.

[JoelKatz]

Anyways, what do you think of reincarnation? Is it just too good to be true?

I have never understood what it is that is being claimed. Frankly, it seems incoherent to me. What is that is supposedly being reincarnated? In what sense are these other beings supposed to be "me"?

Most of the explanations speak of a "soul" or "spirit" that is reincarnated. To the extent I can understand what this means (which, frankly, is hardly at all), it seems clearly impossible since we know that the brain is the physical implementation of identity and the brain is destroyed during death. It's like arguing that you can burn a rug and somehow the pattern can continue in another rug. (The idea of a pattern without a rug seems incomprehensible. A thought without any brain to think it contradicts everything we know about how the brain works.)

Yes, there were certainly people and animals that lived before me and people and animals that will live after me. But if there is some sense in which some of them can "also be me", I don't even understand what sense that is.

There might be some technical means to "copy" consciousness into a storage device and implement it in another physical container. So it's possible that before my death I could be "recorded" in some way and continue to exist through some other physical implementation. But if those people don't have my memories and don't extend my same consciousness, then they are not me.

[Atlas]

Anyways, what do you think of reincarnation? Is it just too good to be true?

I have never understood what it is that is being claimed. Frankly, it seems incoherent to me. What is that is supposedly being reincarnated? In what sense are these other beings supposed to be "me"?

Most of the explanations speak of a "soul" or "spirit" that is reincarnated. To the extent I can understand what this means (which, frankly, is hardly at all), it seems clearly impossible since we know that the brain is the physical implementation of identity and the brain is destroyed during death. It's like arguing that you can burn a rug and somehow the pattern can continue in another rug. (The idea of a pattern without a rug seems incomprehensible. A thought without any brain to think it contradicts everything we know about how the brain works.)

Yes, there were certainly people and animals that lived before me and people and animals that will live after me. But if there is some sense in which some of them can "also be me", I don't even understand what sense that is.

The theory is that there is a layer under your primal self that is pure subconscious thought. I believe this is quantified through hypnotherapy and analysis of human thought. (Parts of the brain light up according to certain activities).

Ergo, if your brain were to function without a supposed "soul", your human mind would function as a purely primal, emotional and survival-driven animal. Opposed to this is the spiritual, imaginative and other creative opponents that make the "soul".

Anyways, I know nothing in the end. I would commit suicide just to get an answer but that would be fruitless after I reincarnate with amnesia once again.

[JoelKatz]

The theory is that there is a layer under your primal self that is pure subconscious thought. I believe this is quantified through hypnotherapy and analysis of human thought. (Parts of the brain light up according to certain activities).

Ergo, if your brain were to function without a supposed "soul", your human mind would function as a purely primal, emotional and survival-driven animal. Opposed to this is the spiritual, imaginative and other creative opponents that make the "soul".

Anyways, I know nothing in the end. I would commit suicide just to get an answer but that would be fruitless after I reincarnate with amnesia once again.

Okay, but so what? My molecules survive my death, and some of those molecules may wind up in later organisms just as some of my molecules were previously part of some earlier organisms. So maybe there is some kind of "layer" survives my death just as the molecules that compose me do. Since all the evidence suggests that it has no significant effects on anything whatsoever, who cares? I don't make a big deal about which molecules in my finger were one parts of Thomas Edison's nose. Since there's no continuity of conscious memory (or anything else significant), it's not more "me" than a rat that shared a few of my molecules.

[Atlas]

The theory is that there is a layer under your primal self that is pure subconscious thought. I believe this is quantified through hypnotherapy and analysis of human thought. (Parts of the brain light up according to certain activities).

Ergo, if your brain were to function without a supposed "soul", your human mind would function as a purely primal, emotional and survival-driven animal. Opposed to this is the spiritual, imaginative and other creative opponents that make the "soul".

Anyways, I know nothing in the end. I would commit suicide just to get an answer but that would be fruitless after I reincarnate with amnesia once again.

