another for the baby, another for the grown-up man? Is the school-boy one person, and the one who has finished school another? Does one commit a crime, but the hands and feet of another are cut off?"

"Certainly not! But what would you say, Reverend Sir, to all that?"

The elder replied: "I was neither the tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, nor am I now the grown-up man; but all these are comprised in one unit depending on this very body."

"Give me a simile!"

"If a man were to light a lamp, could it give light throughout the whole night?"

"Yes, it could."

"Is now the flame which burns in the first watch of the night the same as the one which burns in the second?"

"It is not the same."

"Or is the flame which burns in the second watch the same as the one which burns in the last one?"

"It is not the same."

"Do we then take it that there is one lamp in the first watch of the night, another in the second, and another again in the third?"

"No, it is just because of the light of the lamp shines throughout the night."

"Even so must we understand the collocation of a series of successive dharmas. At rebirth one dharma arises, while another stops; but the two processes take place almost simultaneously (i.e. they are continous). Therefore, the first act of consciousness in the new existence is neither the same as the last act of consciousness in the previous existence, nor it is the another."

Dharmas referred to in the above paragraph are the ultimate constituents of reality in Abhidhamma philosophy, as opposed to mere perceptual constructs like "the self", "the soul", "the desk" etc. Of course the later Mahâyâna philosophy of Emptiness believes even dharmas are "empty of own-nature", but I think they would still accept this Theravâdin account of how reincarnation works.

[AdamWho]

Once again I must stress that the Buddhist theory of reincarnation does not involve souls transmigrating - in fact the single most important doctrine of Buddhism is that there is no soul!

Who said anything about Buddhism?

[bagong]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Who said anything about Buddhism? Point taken! In any case, my post wasn't made to "prove you wrong", but more to clarify the Buddhist position in general, as it's a widespread misconception that Buddhism believes reincarnation is the transmigration of souls, and nirvana is the "extinction of the soul".

[AdamWho]

All I really wanted to point out was:

If you look around there is a cycle of life and death, birth, rebirth the cycles of the stars and planets.
It is perfectly reasonable theory that things die and are reborn in another form. Add consciousness / a sense of self to the mix and you have the ingredients for a belief in reincarnation.

I would bet that after the idea of the soul, reincarnation is one of the oldest "religious" concepts.

As I stated before I don't believe in reincarnation but I do believe that is an infinitely better theory then heaven/hell.

[reverendmoss]

Energy can niether be created nor destroyed.The First Law of Thermodynamics (http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/firstlaw.html#firstrule)

:D

[happyboy]

reverendmoss, sentience brought with it a lot of ugly nonsense that animals just don't deal with. animals deal with a small set of very select things: eating, mating, finding shelter, and surviving. they don't deal with things like religion, intolerance, hate, racism, creationist idiocy, OR destroying the environment willynilly.

animals have NEVER wrought the global destruction humanity has wrought. animals are in tune with their environments. the lack of intelligence means they don't wage wars over who's God is the right one, nor do they kill each other because one side's pack alpha says the other side's pack alpha is a terrorist. animals just exist, and in existing, are beautiful. mankind is an ugly, destructive cancer on the face of the earth.

and yes, we ARE electrochemical reactions. i would have thought science had solved this little quandry by now.

happyboy

[happyboy]

sentient thought is a blight. the world was far, far, FAR better off 9 million years ago......

happyboy

[reverendmoss]

My oh my.

Originally posted by happyboy
sentience brought with it a lot of ugly nonsense that animals just don't deal with. animals deal with a small set of very select things: eating, mating, finding shelter, and surviving.

This is a good thing? Just getting along, merely surviving? Animals don't have art, literature, science, or any one of endless modes of language and expression. All the negatives you mention stem from an unwillingness to grow and better one's self. It's lazy and unintelligent. Worse, it's an abuse of one's humanity to deny the humanity of others. (Of course, who's to say ants don't fight over the divinity of each mound's Queen?)

animals have NEVER wrought the global destruction humanity has wrought. animals are in tune with their environments.

Animals are wiped out should they no longer be attuned to their environment. A lesson we may soon learn. Eat all your food source, you're dead. Lose your water supply, dead. Too cold, dead. (Overpopulation, pollution, nuclear winter)
The ratio of animals attuned and surviving vs. those not attuned and extinct (naturally - without man's help) would point this out. Natural selection is a bitch, one which animals have no choice but to accede to. We have the choice - and the responsibillity to use it wisely.

and yes, we ARE electrochemical reactions. i would have thought science had solved this little quandry by now.

Never said otherwise. But science is an objective measurement. It does no good for subjective or inner study. Just ask Werner Heisenberg. You can't prove the existence of a deity through empirical methods. If it were possible, every Christian would be a doctoral physicist.

You're entitled to your opinions, I'm offering mine.;)

[happyboy]

yes, it IS a good thing, what animals have. i agree, art, science, music, are all beautiful things, but i find more beauty in the chirpings of a cricket or the singing of whales than i do to any of beethoven's symphonies. and as for ants fighting over the divinity of their queens, recognizing something as divine requires abstract thought, a quality ants are sorely lacking in.

i long for the day humanity learns the powerful lesson that we are not the most important lifeform on this planet. we just happen to be clever monkeys that know how to wreck things. i am not a PETA fanatic, as i do not believe animals are my equals, or even my superiors. abstract thought makes me superior to ANY animal. however, we humans have horribly botched the sentience evolution gifted to us, and thus, i think the gift needs to be taken away. we use our abstract thought to kill, rape, destroy, and defile; we believe in faerie tale gods and think we have magickal powers (what is prayer if not magick?).

i have my opinions, and you have yours. mine are drawn from the ecological devastation i see all around the globe. you made a powerful point: animals that don't attune to their environment and find some equilibrium with it, die out. yet our sentience prevents this from happening to us. we rape the land of all it's worth, and thus kill our planet inch by terrible inch. if that early proto-hominid had never developed intelligent thought, the earth would still be a green, vibrant place. it would be beautiful beyond imagining. it would be a perfect world.

for all we know, this earth is the only place in the entire universe where life exists. it'll be quite some time before we find out for sure or not whether earth is unique in this regard. so, are you willing to shoulder the responsibility for killing the only garden of life in existence?

yes, i am proud of my stance that sentience is an aberration that has come close to wrecking the entire world. i am proud of my fervent wish that sentience had never arisen. if that early proto-hominid had stayed a mere animal, we would be living in a perfect world.

happyboy

[reverendmoss]

Crickets vs. Beethoven ?

Crickets win.















. . . plus they make excellent bait.

[happyboy]

so, are you saying the world wouldn't be a better, greener, healthier place if sentience had never arisen?

a very curious happyboy

[reverendmoss]

It's all too possible to make the world all that and more by virtue of our sentience.

Unfortunately it would take more thought, sweat, and dedication than 99.9% of the world is willing to give it. It's going to take more than a Honda hybrid, that's for damn sure.

It's also unfotunate they seem to hold the Earth as their personal resource pile, given through divine mandate, to be used and exploited at will.
(Damn Genesis 1:28)
We should make use of our natural resources, of course!, but not at the expense of its sustainability or renewal. We are thinking creative creatures. The way exists for us to discover if we were to try.

[Answerer]

Originally posted by happyboy


i long for the day humanity learns the powerful lesson that we are not the most important lifeform on this planet. we just happen to be clever monkeys that know how to wreck things



Actually, we are stupid monkeys.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Soma
An animal acts towards an end -- namely, to survive and propagate the species -- but it is not endowed with morals, ethics, a sense of right and wrong, etc. There is no way to judge an animal and its actions.

Humans ARE animals. Also, other animals have morals, etc. - just not human morals. My dog, for example, definitely has his understanding of right and wrong. Dogs are people too (so to speak) and I think it's 'species-ism' to assume they otherwise.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by happyboy

1) there is no reincarnation.

