Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2015 09:05 am
Reincarnation might exist, or it might not. The later would give us the situation the demon spoke of in Nietzsche`s writings, about having to relive the same life again & again. If we`re to be impartial about things, its 50/50% if reincarnation exists or not. Either it does, or it doesn`t. I, for one, can`t imagine any other possibilities so it`s either/or. Assuming it does exist, what other probabilities are we faced with?
Reincarnating into this same universe, or not. By another universe I mean one with different laws of physics.
Reincarnating into the same timeline of the same universe, or not. Quantum mechanics would`ve it that even if `the laws of physics are unchanged, there are multiple potential parallel dimensions of this universe. Is there any reason to believe multiple universes can exist at once? Perhaps this universe has to live its full lifespan before any othe universe comes into being. But one may be able to skip that if reincarnation goes forward or backwards in time.
Reincarnating backwards, forwards or smoothly in time. We`ll differentiate forwards in time from smoothly by how forward jumps from the point of death till some future point (for example a decade), while if smooth, you`d reincarnate instantly after your death. So if you died in in year 2000 8:00 pm, you`ll reincarnate at that exact same time too.
However, aren`t we faced with the possibility it might not be the time of our deaths that determined when we will reincarnate? Perhaps it is at the midpoint between our death & birth at which we reincarnate? So if you were born in 2010, died in 2020 you`d reincarnate in 2015. Or one might reincarnate after one`s birth, so whoever was born immediatelty after you, you would reincarnate as. It doesn`t have to be physical birth btw, because as the abortion debate shows there`s so much controversy surrounding all of that. If there`s a soul (which reincarnation needs) then there might be some point where the soul "merges" with the body (or perhaps the soul manifests itself physically, who knows) so we can speculate that instead of physical birth in this paragraph.
What about location? Is one as likely to reincarnate here as one is to reincarnate somewhere else in the universe, assuming other intelligent lifeforms exist out there? What about one`s birth place & place of death? Is there any reason to think one would reincarnate at the same places one died or was born? or that there might be some midpoint thing again, for example if one was born in London & died in Paris, one would reincarnate somewhere between them? Or, one might reincarnate anywhere but at the exact point where one was born, died, or just have been throughout one`s life. Or one may be limited to reincarnating anywhere one has been to throughout one`s life.
Could one possibly be reincarnated as a lower lifeform, like an animal? I have a hard time seeing myself with much weaker cognitive faculties; it just seems like that wouldn`t even be me.
What about the death method - should one prefer cremation or burning to death over preserving the body? One could speculate the soul has an easier to time moving on when the body is destroyed, but couldn`t it just as easily be the other way around?
If one reincarnates into another, totally different world, some would imagine that to be hell, some would imagine it to be heaven. But these are extreme worlds. Wouldn`t it be more likely for sth in between to be where one ends up?
Is there a reason to believe there might be different "soul types"? If so, then it might not be a coincidence that one has the biological mother & father one has. Perhaps this explains why some reject implants too. I know there`re scientific reasons for that but if we knew more about reincarnation then that might be scientific too after all & be connected to genes, etc. If such soul types exist, are some types inherently given to reincarnating in particular ways over the others?
There`s also the chances there`s some luck involved to. So, if one wanted to change universes one would have to try a few times before succeeding.
Is there any reason at all to assume that humans, or perhaps other beings affect the reincarnation probabilities in any way, shape or form? For example, some conspiracy theorists would have it that conspirators have access to magic, & one application of magic would ofc be to manipulate reincarnation. Our planet, if life is viewed from a dramatic, literary, genre-based, etc perspective, does appear far more sinister & "conspiratorial" then, say, a world which only has pristine nature, innocence, & natural cycles every year, with no "history/metanarratives" & no top secret informations. OTOH, couldn`t our world appearing like so all just be a coincidence, or, if there`s a creator (of the universe), be a a prank/red herring? The same could be applied to those who claim those who live virtuously are heaven-bound in the afterlife, couldn`t it just as easily be the opposite, that is, the vicious going to heaven, or no correlation at all that is purely random where people end up? Could simply desiring to reincarnating in one way over another give one the power to do so?
Overall, with all these considerations to take into account, if one wanted to be reincarnated in an universe totally different from this one, is there a reason to favor one way of dying over another? One location to die in than another? One time to die then another? Outside of these, are there any other factors that should be taken into account? I know only a little about probability theory & I know one of the main questions is the treatment of priors. Bayesian decides on priors before? & there are multiple other approaches to probability but perhaps that might not be relevant to this thread. I was hoping one of you have the insight to determine if it has.