Okay, but so what? My molecules survive my death, and some of those molecules may wind up in later organisms just as some of my molecules were previously part of some earlier organisms. So maybe there is some kind of "layer" survives my death just as the molecules that compose me do. Since all the evidence suggests that it has no significant effects on anything whatsoever, who cares? I don't make a big deal about which molecules in my finger were one parts of Thomas Edison's nose. Since there's no continuity of conscious memory (or anything else significant), it's not more "me" than a rat that shared a few of my molecules.

If you believe the case studies of various hypnotherapists, there is a continuity of consciousness. It's just there is amnesia when you are born and you only remember your entire timeline of consciousness after death. Supposedly there are lifeforms that can remember certain parts of their previous lives.

[JoelKatz]

If you believe the case studies of various hypnotherapists, there is a continuity of consciousness. It's just there is amnesia when you are born and you only remember your entire timeline of consciousness after death. Supposedly there are lifeforms that can remember certain parts of their previous lives.

This seems comically self-contradictory to me. If there is amnesia, then there is no continuity of consciousness. Amnesia is, pretty much by definition, a break in the continuity of consciousness. And saying "you" remember something after your death would require first establishing what was this "you" that survived your death, which seems incoherent.

[interlagos]

What I was getting at in my previous posts is that the real "you" exists outside of physical reality.  It is very incoherent to assume that very uniform process of biological development would produce this singularity.

I'll take one more shot at it from a bit different angle:
Let's look at the moment in time 2 hours before your birth.
At this point the Universe has only been producing *not-yous* and the Earth is populated completely by *not-yous*. Now what is it in the physical/biological process that warrants that in 2 hours *you* will be produced for the first time? Why doesn't the Universe just continue producing *not-yous* as it always has done. Can you imagine the body you call yours will be born in 2 hours and it will be just another *not-you* with its own consciousness and life path.

So it's not the body that makes you *you*, it's something completely different and it doesn't need to survive the death because it existed before you were born. Does this makes sense?

[herzmeister]

So it's not the body that makes you *you*, it's something completely different and it doesn't need to survive the death because it existed before you were born. Does this makes sense?

yup, this is also a strong point for the simulation argument. The player has to enter the simulation at some point, and you'd design it in a way that he can't explain how the hell he got there. ("Where do we come from, where do we go?")

[Atlas]

What I was getting at in my previous posts is that the real "you" exists outside of physical reality.  It is very incoherent to assume that very uniform process of biological development would produce this singularity.

I'll take one more shot at it from a bit different angle:
Let's look at the moment in time 2 hours before your birth.
At this point the Universe has only been producing *not-yous* and the Earth is populated completely by *not-yous*. Now what is it in the physical/biological process that warrants that in 2 hours *you* will be produced for the first time? Why doesn't the Universe just continue producing *not-yous* as it always has done. Can you imagine the body you call yours will be born in 2 hours and it will be just another *not-you* with its own consciousness and life path.

So it's not the body that makes you *you*, it's something completely different and it doesn't need to survive the death because it existed before you were born. Does this makes sense?

Yes, it's exactly my point but in more modern, concrete terms.

[foggyb]

If you believe the case studies of various hypnotherapists, there is a continuity of consciousness. It's just there is amnesia when you are born and you only remember your entire timeline of consciousness after death. Supposedly there are lifeforms that can remember certain parts of their previous lives.

This seems comically self-contradictory to me. If there is amnesia, then there is no continuity of consciousness. Amnesia is, pretty much by definition, a break in the continuity of consciousness. And saying "you" remember something after your death would require first establishing what was this "you" that survived your death, which seems incoherent.

Agreed. Hypnosis takes away conscious thought. Before I'd accept any scientific conclusion of hypnosis, it would have to be shown to me that the results of hypnosis are not influenced by external factors.

Arguably the most important spiritual figure in history, Jesus of Nazareth, did support reincarnation, but in the context of a) being born again in the spiritual realm which gives enhanced spiritual abilities and b) being given a new immortal body at the last day, which would exist in a 'new heaven' and a 'new earth'.