2) there is no life after death, in any shape or form.

consciousness is signals in the brain, and when the brain stops functioning, consciousness winks out, going nowhere other than obilivion. as much as i respect the buddhist faith, especially zen buddhism, i cannot believe in it anymore than i can believe in the christian God. it's a well-meaning fantasy, nothing more, nothing less.



This is fine, except that you state these are facts. They are assertions. You are stating beliefs, and not scientific facts. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Animals... don't have this annoying thing called "sentience," so they don't have to worry about the garbage we worry about.

This is incorrect. Animals have sentience. The word 'sentience' means 'responsive to or conscious of sense impressions' or just 'aware'. Note not even 'self-awareness' is implied. Animals are definitely aware. They are sentient.

Your garbage theory supports the idea that a secret to happiness is ignorance. The more I learn about the world, the more pessimistic I become about it's future.

I am glad I have an intuitive (non-rational) belief that things will work out as they should.

[reverendmoss]

Originally posted by happyboy
sentient thought is a blight. the world was far, far, FAR better off 9 million years ago......

happyboy

http://www.reverendmoss.com/bizarro.gif

Saw this pic and had to add it.

Bizarro (http://www.reverendmoss.com/bizarro.gif)

[happyboy]

the cavemen in that picture had the right idea. sentience is a virus.

and no, animals are not sentient. they lack the ability to think abstractly. you don't see ants operating nuclear reactors, or frogs performing calculus, now do you? no, because that involves abstract thinking, something animals simply cannot do.

we were far better off as instinctual animals. we had only a tiny selection of things to worry about: survival, food, mating, shelter from the elements, and not much else. we didn't have any of the bad shit that's part and parcel of being human.

i am human. i am rational. i can look around and see the evils we've done to the world. and i understand enough about human nature that i can comprehend the fact that we will destroy our ecosystem LONG before most of humanity ever begins to think it needs conserving and repairing. we are a short-sighted species that befouls everything it touches.

happyboy

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by happyboy
the cavemen in that picture had the right idea. sentience is a virus.

and no, animals are not sentient. they lack the ability to think abstractly. you don't see ants operating nuclear reactors, or frogs performing calculus, now do you? no, because that involves abstract thinking, something animals simply cannot do.

'Sentience is a virus': what evidence do you have for this interesting statement?

'Animals are not sentient': incorrect. The ability to think abstract thoughts are not required for sentience, and the idea that only humans have abstract thoughts is incorrect. I accuse you of species-ism.

we were far better off as instinctual animals. we had only a tiny selection of things to worry about : survival, food, mating, shelter from the elements, and not much else. we didn't have any of the bad shit that's part and parcel of being human.
And none of the good shit. Meanwhile, the world of nature is just as chock full of predation, suffering, pain, injustice, and blood as it's always been. You seem to have a romantic view of nature - easy to do when we live in civilization. :)

i am human. i am rational. i can look around and see the evils we've done to the world. and i understand enough about human nature that i can comprehend the fact that we will destroy our ecosystem LONG before most of humanity ever begins to think it needs conserving and repairing. we are a short-sighted species that befouls everything it touches.
I wager we will learn or perish - in either case the world will continue. It is not rational to accept pure pessimism.

[happyboy]

i know full well how brutal nature is. i understand that fully well. and that's my entire point. in nature, things are purer. none of the bullshit layers of illusion that society and abstract thinking have draped up around us. that's beauty, more beautiful than any symphony or work of literature.

happyboy

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by happyboy
i know full well how brutal nature is. i understand that fully well. and that's my entire point. in nature, things are purer. none of the bullshit layers of illusion that society and abstract thinking have draped up around us. that's beauty, more beautiful than any symphony or work of literature.

happyboy

Why does 'brutal' mean 'purer' to you?

Also, people ultimately are natural creatures, and it can be argued that civilization is natural, layers of illusion and all.

Also, where is the balance? Nature and civilization in harmony. Notice, for example, that the more advanced a culture is, the lower the birth rate. Thus overpopulation is solved by advancing civilization and eliminating poverty.

A dark view is fine. So is a light view. IMO best is to accept both. A completely negative attitude can't be healthy.

[reverendmoss]

Originally posted by Nowhere357

A dark view is fine. So is a light view. IMO best is to accept both. A completely negative attitude can't be healthy.

But it's so much easier to argue from the Completely Negative Point of View. Everyone loves to play Devil's Advocate. It's human nature to be combative and eristic.

For example . . .

An Intelligent Argument is presented.

CNPoV: "No, it isn't."

Offer Witty Riposte.

CNPoV: "No, it isn't."

Counter with Factual Reasoning.

CNPoV: "You suck. Shut up."

{Bow, curtain closes.}

[andy_d]

Happyboy, are you aware of how closely your opinions conform to Christian ideology?

After all, the idea that the world was previously an idyllic utopia, and that the actions of man have "wrecked" and "defiled" it is straight out of the Bible, is it not? :D

A more realistic viewpoint would recognise that there never was any utopia that existed before man. All there was was the same brutal, beautiful rule of the natural world. It's all fine to enjoy the cricket's chirp, but nature truly is "red in tooth and claw" and isn't about the kind of sentimentality you seem to be focussed on. Nature kills beauty without remorse, as much as it spawns it.

The real fact of the situation is that things are still the same way they always have. Humanity, despite it's arrogant assumption of superiority, is still entirely at the mercy of nature. We are impotant and insignificant in the face of these larger forces. One day we will all be dead, and things will carry on just like they always have.

Not that that's got much to do with reincarnation, mind

(Alternative dictionary entry: "Reintarnation"- Belief that one will be reborn as a hillbilly)

[happyboy]

by "purer", i don't mean "happier," or "safer." i literally mean "purer" in a purely ecological sense. the world was a green and healthy place before that early proto-human species was gifted with sentient thought. it was a healthier world.

yes, it could be a pretty brutal place. i would never confuse it for some mythical and improbable garden of eden. it was a place of struggle and desperate survival.

but it was healthy and green and ecologically balanced, and it was a damn sight better than the world we humans have made for ourselves.

happyboy

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by happyboy
by "purer", i don't mean "happier," or "safer." i literally mean "purer" in a purely ecological sense. the world was a green and healthy place before that early proto-human species was gifted with sentient thought. it was a healthier world.

yes, it could be a pretty brutal place. i would never confuse it for some mythical and improbable garden of eden. it was a place of struggle and desperate survival.

but it was healthy and green and ecologically balanced, and it was a damn sight better than the world we humans have made for ourselves.

happyboy

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying here. Too much, maybe. Sometimes, when I'm feeling dark, I think we are more like a cancer on this planet, than any sort of a beneficial species. I hope we learn our lessons in time. :)

[happyboy]

nowhere, we ARE a cancer.

happyboy

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by happyboy
nowhere, we ARE a cancer.

happyboy

Maybe we'll reincarnate as something a little more environmentally friendly. :)

[happyboy]

if reincarnation exists, then all my next incarnations, from here on out, had best be animals living free in the wild.

happyboy

[monkey mind]

message deleted; redundant

[AdamWho]

we ARE a cancer

Statements like this one are a projection of our values onto the universe.
Since when did the universe care about being environmentally friendly, free, just, peaceful, or fair? The universe doesn’t even give a damn about life in general. The universe can’t care it doesn’t have values; it isn’t conscious or a consciousness.

Bottom line:
1. Reincarnation is a psychological pacifier just like other religious beliefs and is based on projecting the believer’s values onto the non-conscious universe.
2. After you die you get reincarnated into fertilizer

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Statements like this one are a projection of our values onto the universe.
Since when did the universe care about being environmentally friendly, free, just, peaceful, or fair? The universe doesn’t even give a damn about life in general. The universe can’t care it doesn’t have values; it isn’t conscious or a consciousness.