A final question, are multiple lives, at least for the individual, inevitable simply because he can imagine it? Is sth bound to happen, given enough time, as long as one can imagine it? Fantasy comes from the unconscious, perhaps the unconscious is simply what is far removed from us in space, time & other dimensions. Going by that, our fantasies of all these other worlds could be interpreted as these worlds "calling" to us or "echoing/reverberating" thru to us, yes? The downside of this, ofc, is that one will experience all the boredom one has ever imagined as well as the worst of tortures one has imagined... unless there`s some "rule" or whatever that locks out these, but one can imagine a time when this rule won`t exist anymore too, so....
@n0ki,
n0ki wrote:
Reincarnation might exist, or it might not. The later would give us the situation the demon spoke of in Nietzsche`s writings, about having to relive the same life again & again. If we`re to be impartial about things, its 50/50% if reincarnation exists or not. Either it does, or it doesn`t. I, for one, can`t imagine any other possibilities so it`s either/or. Assuming it does exist, what other probabilities are we faced with?
Reincarnating into this same universe, or not. By another universe I mean one with different laws of physics.
Reincarnating into the same timeline of the same universe, or not. Quantum mechanics would`ve it that even if `the laws of physics are unchanged, there are multiple potential parallel dimensions of this universe. Is there any reason to believe multiple universes can exist at once? Perhaps this universe has to live its full lifespan before any othe universe comes into being. But one may be able to skip that if reincarnation goes forward or backwards in time.
Reincarnating backwards, forwards or smoothly in time. We`ll differentiate forwards in time from smoothly by how forward jumps from the point of death till some future point (for example a decade), while if smooth, you`d reincarnate instantly after your death. So if you died in in year 2000 8:00 pm, you`ll reincarnate at that exact same time too.
However, aren`t we faced with the possibility it might not be the time of our deaths that determined when we will reincarnate? Perhaps it is at the midpoint between our death & birth at which we reincarnate? So if you were born in 2010, died in 2020 you`d reincarnate in 2015. Or one might reincarnate after one`s birth, so whoever was born immediatelty after you, you would reincarnate as. It doesn`t have to be physical birth btw, because as the abortion debate shows there`s so much controversy surrounding all of that. If there`s a soul (which reincarnation needs) then there might be some point where the soul "merges" with the body (or perhaps the soul manifests itself physically, who knows) so we can speculate that instead of physical birth in this paragraph.
What about location? Is one as likely to reincarnate here as one is to reincarnate somewhere else in the universe, assuming other intelligent lifeforms exist out there? What about one`s birth place & place of death? Is there any reason to think one would reincarnate at the same places one died or was born? or that there might be some midpoint thing again, for example if one was born in London & died in Paris, one would reincarnate somewhere between them? Or, one might reincarnate anywhere but at the exact point where one was born, died, or just have been throughout one`s life. Or one may be limited to reincarnating anywhere one has been to throughout one`s life.
Could one possibly be reincarnated as a lower lifeform, like an animal? I have a hard time seeing myself with much weaker cognitive faculties; it just seems like that wouldn`t even be me.
What about the death method - should one prefer cremation or burning to death over preserving the body? One could speculate the soul has an easier to time moving on when the body is destroyed, but couldn`t it just as easily be the other way around?
If one reincarnates into another, totally different world, some would imagine that to be hell, some would imagine it to be heaven. But these are extreme worlds. Wouldn`t it be more likely for sth in between to be where one ends up?
Is there a reason to believe there might be different "soul types"? If so, then it might not be a coincidence that one has the biological mother & father one has. Perhaps this explains why some reject implants too. I know there`re scientific reasons for that but if we knew more about reincarnation then that might be scientific too after all & be connected to genes, etc. If such soul types exist, are some types inherently given to reincarnating in particular ways over the others?
There`s also the chances there`s some luck involved to. So, if one wanted to change universes one would have to try a few times before succeeding.
Is there any reason at all to assume that humans, or perhaps other beings affect the reincarnation probabilities in any way, shape or form? For example, some conspiracy theorists would have it that conspirators have access to magic, & one application of magic would ofc be to manipulate reincarnation. Our planet, if life is viewed from a dramatic, literary, genre-based, etc perspective, does appear far more sinister & "conspiratorial" then, say, a world which only has pristine nature, innocence, & natural cycles every year, with no "history/metanarratives" & no top secret informations. OTOH, couldn`t our world appearing like so all just be a coincidence, or, if there`s a creator (of the universe), be a a prank/red herring? The same could be applied to those who claim those who live virtuously are heaven-bound in the afterlife, couldn`t it just as easily be the opposite, that is, the vicious going to heaven, or no correlation at all that is purely random where people end up? Could simply desiring to reincarnating in one way over another give one the power to do so?