Reincarnation in the context of returning in physical form to the same physical plane was not supported by Jesus. Jesus did support the assertion that there is a great impassable gulf that separates the place of the living and the dead.

[tarrant_01]

Having never read the bible, I googled Jesus's stance on reincarnation and found this: http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html
I haven't read all of it either but it is interesting.

Did Jesus ever say reincarnation doesn't exist? The above seems to imply that he acknowledges it in an indirect way.

[Rassah]

What I was getting at in my previous posts is that the real "you" exists outside of physical reality.  It is very incoherent to assume that very uniform process of biological development would produce this singularity.

I'll take one more shot at it from a bit different angle:
Let's look at the moment in time 2 hours before your birth.
At this point the Universe has only been producing *not-yous* and the Earth is populated completely by *not-yous*. Now what is it in the physical/biological process that warrants that in 2 hours *you* will be produced for the first time? Why doesn't the Universe just continue producing *not-yous* as it always has done. Can you imagine the body you call yours will be born in 2 hours and it will be just another *not-you* with its own consciousness and life path.

So it's not the body that makes you *you*, it's something completely different and it doesn't need to survive the death because it existed before you were born. Does this makes sense?

Let me ask you the exact same question, but with a slight difference.
You have a computer. It has a bunch of programs you installed, a bunch of files you created or downloaded, and all the settings are set up to be the way you want them to be. That is *your* computer, among the entire universe of *not your* computers.

Let's look at the moment in time 2 hours before you booted your computer for the very first time.
At this point the Universe has only been producing *not-your* computers and the Earth is populated completely by *not-your* computers. Now what is it in the physical/biological process that warrants that in 2 hours *your* computer will be booted and running for the first time? Why doesn't the Universe just continue producing *not-your* computers as it always has done. Can you imagine the computer you call yours will be born in 2 hours and it will be just another *not-your* computer with its own software and personalized settings?

^^^ That is how I read your question. And the answer is, it actually is the body, and my experiences through, it that make me *me*. Nothing more. Moreover, the *you* and *not you* property isn't all that drastic or binary. My arm is me. If it gets severed, it is no longer me. For disabled people, their wheelchairs and prosthetics are very much a part of *them*. If I have a cancerous growth, it's *me* but not really, because I don't want it to be me, and it's genetic code isn't exactly me. The only *you* that matters is the physical brain, just as the only *your computer* that matters is the physical location of 0s and 1s that store your files and settings and make your computer yours.

[RodeoX]

This guy has some interesting things to say about consciousness. He is interested in just what it is, and where in the body it happens.(or outside?). You were likely told that it is happens in your connected neurons. But consider an amoeba. It is only one cell, yet it hunts, avoids discomfort, thinks. But where?  His research hints at a quantum effect underlying consciousness and perhaps even life itself. 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

[Rassah]

This guy has some interesting things to say about consciousness. He is interested in just what it is, and where in the body it happens.(or outside?). You were likely told that it is happens in your connected neurons. But consider an amoeba. It is only one cell, yet it hunts, avoids discomfort, thinks. But where?  His research hints at a quantum effect underlying consciousness and perhaps even life itself. 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Amoebas think? I figured they  just reacted to chemical stimuli depending on whether that stimulation suggests food (compatible with absorption) or danger (can cause bad internal reactions), based only on how its genetic code tells it to interpret that stimulation. What happens if you stab an amoeba with a tiny needle, or show it a piece of art? Will it react?
But then I'm not a cellular biologist, so what do I know.

[Atlas]

This guy has some interesting things to say about consciousness. He is interested in just what it is, and where in the body it happens.(or outside?). You were likely told that it is happens in your connected neurons. But consider an amoeba. It is only one cell, yet it hunts, avoids discomfort, thinks. But where?  His research hints at a quantum effect underlying consciousness and perhaps even life itself. 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

This has been confirmed in Dr. Newtons hypnotheraphy sessions. Apparently when we are spirits outside material dimensions, we can create and control life through a quantum effect.