Bottom line:
1. Reincarnation is a psychological pacifier just like other religious beliefs and is based on projecting the believer’s values onto the non-conscious universe.
2. After you die you get reincarnated into fertilizer

Hi AdamWho. The statement that the universe doesn't care, is ALSO a projection of our values! It can be argued that the universe IS conscious, through life! Also, life in general may BE a property of the universe!

Re your bottom lines:
1) Not that there is anything wrong with that. :)
2) Good quote.

What exactly IS the difference between a dead thing and an alive thing?

[andy_d]

Originally posted by happyboy
if reincarnation exists, then all my next incarnations, from here on out, had best be animals living free in the wild.


Free from what? Your life would be much more difficult if you were an animal.

BTW, there's no such thing as an "ecological balance". If there were there would never be any change. This stable "pure" state you talk of doesn't exist, and never did.

The only constant is change. Progression is more natural than anything. Your desire to regress is completely at odds with the ways of nature.

[AdamWho]

The statement that the universe doesn't care, is ALSO a projection of our values! It can be argued that the universe IS conscious, through life! Also, life in general may BE a property of the universe!

My point about the universe being conscious is the same as in "the meaning of life" thread:

The universe ( the total of matter and energy) does not posses the property of consciousness. Granted that there are beings in the universe that are (or seem to be) conscious however the universe as a whole is not.

It seems that "non-traditional" religious people take the god concept and stretch it over the physical universe, giving it characteristics that they value. They however are just anthropomorphizing the universe just as the Christian does god.

I still maintain that reincarnation is a better theory than heaven/hell duality.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
My point about the universe being conscious is the same as in "the meaning of life" thread:
It seems that "non-traditional" religious people take the god concept and stretch it over the physical universe, giving it characteristics that they value. They however are just anthropomorphizing the universe just as the Christian does god.

I still maintain that reincarnation is a better theory than heaven/hell duality.

I agree consciousness isn't a property of the universe.

But what about life? Do the known physical forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear) and the known physical laws fully account for the presence of life?

[AdamWho]

But what about life? Do the known physical forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear) and the known physical laws fully account for the presence of life?

Your question suggests you want (or need) a prime mover to breath consciousness into matter. I agree that it is hard to believe that just complex arrangements of matter can manifest this thing called consciousness. However, what we can or cannot believe is irrelevant, reality (matter, energy, forces) doesn't depend on our believing it them.

Forces don't explain (account for) things, they are not conscious, they just exist. We, using are brains, attempt to explain things. Admittedly our knowledge is limited, but just because it is limited doesn't mean should resort to "short cuts" such as revelation and wishing.

Not resorting to the comforts of revelation and faith is the road less traveled.

[Mageth]

I agree consciousness isn't a property of the universe.

Does that mean you think the universe isn't conscious (I agree), that consciousness does not exist in (is not a property of) the universe (I strongly disagree; I think consciousness is an emergent property of the universe), or something else?

But what about life? Do the known physical forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear) and the known physical laws fully account for the presence of life?

I would say that life occurs at (or above) the chemical level than at the physical (as in physics) level. So those physical forces underly the presence of life in this universe, but aren't what directly "account" for it.

Molecules (specifically biochemical molecules), their structures, their interactions, and chemical principles (and perhaps other natural principles/phenomenon, e.g. self-organizing principles, chaos theory, autocatalysis, complexity theory, emergent phenomenon, etc.) are enough to account for the presence of life, though we might not know the process that actually resulted in "life" arising on this planet yet. And there might yet be some unknown natural "laws" out there that played at least a part.

For an example of a possible mechanism, do a google search on autocatalytic systems/Stuart Kaufman, or get his book "At Home in the Universe". I'm sure others could mention other possibilities.

[AdamWho]

Does that mean you think the universe isn't conscious
Yes, but what I think doesn't matter; there is just no evidence of a conscious universe.
I strongly disagree; I think consciousness is an emergent property of the universe
I agree, but I would say that the properties of the universe don't prohibit consciousness rather than saying consciousness is an emergent property of the universe.
Possible existence need to guarantee existence of life.

But, back on subject: it is easy to see why it might seem rational to believe in reincarnation. Life and consciousness are complex.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Your question suggests you want (or need) a prime mover to breath consciousness into matter.

No I don't want no stinking prime movers. :)

Patterns of matter/energy in space/time exist and that is where I start from.

However, what we can or cannot believe is irrelevant, reality (matter, energy, forces) doesn't depend on our believing it them.
Actually, that is a presumption. I agree with you, but point out that in quantum physics, the concept of an observer becomes important, which is interesting. :)

Forces don't explain (account for) things, they are not conscious, they just exist.
Forces just exist? Then why can't consciousness just exist?

[Answerer]

Think again guys, usually we tend to believe that the universe as a separate existence as ours and therefore, we deduced that it has no consciousness. But what if it is not, what if the subject(we) and the object(the universe) are connected in some mysterious way that we can't even comprehend or aware of. Is it still accurate to claim that the universe is 'dead'? Apparently not, I think.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mageth

I agree consciousness isn't a property of the universe.

Does that mean you think the universe isn't conscious (I agree), that consciousness does not exist in (is not a property of) the universe (I strongly disagree; I think consciousness is an emergent property of the universe), or something else?

I think there is a life force. This force is not 'conscious'. It has the quality of causing life to arise from matter. This force affects matter, so it can be measured.

Molecules (specifically biochemical molecules), their structures, their interactions, and chemical principles (and perhaps other natural principles/phenomenon, e.g. self-organizing principles, chaos theory, autocatalysis, complexity theory, emergent phenomenon, etc.) are enough to account for the presence of life, though we might not know the process that actually resulted in "life" arising on this planet yet. And there might yet be some unknown natural "laws" out there that played at least a part.

I agree with this. I would point out, however, that biochemistry etc works well at explaining life - given that life exists. Think about this.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Answerer
Think again guys, usually we tend to believe that the universe as a separate existence as ours and therefore, we deduced that it has no consciousness. But what if it is not, what if the subject(we) and the object(the universe) are connected in some mysterious way that we can't even comprehend or aware of. Is it still accurate to claim that the universe is 'dead'? Apparently not, I think.

IMO you are right - there is no reason to say the universe is dead. That disagrees with simple observation, and makes unnecessary assumptions.

[AdamWho]

I agree with you, but point out that in quantum physics, the concept of an observer becomes important, which is interesting.
I don't want to drag this thread into science and skepticism but this statement indicates a misunderstanding of what is ment by "observer" in QM. An observer doesn't mean consciousness it means measurement. We cannot measure QM level stuff without effecting it. To measure a given property of X at least one photon needs to be bounced off or emitted from X, hence some properties are changed in the process of measuring - Heisenberg uncertainty. It is a 100% causal interaction; in fact all objects that interact "observe" each other in their interaction.

Forces just exist? Then why can't consciousness just exist?

Let’s extend your analogy to a parallel statement
The universe exists therefore god exists
Matter/energy/forces exist therefore consciousness exists.

You are just exchanging the word consciousness for the word god.

Think again guys, usually we tend to believe that the universe as a separate existence as ours and therefore, we deduced that it has no consciousness.

This statement seems backwards to me.
It is the foundation of religious belief that the universe is conscious through god or some other means. Humans throughout history have projected their consciousness onto the universe and it is only a very recent development to deny this.

IMO you are right - there is no reason to say the universe is dead. That disagrees with simple observation, and makes unnecessary assumptions.

Simple observation? If you can demonstrate that the universe ITSELF is conscious, then you will have proven the existence of god.

There is no proof that the universe is conscious by standard definitions.

Conscious
1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation
2 archaic : sharing another's knowledge or awareness of an inward state or outward fact
3 : personally felt <conscious guilt>
4 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception

Saying that "the universe is conscious" falls into the same category as "god exists"; the burden of proof falls to the person making the claim.

Reincarnation relies upon a conscious universe and ultimately relies on the logical fallacy of false implication; X exists therefore God / Conscious Universe exists.

[Mageth]

Good post, AdamWho.