Overall, with all these considerations to take into account, if one wanted to be reincarnated in an universe totally different from this one, is there a reason to favor one way of dying over another? One location to die in than another? One time to die then another? Outside of these, are there any other factors that should be taken into account? I know only a little about probability theory & I know one of the main questions is the treatment of priors. Bayesian decides on priors before? & there are multiple other approaches to probability but perhaps that might not be relevant to this thread. I was hoping one of you have the insight to determine if it has.
A final question, are multiple lives, at least for the individual, inevitable simply because he can imagine it? Is sth bound to happen, given enough time, as long as one can imagine it? Fantasy comes from the unconscious, perhaps the unconscious is simply what is far removed from us in space, time & other dimensions. Going by that, our fantasies of all these other worlds could be interpreted as these worlds "calling" to us or "echoing/reverberating" thru to us, yes? The downside of this, ofc, is that one will experience all the boredom one has ever imagined as well as the worst of tortures one has imagined... unless there`s some "rule" or whatever that locks out these, but one can imagine a time when this rule won`t exist anymore too, so....
Where is your idea of reincarnation coming from? Where did you learn about it? This is important to the discussion.
There are a lot of different ideas, and I have my own thoughts on it. But mostly mine come from Buddhism. The Buddha never actually taught reincarnation. This was something that cultures lumped onto Buddhism and a lot of people assume Buddhist believe in reincarnation. Some do because of these cultural baggage and some do not.
There is a lot of confusion because there are certain aspects that the Buddha did teach that can be interpreted as reincarnation. There are three distinct aspects that are held up for interpretation. I'll briefly describe and go over them.
The first is the concept of rebirth. This immediately could be taken as reincarnation however; when the Buddha was asked, "Do we exist after this body perishes?" He refused to answer the question. He was pressed multiple times to answer it so he eventually did. His response is not exactly a yes or no answer. It is more complex. He said first of all you shouldn't even ponder about weather or not you exist after the body dies because it is unimportant. It doesn't solve any of your problems knowing. Secondly to believe that you will exist after you die would give rise to the idea of a self that is eternal. He taught that there is no such thing. The concept of self is an illusion.
Second the concept of the six realms of transmigration. This is another confusing aspect since it can suggest that we move through these realms based on our karma but does this movement continue after you die? The six realms are the heaven realms, the jealous god realm, the human realm, the animal realm, the hungry ghost realm and the hells. Many people suggest that the Buddha was only referring to states of mind. That these are not physical places but instead are meant to be aspects of either mental torture or overly unconcerned sloth. However; the human realm is considered to be neutral, the line between torment and pleasure.
Nirvana. Many outside Buddhism assume nirvana to be a heaven or THE heaven. But this is completely wrong. If Nirvana was a heaven why would the Buddha refer to it as "blown out" like the flame of a candle.
The twelve links of co-origination. This is the cycle that we are in. Each link carries onto the next endlessly unless you break one of the links. It starts with ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, craving, becoming, rebirth, name and form, the six sense organs, contact, feeling, aging and death. This can be taken as continuing life after life however; some suggest that the Buddha meant that every moment, every second we go through this cycle, repeating it over and over. That this link can be broken and yet you still continue to exist but you are no longer bound by the cycle.
So in conclusion and my thoughts on it;
The Buddha taught that there is no permanent self. No soul. However; even though there is no permanent self there is a self but it is in a constant state of flux and change. Never the same thing from one moment to the next. This seems to be in line with reality. You are not the same person you are now that you were when you were five years old. You constantly change. Your thoughts change, how you think changes, your anxieties, fears, worries all change. Your concerns or things you find important change. Even what entertains you changes. Nothing stays the same, we are in a constant state of change. There is only the illusion of identity. But this is given to you by society. Your parents name you and you adopt the name and people refer to you by it. But it is not who you are. Same with your likes and dislikes, society pushes them onto you and you adopt them.
My thoughts are when the body dies, so does the mind. You only live one life. Consciousness can't exist without the mind and the mind can't exist without the body.
The things that support my ideas are aspects of Buddhism that the Buddha did teach. Samsara is the existence we currently experience, which is one of pleasure and pain. We chase after things to make us happy and in this process we create problems for ourselves. However; the Buddha taught that Samsara is Nirvana but it's due to our desires and actions that create Samsara instead of Nirvana. So Nirvana isn't a heaven or a place, it is this very existence but wrongly viewed. If you can break through the desires Nirvana will manifest.
So ultimately, you support the 1 life, eternal return paradigm.
Here`s another dilemma. Say you had sth you wished to share with your potential future or smooth reincarnation in same universe, on same timeline. However, sharing it would entail some practical effort, which ideally one would want to skip, but in this scenario, one cannot eat & have cake. Rationally, should one go thru the effort? After all, it is possible one reincarnates in future or smooth senses, in same universe, on same timeline. But then again, there might be a rule which says youĺl reincarnate into ANY timeline but this one. Should one go thru the effort despite this possibility simply because of the sheer chance of one reincarnating in future or smooth senses, in same universe, on same timeline?