There is an energy that guides all life, if you will. Some subjects describe the science in detail.

[Rassah]

This has been confirmed in Dr. Newtons hypnotheraphy sessions. Apparently when we are spirits outside material dimensions, we can create and control life through a quantum effect.

I don't think this word means what they think it means. Using fancy scientific words that people generally don't understand is one of the big signs that it's bs. Used to be magnetic, or electric, or nuclear effects.

[thebaron]

It's fun to speculate that there's more to life than being meat that's the product of random genetic mutations.

It's far more "fun" to experience it.

Yeah, but I find everytime I begin to doubt what I've been experiencing, I get more confirmations that there's some weird shit going on. I like trolling my subconscious.

[thebaron]

Everything has a purpose.

I think that pretty much sums up my Ego Death experience. Everyone makes the right decisions at the time they made them.

[penetration]

I'm sorry, I have friends which also believe this kind of stuff, and as friends I like them, but believing that your true purpose in life exist after some dimensional ascension, just makes you not responsible for others suffering or the world around you in general. Further how is it necessary to engage in meaningful relations with others if you only care about your own race to the singularity?

If you can call this kind of spirituality a religion, it's a selfish one in my opinion.

You spoke so wisely prior on value yet then you dismiss something based of its 'selfishness'? How can anything of extrinsic value, that is to say the only value in which we are capable of comprehending, be anything but a 'selfish' value?

[myrkul]

My body is not necessarily "mine". I don't own it. I guess you could consider it a loaner to get a specific experience in this particular lifetime.

This is a dangerous supposition. If you do not own your body, who does? What of the actions your body takes? Do you own them? Or is the mysterious owner of your body ultimately responsible for them? Can you be "evicted"? Who has the power to do that? It's a slippery slope you tread upon when you renounce ownership of your corpus.

[interlagos]

What I was getting at in my previous posts is that the real "you" exists outside of physical reality.  It is very incoherent to assume that very uniform process of biological development would produce this singularity.
...

Let me ask you the exact same question, but with a slight difference.
You have a computer. It has a bunch of programs you installed, a bunch of files you created or downloaded, and all the settings are set up to be the way you want them to be. That is *your* computer, among the entire universe of *not your* computers.

Let's look at the moment in time 2 hours before you booted your computer for the very first time.
At this point the Universe has only been producing *not-your* computers and the Earth is populated completely by *not-your* computers. Now what is it in the physical/biological process that warrants that in 2 hours *your* computer will be booted and running for the first time? Why doesn't the Universe just continue producing *not-your* computers as it always has done. Can you imagine the computer you call yours will be born in 2 hours and it will be just another *not-your* computer with its own software and personalized settings?

^^^ That is how I read your question. And the answer is, it actually is the body, and my experiences through, it that make me *me*. Nothing more. Moreover, the *you* and *not you* property isn't all that drastic or binary. My arm is me. If it gets severed, it is no longer me. For disabled people, their wheelchairs and prosthetics are very much a part of *them*. If I have a cancerous growth, it's *me* but not really, because I don't want it to be me, and it's genetic code isn't exactly me. The only *you* that matters is the physical brain, just as the only *your computer* that matters is the physical location of 0s and 1s that store your files and settings and make your computer yours.

The stuff you're talking about is secondary. You can only call something *yours* (your computer, your arm, your body, your brain) when you have *you* in the first place.

You argue that a particular experience is what makes you *you*, but the truth is *you* is the one who receives the experience, who lives through it. The real *you* is a thing in itself, all the stuff that you are trying to attach to it is just that - an attachment. This includes your body, your memory, your experience, even your complete personality.

Just sit quietly and try to imagine a different past for yourself, imagine you made some important decision in the past in a different way. Your experience of life and your memory of it to this point would be different, but you would still be *you* and you know that. It's empiric, it's part of observable Universe and any theory, simple or otherwise, would need to cope with that at some point.

I've given away all the keys now, it's up to a curious and persisting mind to play with them and see which one opens the door.