Nowhere357:

I think there is a life force. This force is not 'conscious'. It has the quality of causing life to arise from matter. This force affects matter, so it can be measured.

I think the different phenomenon I mentioned (e.g. biochemical properties/interactions, self-organizing principles, etc.) are sufficient without assigning some kind of "force" as a cause for the process.

I agree with this. I would point out, however, that biochemistry etc works well at explaining life - given that life exists. Think about this.

OK, I thought about it. It makes little sense. Could you clarify?

I also want to point out that it's Stuart Kauffman, not Kaufman. I'd recommend you read his book.

[lugotorix]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I agree with you, but point out that in quantum physics, the concept of an observer becomes important, which is interesting. :)


IIRC, there is a theory called the Participatory Anthropic Principle which incorporates this aspect of quantum theory into cosmology. The basic concept (from the Copenhagen interpretation) says that before any quantum event is observed, the particles in the system are in a state of quantum superposition, in effect inhabiting all possible locations in the system. The act of observation causes the particles to collapse into the actual values observed. The PAP just expands this to universal proportions -- before the universe had some sort of conciousness to observe it, it was essentially a multiverse of all possible universes. Once there was a concious observer, it collapsed into the universe we have now. So ultimately, according to this theory, the universe as we know it and concious life are both necessary parts of the complete system.

The II Library has some information on the various anthropic principles, if you want a better and more detailed explanation. I think there is a good article by Prof. Victor Stenger that critiques an essential aspect of most of these theories, namely that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life.

As far as I know, scholarly opinion is weighing against the PAP. For one, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is not univerally accepted. The PAP was also quite popular with some of the Intelligent Design crowd and other mystically-inclined folks, which tarnished its image somewhat.

Personally, I've always favoured the Participatory Misanthropic Principle -- the state of the existing universe is in part due to our observation of it, so the resulting mess is damn well good enough for the likes of us.;)

lugotorix

[AdamWho]

The basic concept (from the Copenhagen interpretation) says that before any quantum event is observed, the particles in the system are in a state of quantum superposition, in effect inhabiting all possible locations in the system. The act of observation causes the particles to collapse into the actual values observed.

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of QM. Just because something is mathematically in an indeterminate state doesn't mean that it actually is.

Example:
Flip a coin and catch it without looking at it. Mathematically it is in an indeterminate state (the superposition of heads and tails). but you know the coin is not flipping around in your hand, changing from head to tails. The PAP theory would have us believe that we need to "look at" the coin to collapse the probability function. However your hand already made the choice (the matter of you hand and the coin have "observed" each other through causal interaction) and the coin is heads or tails whether or not you "observe" it consciously.

The PAP just expands this to universal proportions -- before the universe had some sort of consciousness to observe it, it was essentially a multiverse of all possible universes.

This theory confuses possibilities of states with actual states. Just because a system is mathematically in an indeterminate state doesn't mean that it actually exists in all of these possible states. It just means that we don't know what state it is in or that there is error (by Heisenberg) in our measurements.

Honestly, if I was the advisor of the guy who did his dissertation on the multiverse theory I would have sent him back to basic QM.

Once there was a conscious observer, it collapsed into the universe we have now.

Observer means MEASUREMENT not "conscious observer" in QM. Measurements do not "collapse" (another unfortunate word) actual states of a system it only verifies what state the system is in.

Example:
I lost my car keys, they could be anywhere in the house with equal probability. Does that mean they exist everywhere in the house simultaneously until I find them; collapsing the wave function magically into my jacket pocket?; No, the keys were in the jacket pocket. The mathematics of probability did not cause them to exist in all possible states until I found them.

So ultimately, according to this theory, the universe as we know it and concious life are both necessary parts of the complete system.
The matter and energy in the universe "observes" itself through common causal interations and even if it didn't it would only be mathematal functions that would be in all possible states not the stuff of the universe.

If Neils Bohr only chose his words more carefully there wouldn't be an Quantum Consciousness nonsense.
We would be arguing reincarnation from a religious / psychological point of view.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho

Simple observation? If you can demonstrate that the universe ITSELF is conscious, then you will have proven the existence of god.
There is no proof that the universe is conscious by standard definitions.


I never claimed that. In fact I said: "I agree consciousness isn't a property of the universe." I think consciousness means awareness, and implies a central nervous system.

Nevertheless, I had postulated:
Forces just exist? Then why can't consciousness just exist?
Let’s extend your analogy to a parallel statement
The universe exists therefore god exists
Matter/energy/forces exist therefore consciousness exists.

You are just exchanging the word consciousness for the word god.


Yeah I know. Or "matter exists because energy exists". Or even "matter exists because matter exists". My question was trying to show that all knowledge requires pre-conceptions. I think.

ME:
IMO you are right - there is no reason to say the universe is dead. That disagrees with simple observation, and makes unnecessary assumptions.
Simple observation? If you can demonstrate that the universe ITSELF is conscious, then you will have proven the existence of god.

I didn't say the universe is conscious, I said the universe is not dead. The universe is full of life! (Is that controversial?) Also, I really am not interested in the concept of god. I am interested in looking at reality and trying to understand what I see.

I DID NOT say this:
Think again guys, usually we tend to believe that the universe as a separate existence as ours and therefore, we deduced that it has no consciousness.
From the POV of the post it came from, I agree with it.
This statement seems backwards to me.
It is the foundation of religious belief that the universe is conscious through god or some other means. Humans throughout history have projected their consciousness onto the universe and it is only a very recent development to deny this.

These are not in disagreement! The problem is you're talking about the religious view (which 'projects their consciousness') while the post talks about the science view (which 'deduces no universal consciousness'). Maybe we should leave religion out of it?

Saying that "the universe is conscious" falls into the same category as "god exists"; the burden of proof falls to the person making the claim.

Agreed.

Besides, what would the universe be aware OF? Itself? That's seems self-centered. :D

Reincarnation relies upon a conscious universe and ultimately relies on the logical fallacy of false implication; X exists therefore God / Conscious Universe exists.
If reincarnation requires a conscious universe, which doesn't exist, then of course reincarnation doesn't exist. That misses the point by begging the question, doesn't it?

What reason is there to suppose that reincarnation requires a conscious universe?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mageth

Nowhere357:
I think there is a life force. This force is not 'conscious'. It has the quality of causing life to arise from matter. This force affects matter, so it can be measured.
I agree with this. I would point out, however, that biochemistry etc works well at explaining life - given that life exists. Think about this.

Mageth:
I think the different phenomenon I mentioned (e.g. biochemical properties/interactions, self-organizing principles, etc.) are sufficient without assigning some kind of "force" as a cause for the process.
OK, I thought about it. It makes little sense. Could you clarify?

Psychology and biology study mind and life. Clearly they assume mind and life exist. Neither explain how life arises from matter.

Physics studies matter and energy. Do the laws of physics explain how life arises from matter? Or how mind arises from life?

What is the difference between a dead thing and a live thing?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by lugotorix
As far as I know, scholarly opinion is weighing against the PAP. For one, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is not univerally accepted.

Personally, I've always favoured the Participatory Misanthropic Principle -- the state of the existing universe is in part due to our observation of it, so the resulting mess is damn well good enough for the likes of us.


I understand your points. Also, IMO we affect the universe, which means we observe it first, so I agree with PMP as you've described here.

Life increases order. Does increased order represent an increase of energy?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
This is one of the most misunderstood parts of QM. Just because something is mathematically in an indeterminate state doesn't mean that it actually is.


I've come to the same conclusion. Shroedinger's cat never bothered me, because the CAT knew which state it was in, so to speak.

Nevertheless, to measure the velocity of a wave packet ALTERS the position, and vice versa. We can't know both at once. My understanding is that it is not due to an equipment limitation. :confused:

[AdamWho]

Nowhere357, it seems that we agree on most points so let’s drop the QM.

Does reincarnation require a conscious universe?
Or stated differently: Does reincarnation require a mediator, that is, "something" to over see the whole thing or is it a natural phenomenon.

It seems unlikely that reincarnation would be natural phenomena and it wasn't created (Hinduism?) as a natural phenomena.

But does the caterpillar know it is to become a butterfly?....

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Does reincarnation require a conscious universe?
Or stated differently: Does reincarnation require a mediator, that is, "something" to over see the whole thing or is it a natural phenomenon.


Why can't it be both? :) Of course it's natural (if it exists). Maybe a higher level of consciousness naturally arises. We each are made of billions of cells. Maybe we are cells in the body of god.

Does reincarnation require a conscious universe?
IMO no. Why should it?

It seems unlikely that reincarnation would be natural phenomena and it wasn't created (Hinduism?) as a natural phenomena.
Here in the IIF, if something exists then it must be natural. If something is not natural, then it doesn't exist. Semantics.

I don't think our personal identities survive death. Our memories, sense of self, etc., arise from the brain, and the brain turns to dust. IMO folks who 'remember' past lives, are wrong.
Maybe our life energy recycles, or something, though. I like the image of a drop of water returning to the ocean, becoming the ocean, in a way.

But does the caterpillar know it is to become a butterfly?....
I like this image, too. Who knows?

[AdamWho]

Here in the IIF, if something exists then it must be natural. If something is not natural, then it doesn't exist. Semantics.
I agree, but don't get me started on that word "natural".

We each are made of billions of cells. Maybe we are cells in the body of god.
Cells are material things that are part of a larger material whole. What is this stuff of "we" that are part of god? Sounds like a soul to me...
I need not remind you of the complications of the existence of the soul.

Reincarnation is:
1. A natural process undirected by any conscienceless.
2. A natural but directed process by some conscienceless.
3. A naturalistic extension of "the cycle of life" to the self and consciousness but completely man-made.

If (1) is true then there must be some type of evidence, such as "soul energy". There are some religious problems with undirected reincarnation, such as justice.

If (2) is true then god or a "god" needs to exist to direct the process. We all know the problems with the existance of any god.

If (3) is true then human beings are fallible and prone to making incorrect judgments about life after death.

Anybody want to guess the most likely answer?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
I agree, but don't get me started on that word "natural".

Reincarnation is:
1. A natural process undirected by any conscienceless.
2. A natural but directed process by some conscienceless.
3. A naturalistic extension of "the cycle of life" to the self and consciousness but completely man-made.

If (1) is true then there must be some type of evidence, such as "soul energy". There are some religious problems with undirected reincarnation, such as justice.

If (2) is true then god or a "god" needs to exist to direct the process. We all know the problems with the existance of any god.

If (3) is true then human beings are fallible and prone to making incorrect judgments about life after death.

Anybody want to guess the most likely answer?

I vote for (1). We are each a drop of water and when we die we return to the sea. Soul energy can be seen as increased order in the natural universe.
But then that's not really reincarnation, so I'll guess (3). :)

[AdamWho]

Soul energy can be seen as increased order in the natural universe.
Now here is an idea:
A religion based on the reduction of entropy.

(+entropy = less order, -entropy = more order)

They would be very frugal. Have an ethic about not wasting energy. They would be obsessed about doing things the most efficient way. Lots of children, animals, plants.

The motivating factor is that the universe will die a "heat death" (maximum entropy) eventually and that is "evil" so reduction of entropy is "good".

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Now here is an idea:
A religion based on the reduction of entropy.

(+entropy = less order, -entropy = more order)

They would be very frugal. Have an ethic about not wasting energy. They would be obsessed about doing things the most efficient way. Lots of children, animals, plants.

The motivating factor is that the universe will die a "heat death" (maximum entropy) eventually and that is "evil" so reduction of entropy is "good".

'Entropy' is a word used to describe a quality or behavior of the universe. I try not to confuse it with an explanation for why that quality exists.

Besides, any religion that doesn't include the yin/yang concept is obviously flawed. :D

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Now here is an idea:
A religion based on the reduction of entropy.

(+entropy = less order, -entropy = more order)

They would be very frugal. Have an ethic about not wasting energy. They would be obsessed about doing things the most efficient way. Lots of children, animals, plants.

The motivating factor is that the universe will die a "heat death" (maximum entropy) eventually and that is "evil" so reduction of entropy is "good".

'Entropy' is a word used to describe a quality or behavior of the universe. I try not to confuse it with an explanation for why that quality exists.

Besides, any religion that doesn't include the yin/yang concept is obviously flawed. :D

[Mageth]

I don't think our personal identities survive death. Our memories, sense of self, etc., arise from the brain, and the brain turns to dust. IMO folks who 'remember' past lives, are wrong.
Maybe our life energy recycles, or something, though. I like the image of a drop of water returning to the ocean, becoming the ocean, in a way.

OK, but then there is no reason to say that "I" will reincarnate, as "I" am defined by the things that turn to dust, not by any "life energy".

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't think our personal identities survive death. Our memories, sense of self, etc., arise from the brain, and the brain turns to dust. IMO folks who 'remember' past lives, are wrong.
Maybe our life energy recycles, or something, though. I like the image of a drop of water returning to the ocean, becoming the ocean, in a way.

OK, but then there is no reason to say that "I" will reincarnate, as "I" am defined by the things that turn to dust, not by any "life energy".

Correct. Except that 'I' am defined also by a mental entity. If this entity is energy, where does it go when i die? The basic nature of this entity is 'awareness'. We may have existence after death. We may have awareness after death. And this energy may reincarnate. I doubt it though. Surely the energy dissipates. then if it recombines as a new entity, does the idea that it is the 'same' entity have any meaning?

[Mageth]

Nowere357:

Correct. Except that 'I' am defined also by a mental entity.

Which is generated by (emerges from) the physical. When the physical returns to dust, the mental entity ceases to exist.

If this entity is energy, where does it go when i die?

There's no reason to believe that our "mental entity" is "energy" in the sense I think you mean. There's no reason I see to believe this "entity" is "energy" at all, esp. not in the classical meaning of energy. A bad term to use for it, if it exists, IMO. It can lead to all sorts of baseless comparisons.

The basic nature of this entity is 'awareness'. We may have existence after death.

After "I" die I will have no existence. That's what "death" means.

We may have awareness after death.

Once again, if "I" die there can be no post-death awareness for me.

And this energy may reincarnate.

I see no reason to reach this conclusion, even if such "energy" exists. This seems to perhaps be confusing the energy of classical physics that is not (created or) destroyed with some conception of "life energy". Even if such a thing as "life energy" exists, there's no way to determine if it continues existing and is reincarnated, if it dissipates and recombines, or that it is generated fresh and new in each "aware" being. Any of these possibilities would be equally as valid, so to speak, if such an "energy" exists.

I doubt it though. Surely the energy dissipates. then if it recombines as a new entity, does the idea that it is the 'same' entity have any meaning?

Again, this seems to be extrapolating from our physics understanding of energy into the realm of some sort of "life energy." I think this is not a valid extrapolation. If such a thing exists, there's no reason to apply classical matter/energy physics to it (e.g. that it "changes form" or is conserved).

And no, the idea that it is the same entity makes no more sense than the idea that I'm the same entity as any of the former beings whose former molecules now exist inside my body.

[AdamWho]

Off topic comment deleted...

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mageth



ME: "Correct. Except that 'I' am defined also by a mental entity."

Which is generated by (emerges from) the physical. When the physical returns to dust, the mental entity ceases to exist.
Well, it's the nature of the subjective entity which I am exploring. I understand energy does not disappear, it merely changes form. So if the entity is energy, then it does not "cease to exist".

ME: "If this entity is energy, where does it go when I die?"

There's no reason to believe that our "mental entity" is "energy" in the sense I think you mean. There's no reason I see to believe this "entity" is "energy" at all, esp. not in the classical meaning of energy. A bad term to use for it, if it exists, IMO. It can lead to all sorts of baseless comparisons.
If the mental entity exists, cleatly it is not made of matter. Therefore it must be made of energy. If it is not made of energy, then it does not exist. This is an excellent reason to suppose it is made of energy. That is the only option!

ME: "The basic nature of this entity is 'awareness'. We may have existence after death. "
After "I" die I will have no existence. That's what "death" means.
We already agreed on this point.

ME: "We may have awareness after death."

Once again, if "I" die there can be no post-death awareness for me.
The "I" and an "awareness" are not the same thing. "I" requires feedback from the brain. "Awareness" is the basic quality of a mental entity. Awareness may survive death.

ME: "And this energy may reincarnate. "
I see no reason to reach this conclusion, even if such "energy" exists. This seems to perhaps be confusing the energy of classical physics that is not (created or) destroyed with some conception of "life energy". Even if such a thing as "life energy" exists, there's no way to determine if it continues existing and is reincarnated, if it dissipates and recombines, or that it is generated fresh and new in each "aware" being. Any of these possibilities would be equally as valid, so to speak, if such an "energy" exists.
Hmmm. If mental entities consist of energy, then we can began to study them scientifically. So maybe it is possible to determine what happens when we die.

Again, this seems to be extrapolating from our physics understanding of energy into the realm of some sort of "life energy." I think this is not a valid extrapolation. If such a thing exists, there's no reason to apply classical matter/energy physics to it (e.g. that it "changes form" or is conserved).
Extrapolating from physics is the only reasonable route I see. Otherwise, all we can do is make shit up. Any theory needs evidence - that's what I'm looking for.

[AdamWho]

Extrapolating from physics is the only reasonable route I see. Otherwise, all we can do is make shit up.
Physics will not be the savior or patron of reincanation. No matter how often pop science books filling the shelves of corporate cafe bookstores might suggest.
Any theory needs evidence - that's what I'm looking for.
I think a psychological theory would be a better fit. Looking at why reincarnation makes (or made) sense to human beings is the key. Lets be honest; isn't comming to some emotional/psychological/spiritual understanding really the point.
Not whether it can be proved by physics. I don't need a physics or math proof to validate my feelings about life.
Bottom line: Can't use physics to prove reincarnation so need to come to terms with the idea using different tools. The best tool is the psychology of belief; why do people need/want to believe in reincarnation?

[Mageth]

If the mental entity exists, cleatly it is not made of matter. Therefore it must be made of energy.

The concept of some entity being "made of energy" is hard for me to grasp, esp. when you're proposing that this energy-being somehow inhabits or cohabitates with my physical body and "is" me, so to speak. Can you give me an example of another entity that is (solely) "made of energy"? How does our body manage to capture/confine this energy? Is there an energy field to contain the energy entity?

If it is not made of energy, then it does not exist.

If it is made of energy as in the energy physics describes, then it should be detectable. Since it doesn't appear to be detectable, I can't accept it as existent.

This is an excellent reason to suppose it is made of energy. That is the only option!

Umm, you're forgetting the other option - it doesn't exist in reality as a separate entity of matter or energy. I.e. it's "all in your head". ;)

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mageth
If the mental entity exists, cleatly it is not made of matter. Therefore it must be made of energy.

The concept of some entity being "made of energy" is hard for me to grasp, esp. when you're proposing that this energy-being somehow inhabits or cohabitates with my physical body and "is" me, so to speak. Can you give me an example of another entity that is (solely) "made of energy"?

I enjoy your questions, Mageth. You zero in on key questions in a clear manner. Thank you.

No I have no other examples of an 'energy-being' (yuk). What comes to mind is things like whirlpools, but that hurts my case, so forget I said that.

The only examples are life forms.

Mageth, "mind" arises from life. The nature of mind is such that minds have subjective awareness. If I feel pain, then physical science can confirm the neurons and chemicals. Science cannot, however, confirm my suffering. The nature of subjective awareness is such that mental experiences are not accessible to the objective scientific methods.

Determinism claims that in fact my suffering IS the chemicals and neurons. When I suffer, however, there can be no doubt (to me) that in fact I am experiencing something, that I exist TO experience, and the explanation of chemicals and neurons is inadequate.

"How does our body manage to capture/confine this energy?"
I think it's the other way around. The energy captures the physical matter. Matter reacts to the life force.

"Is there an energy field to contain the energy entity?"
I have no idea. I'm making this shit up as I go along. :)

If it is made of energy as in the energy physics describes, then it should be detectable. Since it doesn't appear to be detectable, I can't accept it as existent.
IMO it is detectable. We have no problem detecting life. And life affects reality.

I am sure you see life as being described by physical law. I submit that life is a presumed attribute of reality.

All knowledge of any kind presumes the existence of minds.
Physical law does not indicate life, while the life studies (biology, psychology) again presume life.

Just as we presume matter and energy, space and time, all exist, so do we presume that matter will give rise to life. The fact that matter gives rise to life, is not indicated by physical law. To then say that life can be defined within physical law, I think is circular, and begs the question. Life and mind had to exist for us to formulate those physical laws!

Umm, you're forgetting the other option - it doesn't exist in reality as a separate entity of matter or energy. I.e. it's "all in your head".
No I didn't forget this option. :)

It is all in the head. The question is, what's there? (No cheap shots.) If my feeling or sense of mental experiences are illusion, then suffering doesn't exist. There is nothing there to experience! What bio-chemical reaction is sufficient to identify that a body actually experiences anything?

The only way to know that a body experiences, is to BE that body. And so subjective experience becomes a valid tool for investigating reality. Add in the fact that all knowledge presumed that minds exist in the first place, and maybe you can capture my POV.

Life and mind adds order to the universe. Why is this not seen as energy?

[andy_d]

If you accept the findings of modern physics, then you should view matter and energy as being interchangeable. They are part of a single continuum. To seperate energy and matter and say that one is more like mind than another ignores the fact that they are equivalent.

Another interesting idea that physics has uncovered is that perception has an active role in defining the state of matter and energy. At a very fundamental level we construct our surroundings by experiencing them.

So it seems that our experience consists of "two" things.

1) Mind
2) A world which is composed of mass/energy, which is defined by mind.

It seems logical to me then, that if it is the mind which defines reality, then it does not necessarily follow that a change in the state of the "real world" (eg: the death of a body) would cause a change in mind.

Makes sense to me, anyhow :)

[AdamWho]

andy_d

Another interesting idea that physics has uncovered is that perception has an active role in defining the state of matter and energy. At a very fundamental level we construct our surroundings by experiencing them.

This is not true. As covered before, the "observer" in QM is not a conscience that creates reality.

The observer is just an unfortunate choice of words for measurement. Bohr would love to retract the statement but it seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Bottom line:
Measurement has an active role in defining the state of matter in QM not consciousness and the role of measurement is completely causal.

Physics will not save reincarnation.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho
andy_d

Physics will not save reincarnation.

Unless, of course, reincarnation is true, and is eventually proven scientifically.

We are a long way from understanding the reality of life and mind.

Dogmatic denial of spiritual possibilities are just as unpleasant as dogmatic assertion of a xian god. :)

[AdamWho]

Dogmatic denial of spiritual possibilities are just as unpleasant as dogmatic assertion of a xian god.

Correcting misunderstandings of QM hardly counts as denial of spiritual possibilities. It would seem that any belief (spiritual or otherwise) based on a misunderstanding is in peril and needs to be corrected.

One point about equating spiritual beliefs and physical facts: Physics is not based on how some one feels, or what they might believe to be true; belief is irrelevant. Rather it is based on facts. To say that a person is being dogmatic about a fact implies that the person is holding the “belief” against other possible options; this makes about as much sense as saying "1+1=2 is just a dogmatic belief". The person making such a statement is also implying that facts and beliefs are equivalent, which leads to solipsism, which is self contradictory.

I will state the fact in question again.
Observer means measurement in QM not conscience.

We are a long way from understanding the reality of life and mind.