Another question: we know for sure THIS world exists due to own experience. By experience, we know time moves linearly forward. Based on this, is it more likely that reincarnation happens in future or smooth senses, in same universe, on same timeline? The alternative is that all bets are off upon death. Since death is the great unknown, does it make more sense to assume all bets are off? Or is this another 50/50%?
Overall, with all these considerations to take into account, if one wanted to be reincarnated in an universe totally different from this one, is there a reason to favor one way of dying over another? One location to die in than another? One time to die then another? Outside of these, are there any other factors that should be taken into account? I know only a little about probability theory & I know one of the main questions is the treatment of priors. Bayesian decides on priors before? & there are multiple other approaches to probability:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-you-interpret-raw-data.240553/ but perhaps that might not be relevant to this thread. I was hoping one of you have the insight to determine if it has.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, let's say we simply won't ever find evidence, thus it comes down to probability. This makes sense, for how could you possibly gather indubitable evidence on the afterlife? As you say, it might be 2%, 80%, etc. We can't say 100% or 0% tho, as we don't know for sure, neither against or for. The average of everything from & including 1% to & including 99% is 50/50%.
the russell teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot, unlike reincarnation could theoretically be verified w/ epistemically objective methods like seeing thru telescopes & sending probes, but reincarnation may still metaphysically objectively exist, yes? Before we didn't know of UV rays, but now have epistemically objective verification. Wouldn't reincarnation depend on epistemic subjectivity to know for sure?
rationale austhink.com/rationale2.0/ib/exercises/tok/objective_subjective.htm:
Roughly speaking, 'objective' means 'independent of the individual', and 'subjective' means 'pertaining to the individual, or peculiar to a particular personal perspective on the world'.
We apply these terms in two very different ways:
Firstly, we use the terms to talk about two ways that things exist. We do this to make metaphysical claims - claims about what is real or has being, or in what sense something exists.
Metaphysically objective things exist independently of being experienced.
Metaphysically subjective things are those whose existence depends on their being experienced.
Secondly, we can apply these terms to talk about two different kinds of knowledge. When we do this we're making epistemological claims - claims about how we know things.
Epistemically objective statements have a truth value decided by public methods.
Epistemically subjective statements have a truth value decided by reference to individual perspectives.
@n0ki,
I only skimmed the walls of text, so sorry if my question was answered therein and I missed it. I just want to ask, "What's transmigrating between entities during reincarnation?"
If reincarnation were a reality, why would earth's population not remain constant?
BTW, the soul is not an ethereal substance that can migrate between states. Your soul is you; and your soul is mortal.
@neologist,
OK, so now, what is "you"?
@FBM,
I is a glob of pulsating flesh.
@neologist,
According to science, every cell and molecule of that pulsating glob is completely replaced every seven years. What self persists through that constant sloughing-off process?
@FBM,
FBM wrote:According to science, every cell and molecule of that pulsating glob is completely replaced every seven years. What self persists through that constant sloughing-off process?
Must be that part you remember from, let's say, . ..8 years ago.
@Frank Apisa,
Nephesh, Frank. What happens when it stops breathing?
I'd ask my Grandma, but she stopped breathing in 1947.
@neologist,
Quote:BTW, the soul is not an ethereal substance that can migrate between states. Your soul is you; and your soul is mortal.
You always evade the question, Neo.
Do you KNOW the above to be the REALITY...or are you just mouthing the guesses of a religion you have adopted?
(Lemme know if you need a hint about the answer to the question. I can help in that regard.)
@Frank Apisa,
Nephesh is mortal by definition. It is as it is. If you can discern any ethereal substance that retains consciousness past death, you should give it another name. Pisessence, maybe. Then I will ask you if you are certain of it's existence.
As far as my discernment of reality is concerned, I thought I had already clarified my perception to be one of %. So, to answer what I believe is your redundant question, my %age of belief is great enough to stake my life.
What about your guesses, Frank? How do they rate %wise?
I'm headed for the 19th now. Catch you later.
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
FBM wrote:According to science, every cell and molecule of that pulsating glob is completely replaced every seven years. What self persists through that constant sloughing-off process?
Must be that part you remember from, let's say, . ..8 years ago.
Do you mean that memories are self? I've come to think of memories as brain activity rather than enduring entities.
@FBM,
Without your memories, would you be yourself?
@neologist,
Who else would I be? People with retrograde amnesia are still considered to be the same person. But that still doesn't identify what a person's self is.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace