Reincarnation

[promethean75]

there's a few things u can know about how B and C would have to be structured if one or the other were true. for instance u can know that in B, each time u existed, u wouldn't know B were true (as we don't now obviously), would feel mortal, but would have the same intuition (as we do now) about its theoretical possibility. we also know that the repetitions wouldn't be cumulative in any meaningful sense of the word; we're not designing ourselves, learning from past lives, accumulating wisdom that we use in future existences, etc. nothing passes over into the next and for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing over again. u would literally be condemned to repeat yourself.

lol I recall saying something to Self Lightening about how the best thing about the ER is the fact that u wouldn't ever know u were an eternal asshole who did everything wrong and suffered unnecessarily becuz of making stupid decisions, everytime u lived.

in C we can pursue various lines of reasoning which would lead us to definite conclusions about the unfathomable being(s) option. among these conclusions are:

a) there would have to be one irreducible being, one boss god, that wuz the omnipotent and omniscient creator of everything that exists. for reasons shown by your homeboy socrates, if two gods are arguing over what's right, which one do u believe. also, Spinoza explains how any system of causality has to consist of a single necessary substance and an infinite number of attributes of this substance, each of which exist as a contingent mode of being. an ostrich. your hair color. the capital of Wisconsin. the size of your pizza. a 1987 corvette. all these things, tho causally determined, didn't have to happen and the universe would still exist.

now think of many gods in this way. they're either contingent and unecessary or irreducible... but as such, indistinguishable from an omnipotent and omniscient being and absolved therefore. in other words - and Hinduism is a great example - all the gods are manifestations of the one main Vishnu or Brahma or whichever one it is... just as all the objects and forces in space/time are expressions and manifestations of the irreducible substance. being qua being.

b) we cannot know what, if anything at all, this being wants us to do. there are no credible sources for such information. the religious texts that exists today is the stuff of a harry potter novel, not an intelligeable attempt by an omnipotent and omniscient being to contact us.

[Belinda]

There is no such thing as the self so the self cannot reincarnate.

Is that true that there is no such thing as the self regardless of what one thinks of the self as being?

What -one- thinks -of -the -self -as- being is more interesting than self- with -thingness.
For instance the Belinda 'self' is not a durable thing but is a changeful bundle of experiences and soon that bundle of experiences will change more or less , unless and until I die in which case there will be no more Belinda type bundle of experiences .

Others define 'self' differently no doubt and may even be able to attribute thingness to it.

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as the self so the self cannot reincarnate.

Is that true that there is no such thing as the self regardless of what one thinks of the self as being?

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

[Age]

There is no such thing as the self so the self cannot reincarnate.

Is that true that there is no such thing as the self regardless of what one thinks of the self as being?

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

[popeye1945]

Is that true that there is no such thing as the self regardless of what one thinks of the self as being?

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

life. So, what is life he says, a complex energy form.

[attofishpi]

I can prove reincarnation exists. (Hold my beer). This is kind of funny though, in a potentially quite tragic and horrifying sort of way.

So, I've never heard of any kind of reincarnation that allows you to take most of your memories into your next life. You're basically a new person, or life form, in your next life.

Now, let's compare that to what would happen if there were no afterlife (hypothetically speaking). If there were no afterlife, there would, similarly, be all sorts of people and animals looking out through their eyes at the world, just like you did when you were alive, who also lack your memories.

Therefore, reincarnation is basically identical to there being no afterlife.

Now, I'd originally stated I'd prove reincarnation exists, which it might sound like I've not done yet because I've not proven there is no afterlife. The way I see it, that doesn't matter though. Even if there is an afterlife, there are still beings being born after you do, who you might as well perceive as some kind of continuation of yourself if you're in the mood to do so. They'd just be a second copy of you. (It makes as much sense as the idea of reincarnation does anyway).

So yeah, reincarnation definitely exists. It's just that, depending on how you look at it the whole concept is completely useless because it's no different from any other fate for us after we die, or it's useful in a kind of comforting "A vague part of me will live on after death" kind of way.

Either way though, the thing to remember is that if you or I have some new life, whether it's an afterlife or reincarnation, if we do not get to carry our memories into that new life, it's pretty much identical to there being no afterlife for us.

Now...with that in mind, I figure there are three kinds of people with views on reincarnation.

Person type A: This person just kind of fantasizes about being reincarnated into a better life in a kind of dreamy sort of way. They perceive it as not really any different than death, but they don't care about that much. They have their own possibly motivational reasons for telling themselves that their reincarnation is relevant. Maybe it's just kind of a dreamy fun thing to do. Maybe they just want some sense of direction. Maybe they have some other motivation for trying to get into a better next life, but regardless of that, they do understand that it's not that different than there being no afterlife. Maybe they wonder if some tiny part of themselves does continue on and that's what they're dreamily focused on.

Person type B: They think the whole concept of reincarnation is bogus because it's a useless concept.

Person type C: I'd rank this group as the most amusing type of person by far. These are the people who have no idea that if you don't get to carry your memories into the next life...that's basically not you anymore. If there were, for example, samurai who committed ritualistic suicide because they believed they would be reincarnated into a better next life, who didn't realize that you're no longer you if you don't get to carry your memories into the next life...I really can't think of a better description for that than such a circumstance being rather hilarious, in an "Oh God! that's one of the most tragic possibilities I can imagine!" sort of way. Therefore, I'm very much hoping the centuries of Hindu caste systems and such were inspired by something more than that misunderstanding or else we're basically talking about many centuries if not thousands of years of entire nations of Darwin-Award winners who had no idea they were gaining absolutely nothing from a lifetime of sacrifice and/or seppuku, or whatever other sacrifices they made to try to gain a better next life.

