NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking the other day, i wonder what peoples views on reincarnation are? so, please share and respectfully debate them here.
:cool:

Hah, funny one that.

Yes. But there's many interpretations of "reincarnation".

Even some "catholic" people believe that God will give them another life if X conditions are met.

Personally I don't know where I stand on Reincarnation, personally I'd hate the thought of having to live yet another entire life, but hey I probably won't remember this life once I do start the new life, just like I don't remember any of my other possible past lives.

Hah, funny one that.

Yes. But there's many interpretations of "reincarnation".

Even some "catholic" people believe that God will give them another life if X conditions are met.

yea, I think there is some reincarnation, to right wrongs, help the world, etc. etc. I also dont see how its sacrilegous to believe a forgiving God may give you a second chance.

Nope.

No. No reincarnation, no afterlife. Only the grave.

You live, you die. That's all.

Another tool of repression - the idea that you can accept your shite status in life because you'll be rewarded in heaven and/or the next life.

I may be a Dalit now but next life I might be a Brahmin.

Yippee-di-doo.

Another chance to fail at life? Ah well, sign me up.

No. No reincarnation, no afterlife. Only the grave.

atheist?

Ignoring for a moment the pressing political issues which Barringtonia highlights, there are a number of metaphysical problems to do with reincarnation.

I can never be reincarnated, because part of what constitutes ‘I’ is my body and my memories, experiences, etc. Indeed, some would argue that all ‘I’ am are these memories and past experiences. If ‘I’ am reincarnated in a new body, with no knowledge of my ‘past life’, then ‘I’ am a completely separate person to who ‘I’ was previously.

Our experiences, and to some extent our bodies, are contingent to our identities. Take them away and our identities disappear. Thus, the notion of reincarnation, at least in the sense of one self being ‘re-born’, is nonsensical.

The same applies to most, if not all, theories of an afterlife. Part of what makes me ‘me’ is my existence as a temporal being in a mortal body. Reduce me to some ‘soul’ flying about in Heaven, Valhalla or whatever, and I am no longer the person I was.

Ignoring for a moment the pressing political issues which Barringtonia highlights, there are a number of metaphysical problems to do with reincarnation.

I can never be reincarnated, because part of what constitutes ‘I’ is my body and my memories, experiences, etc. Indeed, some would argue that all ‘I’ am are these memories and past experiences. If ‘I’ am reincarnated in a new body, with no knowledge of my ‘past life’, then ‘I’ am a completely separate person to who ‘I’ was previously.

Our experiences, and to some extent our bodies, are contingent to our identities. Take them away and our identities disappear. Thus, the notion of reincarnation, at least in the sense of one self being ‘re-born’, is nonsensical.

The same applies to most, if not all, theories of an afterlife. Part of what makes me ‘me’ is my existence as a temporal being in a mortal body. Reduce me to some ‘soul’ flying about in Heaven, Valhalla or whatever, and I am no longer the person I was.

true, unless you retain some personality traits, memories, appearence stuff, etc, etc.

true, unless you retain some personality traits, memories, appearence stuff, etc, etc.

Man, wouldn't it suck if you were Al Capone reincarnated and totally forgot where you buried the gold?

Man, wouldn't it suck if you were Al Capone reincarnated and totally forgot where you buried the gold.

yea. or that cooper dude. or saddam. or any rich evil dude, maybe bill gates in 100 years?

true, unless you retain some personality traits, memories, appearence stuff, etc, etc.
Perhaps, but no notion of reincarnation seems to ‘work’ like that (unless anyone could correct me on this account?). The most favourable account is one very similar to those with Multiple Personality Disorder, albeit as if no personality is aware of any other personality; there is no ‘control’ or ‘default’ personality.

Yes. Hopefully it exists. Relevant story:


Ian Stevenson; Sought To Document Memories Of Past Lives in Children

By Tom Shroder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 11, 2007; Page C06

Dr. Ian Stevenson, 88, who spent nearly half a century traveling the world to meticulously investigate hundreds of cases of small children who appeared to recall previous lives, died of pneumonia Feb. 8 at the Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge retirement community in Charlottesville.

