7
   

Probabilities of reincarnation?

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 04:59 pm
@FBM,
I use to have what I considered to be a nice analogy about the body. Isn't it like every seven years all our cells have been replaced by new cells? If they are all new cells how can you even call your body the same?

Here is my analogy. Let's say you have a porcelain vase. You also have a special hammer that allows you to break perfectly nice chunks off of it without shattering the whole thing. Then you take new clay and fill in the missing chunk so it blends in perfectly with the same, color, texture and appearance. After seven years of breaking off chunks and replacing them. The entire vase get's replaced with new clay. How can you consider the old vase and the new vase the same vase? You can't, the only thing that would assume they are the same was the slow process of replacing the chunks.

Well that is exactly how our bodies behave. Every seven years every cell has been replaced at least once. How can you call it the same body if it has been completely replaced?
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 05:21 pm
@Krumple,
That's precisely the Ship of Theseus paradox. The only way I see out of it is to behave conventionally, while remaining skeptical about the entity-hood of it.
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2015 07:49 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
That's precisely the Ship of Theseus paradox. The only way I see out of it is to behave conventionally, while remaining skeptical about the entity-hood of it.
Actually, you are not in it.
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 02:14 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Figure of Speech Examples - Examples on YourDictionary
examples.yourdictionary.com/figure-of-speech-exa...
이 페이지 번역하기
A figure of speech is a letter or phrase that is used in some other way than its literal meaning. See some examples.
figure of speech - The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/figure+of+speech
이 페이지 번역하기
An expression that uses language in a nonliteral way, such as a metaphor or synecdoche, or in a structured or unusual way, such as anaphora or chiasmus, ...
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:49 am
@FBM,
Whew.
For a minute there I thought you thought.
Well.
At any rate, you appear to have escaped.
And the paradox, like Escher's art, is simply a curiosity.
We can't live our lives on the moibus strip.
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:35 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

I don't think that "person" is abstract at all.


That sentence is treating "person" abstractly.



The sentence is treating "person" abstractly, "person"--or would you prefer "a person,"/"persons"--isn't/aren't abstractions.

FBM wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
It's a problem when people don't know how to treat others as who they are presently, not as who they were in the past. When I was a preadolescent kid my grandmother hadn't seen me since I was just past being a toddler. She treated me as if I were still at that age.




I'm not talking about making any changes to the conventional way of treating people. I'm talking about the strict analytical sense. The harder you look for something that you can put your finger on and say that it's a person's self, the harder it gets to find anything specific.



You are not going to get your answer in the strict analytical sense. The closest you'll get to an answer is through the conventional/practical sense.

FBM wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Life. The fact that they're alive and living and being that process called "person."

And this mental act requires reification. "Life" is not concrete. The being at any given time is, but it requires thinking abstractly to get "life." The being at any given time is that bundle (Hume) of processes, but it requires abstraction to get "person" or "self." When that abstraction is treated as a genuine entity, that's reification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory


What mental act are you referring to? The definition that I've given for "person?"

The end result of a process, to you, isn't "concrete?" To say that "a bundle of perceptions," as Hume put it, isn't "self"/"person" in a "concrete" way is merely a logomachy.

It becomes absurd when one makes a logical leap and decides that "self," "person," "life" are reifications because one can't wrap their head around them "strictly analytically" speaking, willfully oblivious to the evidence before one.

You're leading the argument around with your narrow restrictions and closed definitions, and you reject whatever falls outside of these. In this regard you're like Frank and his agnosticism, leading it around by the hand and rejecting arguments that fall outside of his circumscriptions.
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:38 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

I thought setting the word 'cogito' apart would indicate the argument. Perhaps I was wrong.

For the most part it does. I was merely removing doubt in a strict, analytical discussion.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 01:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
In this regard you're like Frank and his agnosticism, leading it around by the hand and rejecting arguments that fall outside of his circumscriptions.


You mean like when I say "I do not know" when I honestly do not know. And when I call guesses other people make "guesses", because they obviously are guesses?

What is it with you?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 01:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
More like when you dismiss other definitions of the terms under discussion to fit your argument.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 01:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

More like when you dismiss other definitions of the terms under discussion to fit your argument.


I seldom "dismiss" anything, Blue...but there are times where I take exception to some definitions. I try to be polite when I do so...to be respectful.

There are theists, for example, who suggest the passage, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” at Leviticus 20-13...actually is not a condemnation of homosexual activity.

Yeah...I take exception to that definition...and explain why I do. And I do it with as much respect as possible.


If you could give me an example, however (I am not expecting one from you, I expect you will paraphrase or create a straw man instead)...I will address it.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 07:45 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Whew.
For a minute there I thought you thought.
Well.
At any rate, you appear to have escaped.
And the paradox, like Escher's art, is simply a curiosity.
We can't live our lives on the moibus strip.


Dismissing it as a curiosity doesn't do anything to support the claim for Self or Spirit, though. The Ship of Theseus paradox is a useful tool for demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of that claim.
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 07:52 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

The sentence is treating "person" abstractly, "person"--or would you prefer "a person,"/"persons"--isn't/aren't abstractions.


Don't get me wrong. I wasn't criticizing you for using the abstraction. I was just pointing out that reification is so deeply ingrained in our language conventions and thought processes that even in a discussion about reification, we reify. Reification is fine and dandy, maybe even necessary, for everyday life, but in the stricter disciplines, like science and philosophy, it's wise to be aware of it when it happens. You wouldn't want to draw conclusions based on a logical fallacy.

InfraBlue wrote:
You are not going to get your answer in the strict analytical sense. The closest you'll get to an answer is through the conventional/practical sense.


I suspect this is the case. It looks that way so far.

InfraBlue wrote:

What mental act are you referring to? The definition that I've given for "person?"

The end result of a process, to you, isn't "concrete?" To say that "a bundle of perceptions," as Hume put it, isn't "self"/"person" in a "concrete" way is merely a logomachy.

It becomes absurd when one makes a logical leap and decides that "self," "person," "life" are reifications because one can't wrap their head around them "strictly analytically" speaking, willfully oblivious to the evidence before one.

You're leading the argument around with your narrow restrictions and closed definitions, and you reject whatever falls outside of these. In this regard you're like Frank and his agnosticism, leading it around by the hand and rejecting arguments that fall outside of his circumscriptions.


OK, if that's the way I'm coming off, I'll just drop it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 08:44 pm
@FBM,
I dunno, FBM.
You just don't seem like yourself anymore.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:19 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/head-crazy-rabbit-emoticon.gif
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:50 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Dismissing it as a curiosity doesn't do anything to support the claim for Self or Spirit, though. The Ship of Theseus paradox is a useful tool for demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of that claim.
But is it really a paradox? Or, simply a convoluted word smorgasbord?

An artifact does not have a special right of identity. A potter may craft a beautiful urn, then change his mind and reshape the clay into a chamber pot. A gold amulet may be melted and crafted into a ring. The owner, or craftsman makes the choice.

The ship, so long as it maintains continuity of ownership or purpose, will likely remain the Ship of Theseus; but the owner may change the purpose or name according to his will, number of replaced parts notwithstanding. If you buy it, you could keep the name, rename it the Ship of FBM, or, perhaps FBM, nee Theseus.

But nephesh remains nephesh so long as it breathes.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:53 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/head-crazy-rabbit-emoticon.gif
Ow!
Does that hurt?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:14 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

I use to have what I considered to be a nice analogy about the body. Isn't it like every seven years all our cells have been replaced by new cells? If they are all new cells how can you even call your body the same?

Here is my analogy. Let's say you have a porcelain vase. You also have a special hammer that allows you to break perfectly nice chunks off of it without shattering the whole thing. Then you take new clay and fill in the missing chunk so it blends in perfectly with the same, color, texture and appearance. After seven years of breaking off chunks and replacing them. The entire vase get's replaced with new clay. How can you consider the old vase and the new vase the same vase? You can't, the only thing that would assume they are the same was the slow process of replacing the chunks.

Well that is exactly how our bodies behave. Every seven years every cell has been replaced at least once. How can you call it the same body if it has been completely replaced?


Yep. I know you're interested in Buddhism. Did you know that the Buddha said something to the effect that, of all the things that make up a human, the body comes the closest to being a Self, as it changes the slowest. But, like you say, even that is totally replaced every 7 years. Thoughts, memories, perceptions, sensations, feelings, etc, come and go much more quickly.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:34 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

FBM wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

I don't think that "person" is abstract at all.


That sentence is treating "person" abstractly.



The sentence is treating "person" abstractly, "person"--or would you prefer "a person,"/"persons"--isn't/aren't abstractions.

FBM wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
It's a problem when people don't know how to treat others as who they are presently, not as who they were in the past. When I was a preadolescent kid my grandmother hadn't seen me since I was just past being a toddler. She treated me as if I were still at that age.




I'm not talking about making any changes to the conventional way of treating people. I'm talking about the strict analytical sense. The harder you look for something that you can put your finger on and say that it's a person's self, the harder it gets to find anything specific.



You are not going to get your answer in the strict analytical sense. The closest you'll get to an answer is through the conventional/practical sense.

FBM wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Life. The fact that they're alive and living and being that process called "person."

And this mental act requires reification. "Life" is not concrete. The being at any given time is, but it requires thinking abstractly to get "life." The being at any given time is that bundle (Hume) of processes, but it requires abstraction to get "person" or "self." When that abstraction is treated as a genuine entity, that's reification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory


What mental act are you referring to? The definition that I've given for "person?"

The end result of a process, to you, isn't "concrete?" To say that "a bundle of perceptions," as Hume put it, isn't "self"/"person" in a "concrete" way is merely a logomachy.

It becomes absurd when one makes a logical leap and decides that "self," "person," "life" are reifications because one can't wrap their head around them "strictly analytically" speaking, willfully oblivious to the evidence before one.

You're leading the argument around with your narrow restrictions and closed definitions, and you reject whatever falls outside of these. In this regard you're like Frank and his agnosticism, leading it around by the hand and rejecting arguments that fall outside of his circumscriptions.




Illusions are very concrete things so what is your point ? The end result is self justified because you say so ?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:52 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Krumple wrote:

I use to have what I considered to be a nice analogy about the body. Isn't it like every seven years all our cells have been replaced by new cells? If they are all new cells how can you even call your body the same?

Here is my analogy. Let's say you have a porcelain vase. You also have a special hammer that allows you to break perfectly nice chunks off of it without shattering the whole thing. Then you take new clay and fill in the missing chunk so it blends in perfectly with the same, color, texture and appearance. After seven years of breaking off chunks and replacing them. The entire vase get's replaced with new clay. How can you consider the old vase and the new vase the same vase? You can't, the only thing that would assume they are the same was the slow process of replacing the chunks.

Well that is exactly how our bodies behave. Every seven years every cell has been replaced at least once. How can you call it the same body if it has been completely replaced?


Yep. I know you're interested in Buddhism. Did you know that the Buddha said something to the effect that, of all the things that make up a human, the body comes the closest to being a Self, as it changes the slowest. But, like you say, even that is totally replaced every 7 years. Thoughts, memories, perceptions, sensations, feelings, etc, come and go much more quickly.


All conditioned things are impermanent. This is what the Buddha taught.
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 11:00 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

All conditioned things are impermanent. This is what the Buddha taught.


Anicca. I haven't found any exceptions so far.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 05:56:04