This is true, however just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that all things are true or possible.

Reincarnation does make sense spiritually so why bother trying to justify it with misunderstandings of physics.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by AdamWho

Reincarnation does make sense spiritually so why bother trying to justify it with misunderstandings of physics.
Good post, and I have no problem with any of it.

The "observer" in QM doesn't directly imply a consciousness. However, QM involves both randomness and indeterminancy, and IMO that leaves enough wiggle room for anyone who needs a materialistic loophole to accept their spirituality.

Peace

[yguy]

My main problem with reincarnation is the idea that a soul is supposed to learn things in the next life that he didn't learn in this one. Problem is, many people die more stupid then they were at birth. Why then would such a soul not merely get even more stupid in its next life as a dog, and in its next life after that as a cocroach...

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
My main problem with reincarnation is the idea that a soul is supposed to learn things in the next life that he didn't learn in this one. Problem is, many people die more stupid then they were at birth. Why then would such a soul not merely get even more stupid in its next life as a dog, and in its next life after that as a cocroach...
For this type of reincarnation, I would guess that if a person dies more stupid, it's due to a weak will. That same will may be pretty strong for a dog, giving the soul a chance to progress again. Or something like that.

Reminds me of the game "Go to the Head of the Class". Miss a question and you fall back, but now the next question is easier.

[AdamWho]

My main problem with reincarnation is the idea that a soul is supposed to learn things in the next life that he didn't learn in this one.
Isn't reincarnation a better ideal then the one chance method of Abrahamic religions? If you don't guess the right method the first time then you are screwed for eternity!
Problem is, many people die more stupid then they were at birth.
Is this why people tend to get more religious as they get older?;) Don’t have much faith in your fellow man do you?
Why then would such a soul not merely get even more stupid in its next life as a dog, and in its next life after that as a cockroach...
This is a strawman because you are attributing a specific belief to reincarnation in general. Namely, people can get reincarnated as animals; this is not the case with all variations in reincarnation.

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Isn't reincarnation a better ideal then the one chance method of Abrahamic religions? If you don't guess the right method the first time then you are screwed for eternity!

If you're guessing, you're already dancing on the edge of a cliff.

This is a strawman because you are attributing a specific belief to reincarnation in general. Namely, people can get reincarnated as animals; this is not the case with all variations in reincarnation.

I don't see what difference it makes. Bad karma would have a king come back as a galley slave. Who's to say he wouldn't spend the rest of his lives as a changer of bedpans in a state run nursing homes?

[AdamWho]

If you're guessing, you're already dancing on the edge of a cliff.
No, not me. I don't believe in reincarnation. However I do think that reincarnation is a reasonable belief in lieu of scientific data. The whole word is full of examples of "the cycle of life" it is a reasonable theory to think that the self "soul" also goes in a similar cycle. A much better theory than the zorastrian one christians follow.
I don't see what difference it makes. Bad karma would have a king come back as a galley slave. Who's to say he wouldn't spend the rest of his lives as a changer of bedpans in a state run nursing homes?
Missed again; some people who believe in reincarnation do not believe in the persistance of a individual soul. Some see death as a drop of water returning to the ocean. No judgement just "soul stuff" flowing in and out of bodies.

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
No, not me. I don't believe in reincarnation. However I do think that reincarnation is a reasonable belief in lieu of scientific data.

That would be guessing.

[AdamWho]

First off, HAPPY EASTER, for those who care.

I'm a little confused about our exchange:

Me
Isn't reincarnation a better ideal then the one chance method of Abrahamic religions? If you don't guess the right method the first time then you are screwed for eternity!

I am not saying that you have to guess between reincarnation or one-time-though. I am saying that if you believe in one-time-though then you had better decided correctly on which one-time-though religion to follow. God doesn't allow second chances for the wrong guess, (unless you happen to be a liberal Christian, then why even bother)

You
If you're guessing, you're already dancing on the edge of a cliff.

I think that you mean guessing between reincarnation or one-time-though. However, (the standard) reincarnation theory doesn't punish or reward belief like the one-time-though theory. Actions and behavior in life are what counts.

Me
No, not me. I don't believe in reincarnation. However I do think that reincarnation is a reasonable belief in lieu of scientific data.

I do think that reincarnation makes sense in a primitive way. Just image that you are living a hunter gather life, you see the cycles of seasons, of birth and death and then renewal. You also notice that you are a conscience being and you ponder if that "stuff which makes you" persists and goes through similar cycles. It really isn't much of a leap to hypothesis reincarnation and in light of deeper thinking, it makes sense.

you
That would be guessing.

me
I don't get our point. Are you suggesting that I am guessing between one-time-though and reincarnation? I am not; both theories have no proof, are full of glaring contradictions, lead to ridiculous consequences and are not worthy of belief. However, reincarnation MAKES BETTER SENSE than one-time-through.

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
I don't get our point. Are you suggesting that I am guessing between one-time-though and reincarnation? I am not; both theories have no proof, are full of glaring contradictions, lead to ridiculous consequences and are not worthy of belief. However, reincarnation MAKES BETTER SENSE than one-time-through.

Analysis, in this case, is only a more calculated form of guessing.

[AdamWho]

Analysis, in this case, is only a more calculated form of guessing.
I am still missing your point. If I were saying that one theory was more true then the other, then you would be correct. Since both theories have no evidence and are equally likely to be true; very unlikely.
However, I am not making a statement about the factualness of reincarnation or one-time-through. What I am stating is:
Given the data available to the hunter-gather types (which created the theory) the belief in reincarnation makes sense PSYCHOLOGICALLY. One-time-through makes a little bit more sense once civilization and social structures have developed but only as a tool of control by the elites. One-time-through is very unnatural and at odds with how the natural world operates, it however, seems like a perfect tool to control the “masses”

[andy_d]

Originally posted by yguy
My main problem with reincarnation is the idea that a soul is supposed to learn things in the next life that he didn't learn in this one.

Hmmmm, you have a problem with the idea that life is cyclical, yet you believe that there is such a thing as an intangible soul? Haha, sorry, don't mean to be confrontational, I just think you may be handicapping your exploration of the concept by bundling it with the soul concept.

A soul is not necessarily a requirement for the idea of reincarnation to be feasible. It's not necessarily the "self" which would be common to two consecutive lifetimes. Otherwise you'd be conscious of your previous life surely?

First off, HAPPY EASTER, for those who care.

Two extra days off work, who wouldn't care!;)

[yguy]

Originally posted by andy_d
Hmmmm, you have a problem with the idea that life is cyclical, yet you believe that there is such a thing as an intangible soul?

I don't know what intangibility has to do with anything.

Haha, sorry, don't mean to be confrontational, I just think you may be handicapping your exploration of the concept by bundling it with the soul concept.

A soul is not necessarily a requirement for the idea of reincarnation to be feasible. It's not necessarily the "self" which would be common to two consecutive lifetimes.

Then how could it be the same "me" in those two consecutive lifetimes?

Otherwise you'd be conscious of your previous life surely?

I don't see why. I've already forgotten at least half of this life.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by yguy

Then how could it be the same "me" in those two consecutive lifetimes?


Who says it is? Can you be so sure there is a "me" in this lifetime?

Are you the same identity you were 10 years ago, or even 10 minutes ago? Or are you simply a constantly changing set of conditions? If you're constantly in flux, is there any reason to believe that there is anything which is uniquely "you"?

I think reincarnation is pretty difficult concept to justify if you think that it's the same individual ego in successive lifetimes (for a start, how could you explain the fact that there are now more people than there were before?)

If you discount the idea that there is any such thing as an individual self, then reincarnation seems much more logical.

[AdamWho]

Then how could it be the same "me" in those two consecutive lifetimes?
Again, you have assumed one type of reincarnation, set up a strawman and are trying to knock it down. I don't think anyone here is arguing for the persistence of self.
Do you have anything to say about "recycling of soul stuff"; which is what reincarnation is all about?