To Dr. Stevenson and his many admirers, his detailed case studies provided more than ample room for, as he liked to put it, "a rational person, if he wants, to believe in reincarnation on the basis of evidence."

In 1977, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease devoted most of one issue to Dr. Stevenson's work. In a commentary for the issue, psychiatrist Harold Lief described Dr. Stevenson as "a methodical, careful, even cautious, investigator, whose personality is on the obsessive side." He also wrote: "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known . . . as 'the Galileo of the 20th century.' "

But with rare exception, mainstream scientists -- the only group Dr. Stevenson really cared to persuade -- tended to ignore or dismiss his decades in the field and his many publications. Of those who noticed him at all, some questioned Dr. Stevenson's objectivity; others claimed he was credulous. Still others suggested that he was insufficiently versed in the cultures and languages of his subjects to do credible investigations. Dr Stevenson responded that his critics should come investigate the cases for themselves. That did not happen.

But Dr. Stevenson himself recognized one glaring flaw in his case for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body.

The evidence he did provide in abundance came not from past-life readings or hypnotic regressions but from using the techniques of a detective or investigative reporter to evaluate claims that a young child, often just beginning to talk, had spontaneously started to speak of the details of another life. In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.

In interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents, Dr. Stevenson searched for alternate ways to account for the testimony: that the child came upon the information in some normal way, that the witnesses were engaged in fraud or self-delusion, that the correlations were the result of coincidence or misunderstanding. But in scores of cases, Dr. Stevenson concluded that no normal explanation sufficed.

Tall and lanky, patrician in appearance and diction, Dr. Stevenson was a tireless researcher who often would forget to stop for food during all-day treks on dusty third-world trails, running younger colleagues into the ground by nightfall. He catalogued more than 2,500 remarkably similar cases, mostly in Asia and the Middle East but also in Europe, Africa and North and South America. His first book on the topic, "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation," was published in 1966; his last, "European Cases of the Reincarnation Type," in 2003.

Dr. Stevenson, a native of Montreal, earned his medical degree from McGill University in Montreal in 1943, graduating at the top of his class. In 1957, at 39, he became head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. But from his mother, a devotee of theosophy, which Dr. Stevenson described as a "kind of potted Buddhism for Westerners," he had inherited a keen interest in the paranormal, which became a calling after a trip to India in 1961 convinced him that the child cases were both ubiquitous and impressive.

As his research earned the scorn of some colleagues and caused unease in the university administration, Dr. Stevenson gave up his administrative duties to head what he cagily named the Division of Personality Studies, now the Division of Perceptual Studies, funded by a grant from Chester Carlson, the man who invented the Xerox process.

Dr. Stevenson retired from active research in 2002, leaving his work to successors led by Dr. Bruce Greyson. Dr. Jim Tucker, a child psychiatrist, has carried on Dr. Stevenson's work with children, focusing on North American cases.

Tucker said that toward the end of his life, Dr. Stevenson had accepted that his long-stated goal of getting science "to seriously consider reincarnation as a possibility" was not going to be realized in this lifetime.

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

His first wife, Octavia Stevenson, died in 1984.

Survivors include his wife of 21 years, Margaret Pertzoff of Charlottesville; a brother; and a sister.

Shroder, editor of the Post's Sunday magazine, wrote a book about Dr. Stevenson, "Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives" (1999).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule

atheist?
Just because someone doesn't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean they don't believe in any god. I don't believe in either, but I don't think the idea of some conscious designer who might've sparked the big bang (whatever) is as ridiculous as the idea that consciousness, which functions through nerve signals in the brain, is somehow just going to be magically transferred to a new body while that brain is rotting in the ground. I mean, how would it be done, microscopic fairies taking apart the brain neuron by neuron to put into a new body?