I figure that sort of thing is one of the best reasons to contemplate philosophy. It might help you realize that when you commit seppuku (a ritualistic, quite painful form of suicide) even if someone comes into the world into a better state than you were as a result of that seppuku, that person will not be you.

Now, when I say all that stuff, I'm not meaning to totally bash the concept of reincarnation. Of those three people types I've mentioned, I'm more of a type A than type B. I prefer to perceive my life as continuing on in other people after I die. I find that quite a comforting way of looking at things too. I have an instinctive fear of death, and that helps quiet it down. I've even described myself as believing in a natural, atheistic afterlife in this way...in the sense that I will live on through other people after I'm gone.

I just also think it might have been more worthwhile for people to think about how much of what we consider "me" is dependent on our memories. I think it's a lot. We've also got our instincts, relationships, body and other factors, but I'm thinking our memories are most of what we are...and if we have a "next life" that not only lacks our memories, but also our appearance, instincts, and relationships...that's no more "me" than any other random person, more or less, I'd argue.

I think your post here Clinton is a very interesting way of looking at it, reincarnation. I have a disagreement with you (the blue bit) and have highlighted in red the key things that you have pointed out...basically that it's kinda sort of not you, because of the memory wipe..but you kinda sort of are admitting that it is still you to some degree.

That degree is the point-of-view, the POV within the new reality of life. That is the 'I' the eye of the beholder, the self continues on, but under a bunch of circumstances where the new YOU has to learn everything, all over again!
It's a new version of you, but still it is you, your POV.

Personally I believe a bit of a combination of A & C. I have gnosis of a 3rd party intelligence at the backbone to what we perceive as reality and have been told a few things about my previous life that I find rather pro_found.
I believe that although our memories in most cases are wiped, I believe that our ethics, the nature of who we are carries over..especially since a sage advised we are reincarnated into a family that we deserve (it's karmic).

[Agent Smith]

I can, with uncharacteristic confidence, vouch for the claims of the above poster. I've been reminded of karma so many times and in so many ways that despite my being the class dunce, it finally sank in. I'm grateful for it.

Back ta the main page now, reincarnation is a central tenet in Buddhism, explains, but at a cost some are willing ta pay. I'm a Buddhist ... I mean I was one ... so I intelligo. Carry on ... meet me when ya run outta cash.

[attofishpi]

I can, with uncharacteristic confidence, vouch for the claims of the above poster. I've been reminded of karma so many times and in so many ways that despite my being the class dunce, it finally sank in. I'm grateful for it.

Back ta the main page now, reincarnation is a central tenet in Buddhism, explains, but at a cost some are willing ta pay. I'm a Buddhist ... I mean I was one ... so I intelligo. Carry on ... meet me when ya run outta cash.

Mmm...I didn't real eyes my reply was number 665 and yours unfortunately was 666. : (Don't worry when the sages\God had me bashed with a baseball bat for returning to the Tree of Know_Ledge and my mob ph was stolen, the new issued number contained 007666 - which of course means I now have license to kill you.)

[Agent Smith]

I can, with uncharacteristic confidence, vouch for the claims of the above poster. I've been reminded of karma so many times and in so many ways that despite my being the class dunce, it finally sank in. I'm grateful for it.

Back ta the main page now, reincarnation is a central tenet in Buddhism, explains, but at a cost some are willing ta pay. I'm a Buddhist ... I mean I was one ... so I intelligo. Carry on ... meet me when ya run outta cash.

Mmm...I didn't real eyes my reply was number 665 and yours unfortunately was 666. : (Don't worry when the sages\God had me bashed with a baseball bat for returning to the Tree of Know_Ledge and my mob ph was stolen, the new issued number contained 007666 - which of course means I now have license to kill you.)

Keen eyesight, so to speak! I'd say 10/6 on a Snellen's chart. Superhero material there. Nick Fury at your door in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...1 ... knock, knock. Death by Avenger attofishpi!! Not bad, Smith ol' boy, not bad at all!

[Age]

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

life. So, what is life he says, a complex energy form.

WHO is 'he', who SAYS such a QUESTION?

And, 'Life', to me, is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE energy, which is ALWAYS in CREATION, Creating, and ALWAYS EVOLVING.

[Belinda]

Is that true that there is no such thing as the self regardless of what one thinks of the self as being?

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

No known or knowable line of enquiry, e.g. anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, or psychology, can find an essence of an individual. Essences of things, ideas, or persons, probably do not exist.

[Agent Smith]

Has anyone read George Gamow? I'm bad with names but I'm 100% sure there's a Gamow in the name of the author of One, Two, Three, ... Infinity.

Anyhow, Gamow it seems is a mathematician (sic) and mathematicians are a breed apart in my humble opinion. A few facts, some imagination, and an authoritative voice ... ingredients, essential to living.

[Harbal]

Has anyone read George Gamow?

I've never heard of him, so I haven't had the opportunity to avoid him yet.

[Agent Smith]

Has anyone read George Gamow?

I've never heard of him, so I haven't had the opportunity to avoid him yet.

[popeye1945]

There is the commonality of the essence throughout the living world, organisms differing in structure and form but in essence the same. Creatures born into this world adapted in form and structure to the niches that they will inhabit. Here the physical world plays them like its instruments, the organisms in reaction gain a sense of identity from their environmental context, what is often termed the self, is but an ongoing experiencing organism. No self, only essence.

And 'what' IS 'the essence' of 'you', EXACTLY?

No known or knowable line of enquiry, e.g. anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, or psychology, can find an essence of an individual. Essences of things, ideas, or persons, probably do not exist.

The essence of all things is energy. The essence of all living things is life itself, an energy form unique in its essence, despite structure and forms differing.