[yguy]

Originally posted by andy_d
Who says it is? Can you be so sure there is a "me" in this lifetime?

You better believe it, Sparky. :)

Are you the same identity you were 10 years ago, or even 10 minutes ago?

Of course.

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Again, you have assumed one type of reincarnation, set up a strawman and are trying to knock it down. I don't think anyone here is arguing for the persistence of self.

Then I would suggest that the concept is meaningless, since something cannot come alive again if it is not the same thing in life 1 as it is in life 2.

[AdamWho]

Then I would suggest that the concept is meaningless, since something cannot come alive again if it is not the same thing in life 1 as it is in life 2.
I think that most of us are in argrement with this, but it still doesn't address reincarnation in general. You are arguing against a specific type of reincarnation where there is a persistance of self from life to life.
So what about the reincarnation where the "soul stuff" just merges back to it's source, like water returning to the sea. There is no persistance of self, no justice to be handed out and no controller of the system (god). Does this type of reincarnation make sense to you?

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
I think that most of us are in argrement with this, but it still doesn't address reincarnation in general. You are arguing against a specific type of reincarnation where there is a persistance of self from life to life.
So what about the reincarnation where the "soul stuff" just merges back to it's source, like water returning to the sea. There is no persistance of self, no justice to be handed out and no controller of the system (god). Does this type of reincarnation make sense to you?

No, because it would appear to preclude the idea of distinct personal identity.

[AdamWho]

No, because it would appear to preclude the idea of distinct personal identity.
I am confused again.
You have argued against a type of reincarnation because you didn't think that the "self" was persistent from life to life. Then when I present a non-persistent "self" type of reincarnation you argue against in because it precludes "idea of distinct personal identity".
So what you are left with is, a persistence of self that doesn't return to another body: One-time-through.
But if this is the case then why didn't you just say: "I don't believe in reincarnation because I believe in one-time-through". Because disagreeing with reincarnation for this reason just begs the question and doesn't add any information.

[yguy]

Originally posted by AdamWho
I am confused again.
You have argued against a type of reincarnation because you didn't think that the "self" was persistent from life to life. Then when I present a non-persistent "self" type of reincarnation you argue against in because it precludes "idea of distinct personal identity".
So what you are left with is, a persistence of self that doesn't return to another body: One-time-through.
But if this is the case then why didn't you just say: "I don't believe in reincarnation because I believe in one-time-through

Because that is a conclusion based on the more fundamental ideas I have expressed, as opposed to a dogma that I justify a priori.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by AdamWho
Again, you have assumed one type of reincarnation, set up a strawman and are trying to knock it down. I don't think anyone here is arguing for the persistence of self.
Do you have anything to say about "recycling of soul stuff"; which is what reincarnation is all about?

Yes, I am assuming one "type" of reincarnation. It's the type that exists within a relevant framework which supports it and is logically consistent. To my mind you cannot divorce reincarnation from the concept of identity.

Why do you say that reincarnation must be related to the belief that you possess a soul? Are you sure that's not an assumption? It's certainly not common to all the traditional systems which propose the concept of reincarnation.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by AdamWho
I am confused again.
You have argued against a type of reincarnation because you didn't think that the "self" was persistent from life to life. Then when I present a non-persistent "self" type of reincarnation you argue against in because it precludes "idea of distinct personal identity".


No, it was me who mentioned the idea of non-ego based reincarnation, not yguy.

Yes, that would have been confusing if he'd said that :D

[AdamWho]

No, it was me who mentioned the idea of non-ego based reincarnation, not yguy.
I was mentioning this type of reincarnation to yguy. I didn't mean to suggest that he was promoting it. It seems that most people argue against the traditional type of reincarnation without considering this angle.
I have stated previously that I don't believe in any type of reincarnation but consider it a reasonable belief to have developed without science.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by AdamWho
It seems that most people argue against the traditional type of reincarnation without considering this angle.


I'd be interested to hear what you describe as the "traditional type"?

If you mean reincarnation of the soul, then did you know that at least some of the systems that include reincarnation in their worldview don't believe that humans have souls?

From my limited knowldege off things it was my understanding that there were some fundamental differences between Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist reincarnation. Which is the "traditional" kind? It's kind of hard to say, IMHO.

[AdamWho]

I'd be interested to hear what you describe as the "traditional type"?
What I mean by "traditional type" is the type the average western person thinks of when they think of reincarnation.
Persistant soul that travels between bodies and is subject to some kind of rewards / punishment system. I think this is Hindu?

[andy_d]

I don't know much about Hinduism, so i'm not sure if they believe in a soul. Can anyone help there?

How relevant is it to take the average westerner's (mis?)conceptions about reincarnation though?

It's not a concept which is native to the west, and like most eastern concepts is poorly understood. I find most westerners are just plain wrong in their understanding of many concepts from eastern philosophies, karma being an excellent example.

Also, it has no context or supporting framework in the west. In the example you give it's a single idea, without much reference to any particular worldview. From that point of view I think it's a bit difficult to say anything useful about it.

If you can simply define it how you like, then you could have it make as little or as much sense as you wanted, because it doesn't have to be consistent with any other concepts.

[AdamWho]

How relevant is it to take the average westerner's (mis?)conceptions about reincarnation though? I think it is very relevant. You wouldn't begrudge an easterner to comment on physics just because it was developed in the west.
It's not a concept which is native to the west, and like most eastern concepts is poorly understood. I find most westerners are just plain wrong in their understanding of many concepts from eastern philosophies, karma being an excellent example. Agreed, but because this thread doesn't require a minimum level of knowledge to post more knowledgeable posters tend to spend their time doing teaching and damage control.
If you can simply define it how you like, then you could have it make as little or as much sense as you wanted, because it doesn't have to be consistent with any other concepts. I believe the thread was opened to address a narrow topic: Does reincarnation make sense? Other threads try to tackle the eastern worldview. But most of those threads spend time trying to clear up misconceptions.
My comments to yguy were not meant to be authorative on reincarnation; I just wanted to show that it is more complicated than is commonly thought by westerners.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by yguy
Then I would suggest that the concept is meaningless, since something cannot come alive again if it is not the same thing in life 1 as it is in life 2.

I thank my karma that I'm not exactly the same mind now as I was in my last life.

Assuming that the Buddhist take on this is actually true that is!

I don't want to be exactly the same in my next life as I am now.

I'm not the same now as I was when I was three, or ten or twenty two. But there is a stream of continuity, a series of instants where the mind was like this then and is like this now and will be something else in the future (hopefully a bit more like the DL).

Mind is necessarily in a state of flux otherwise it wouldn't be mind.

It cannot be the same always. Would any of us seriously want it to be?

Mahayana /Vajrayana Buddhism as I have understood it so far, denies the existence of a soul when soul is defined as a static entity. It affirms that mind is a dynamic process and therefore cannot remain the same. You could almost describe it as a becoming rather than a being.

Of course it (reincarnation/transmigration) still remains something that must be taken on faith.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad
Of course it (reincarnation/transmigration) still remains something that must be taken on faith.

Personally, though i'm a Buddhist by practice, I have a huge grey area regarding reincarnation.

I'm very conscious of the standing advice to never accept a teaching simply because it is traditional. We're supposed to weigh everything against experience and rational analysis.

So i'm afriad I have to admit that since I have no experience of reincarnation, i'm unable to accept it as fact. It's a distinct possibilty, especially given some of the other concepts I do believe in regarding the nature of mind and reality, but I don't want to make a leap of faith. As I understand it, it would be a mistake to do so.

So basically while I accept it as a possibility, I don't see it as a fact.

[Darren S.]

Originally posted by yguy
No, because it would appear to preclude the idea of distinct personal identity.

I think you're beginning to get it... (at least from a Buddhist standpoint).

Buddhists believe in rebirth rather than reincarnation. Reincarnation assumes that there is something, an atman or soul.. a persistent