I was thinking the other day, i wonder what peoples views on reincarnation are? so, please share and respectfully debate them here.
:cool:

I have thought on this for many years. I cannot say I believe in it as in the Peter Proud type image, but I am not willing to rule out that something occurs.

I do not think of reincarnation as a rerun of 'me' but more of a dimensional movement of the spirit. Probably more on the order of recycled than reincarnated though.

I have no doubt that there does exist something intangible as in a spirit or soul, as I have felt it move. I feel that our energy is channeled. I'm just not sure to what.

Ignoring for a moment the pressing political issues which Barringtonia highlights, there are a number of metaphysical problems to do with reincarnation.

I can never be reincarnated, because part of what constitutes ‘I’ is my body and my memories, experiences, etc. Indeed, some would argue that all ‘I’ am are these memories and past experiences. If ‘I’ am reincarnated in a new body, with no knowledge of my ‘past life’, then ‘I’ am a completely separate person to who ‘I’ was previously.

Our experiences, and to some extent our bodies, are contingent to our identities. Take them away and our identities disappear. Thus, the notion of reincarnation, at least in the sense of one self being ‘re-born’, is nonsensical.

The same applies to most, if not all, theories of an afterlife. Part of what makes me ‘me’ is my existence as a temporal being in a mortal body. Reduce me to some ‘soul’ flying about in Heaven, Valhalla or whatever, and I am no longer the person I was.

If you set the standart to the body, then, 'You' dont exist throughout your life since your body at age 5 is quite different than your body at age 60.

If you set the standart to not remembering, then drunken nights you dont remember actually didnt exist. :rolleyes:

I believe in reincarnation but I also believe it would suck the fun out if you remembered everything in another life since many things (like having sex for the first time) wouldnt be new and exciting to you.

Perhaps, but no notion of reincarnation seems to ‘work’ like that (unless anyone could correct me on this account?). The most favourable account is one very similar to those with Multiple Personality Disorder, albeit as if no personality is aware of any other personality; there is no ‘control’ or ‘default’ personality.

Wrong analogy, since personalities co-exist in MPD which reduces the quality of life for the person.

In reincarnation, there is a continuation, no co-existance.

Yes. Hopefully it exists. Relevant story:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule


Fascinating! Thanks for the story and link. :)

If you set the standart to the body, then, ‘You’ dont exist throughout your life since your body at age 5 is quite different than your body at age 60.
Sure, but there’s transition, a process from age 5 to age 60. Plus, there’s a massive (and I’d say integral) connection between one’s personality and one’s body. That change from 5 to 60 partly shapes one’s personality.

I’ve yet to be given a strong case for mind-body dualism. Until someone can outline to me the complete separation of mind and body, then notions of reincarnation or a non-corporeal afterlife seem nonsensical.

If you set the standart to not remembering, then drunken nights you dont remember actually didnt exist.
We can gauge those gaps in memory by our memories before and after the gaps, and we can point to the fact that we had a body before and after the gap, surmising (quite sensibly) that we have a continued existence before, after and during the memory lapse.

On the other hand, having no experience whatsoever of one’s ‘past life’, and no apparent continuation of any physical existence, tends to detract from the idea of a continuous self. I’m not discounting totally the possibility that some form of conciousness may be able to be reprocessed into another life, though I see it as highly dubious, but the idea that this new person would be the same individual who had lived and died seems disingenuous.

The two individuals would be just that: two distinct people. Which prompted my (admittedly wobbly) analogy with those who experience MPD.

In reincarnation, there is a continuation, no co-existance.
There doesn’t seem to be much continuation at all; on the contrary, there seems to be complete delineation between different lives.

Though I will read up on Ian Stevenson’s work. It sounds very interesting.

Nope, it just seems like a cop out. Would be nice if it was true, but I don't think it is.

Another tool of repression - the idea that you can accept your shite status in life because you'll be rewarded in heaven and/or the next life.

What if it's not presented in a system of reward/punishment? What if it's presented as "next available baby, go, go ,go!"

Sure, but there’s transition, a process from age 5 to age 60. Plus, there’s a massive (and I’d say integral) connection between one’s personality and one’s body. That change from 5 to 60 partly shapes one’s personality.

I’ve yet to be given a strong case for mind-body dualism. Until someone can outline to me the complete separation of mind and body, then notions of reincarnation or a non-corporeal afterlife seem nonsensical.


So? You recognize 'you' can change. Just like 'you' changes from age 5 to age 60 and it is still 'you', you may change from one body to another, being still 'you'. The latter change is far greater but it may still be 'you'. And maybe changing one body to another, that process, shapes your soul's personality.


We can gauge those gaps in memory by our memories before and after the gaps, and we can point to the fact that we had a body before and after the gap, surmising (quite sensibly) that we have a continued existence before, after and during the memory lapse.

On the other hand, having no experience whatsoever of one’s ‘past life’, and no apparent continuation of any physical existence, tends to detract from the idea of a continuous self. I’m not discounting totally the possibility that some form of conciousness may be able to be reprocessed into another life, though I see it as highly dubious, but the idea that this new person would be the same individual who had lived and died seems disingenuous.


Of course it is a different individual, and I think that is what would make reincarnation fun. But it is also you, it's just that experiences are so different. Plus, there may be a state where you can remember all your lives.


The two individuals would be just that: two distinct people. Which prompted my (admittedly wobbly) analogy with those who experience MPD.


No, those two distinct people do not exist at the same time. Hence there is no discordance like in MPD.


There doesn’t seem to be much continuation at all; on the contrary, there seems to be complete delineation between different lives.

Though I will read up on Ian Stevenson’s work. It sounds very interesting.

We dont remember our childhoods mostly either. However, the effects of a good childhood vs bad childhood would be very different. Just because you dont remember does not imply there is no effect of past lives on you. Plus, as I said, there may be a state where you can remember all your past lives.

I recognize these are all speculation, but lots of things are pretty much speculations. I mean humans existed for millions of years but we discovered quanta just in 19th century. Doesnt mean quanta didnt exist b4 that.

The Chinese Government is trying to regulate reincarnation, so obviously it believes in such things.

:D

Would be interesting but I don't think it happens. As for the people that have memories of some other life there is probably an explanation somehow.

atheist?

Correct.

If you remember top secret classified military information when you reincarnate, are you still legally responsible for keeping it so?

If you remember top secret classified military information when you reincarnate, are you still legally responsible for keeping it so?

If the Atomic Pie Launcher was in any way considered top-secret military information then you might be in trouble.

However, it's not, it's the mad musings of a scientist most people consider a luna...

Wait a minute...

Problem is, you're assumign that the best kind of reincarnation is into a human form. I don't know about you, but if I was dead and reincarnated today, I'd rather be a cat in a kind home than a kid in Iraq.

So? You recognize ‘you’ can change. Just like ‘you’ changes from age 5 to age 60 and it is still ‘you’, you may change from one body to another, being still ‘you’. The latter change is far greater but it may still be ‘you’. And maybe changing one body to another, that process, shapes your soul’s personality.
(EDIT: I'm not demanding, or expecting, you to have all the answers to the questions below, I just want to point out that any competent theory of reincarnation has a lot of philosophical stumbling blocks to overcome.)

Some massive problems here.

Firstly, there’s the ol’ nut of mind-body dualism and its associated queries: if the mind and the body are separate, how do they interact? How can private and subjective mental states have any frame of reference with other private, subjective mental states?

Then there’s some questions about souls: how exactly do we locate souls? If our bodies and our souls are separate substances, where do disembodied souls reside? Do they extend into space-time? Is the soul ‘in’ the brain? If it is ‘in’ the brain, then how, and where does it interact with the brain? How does a soul distribute energy through neural fibres? How is my soul ‘attached’ to my body? When I’m sitting in an aircraft travelling at excess of 500 mph, does my soul also travel at 500 mph along beside my body?

More importantly than the questions above, I don’t think you’ve adequately laid out why I should consider any of my past or future lives as part of the same identity I have now. I stress that part of what makes up one’s individuality, or at least our traditional view of individuality, is the life we lead. If my current life is merely one identity that changes after I die, surely the traditional conception of the individual does not contain what you claim.

To put it more clearly, part of what makes me ‘me’ is being *John Smith*. But it makes no sense to say ‘I’ am John Smith if that is merely one stage of the soul within John Smith. No matter what happens after death, ‘I’ won’t be John Smith, because ‘I’ won’t inhabit John Smith’s body, or live John Smith’s life.

Of course it is a different individual... But it is also you
That makes no sense.

Either it is the same individual or not.

Just because you dont remember does not imply there is no effect of past lives on you.
How could there be an ‘effect’ without any memories? Is the soul secretly motivating itself down certain paths without being aware of itself doing this? Is there a third thing, beyond body and mind, which is determining choices for the forgetful soul?

Plus, as I said, there may be a state where you can remember all your past lives.
This ‘state’ would be very different from being John Smith. That is my main point: the overarching ‘I’, this state that can recall all past lives, is not the same ‘I’ of John Smith. Thus it makes no sense to say that I, John Smith, will continue into another life.

I believe that some people, the most evil ones, can be given a second chance to live their life better.

I do think that people come back over and over until they get things right.

On another note: Anarchy Works is back, y'all!:D

There are more people alive now than there are people who have died. Kind of makes reincarnation pretty unlikely unless 'new' people are also being born.

There are more people alive now than there are people who have died. Kind of makes reincarnation pretty unlikely unless 'new' people are also being born.

well, yea, there would be new people being born. and there would also be people who stopped being reincarnated. also if one was reincarnated, the memories of the previous life would have some effect on your personality, even if you didnt remember them, much like a good childhood effects who we are, even if we dont remember it well, or at all.

Yes. Hopefully it exists. Relevant story:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule

wow, that guy was delusional if he couldnt think of ANY way that kid knew those details.

no, i dont believe in reincarnation. i see no way for the "soul" and memories of a dead person to migrate into the brain of ...well just when WOULD these memories be implanted? before the fetus has a working brain? somewhere in the middle of gestation? does it lurk in the delivery room waiting for a baby's head to pop out so it can invade?

reincarnation is a terrible explanation of why some people have it good and some people have it bad--its all your own fault (or merit) from something you did in some other life.

Even some "catholic" people believe that God will give them another life if X conditions are met.

Meh. I wonder what Dr.Joseph Benediktus Dezimus-Sekstius Ratzinger would think about the "catholicity" of such idea.

Meh. I wonder what Dr.Joseph Benediktus Dezimus-Sekstius Ratzinger would think about the "catholicity" of such idea.

I think that if we truly believe in a forgiving God, and you made a mistake, that he would give you a chance to come back and do better, or to right some wrongs, perhaps. I fail to see how it is sacreligous, could someone please elaborate on how it would be sacreligous?

Plus, as I said, there may be a state where you can remember all your past lives.

That would be New Mexico.

But be warned, remembering something doesn't necessarily mean it actually happened.

I think that if we truly believe in a forgiving God, and you made a mistake, that he would give you a chance to come back and do better, or to right some wrongs, perhaps. I fail to see how it is sacreligous, could someone please elaborate on how it would be sacreligous?

This has nothing to do with being catholic. Being catholic means believing to the whole catholic dogmatic system: reincarnation isn't part thereof. By believing reincarnation, a catholic becomes a haeretic (at least in respect to catholicity).
By catholic dogma, once a person dies, he undergoes to judgment.
As the Dies Irae goes, "Iudex ergo cum sedebit, quicquid latet adparebit, nihil inultum remanebit" (then, when the Judge shall sit, whatever was hidden shall appear, and nothing shall be left unavenged). The worthy ones go to the heavenly Jerusalem (paradise, or paradise through purgatorium), the other go to final dissolution (hell etc). No reincarnation allowed, sorry.

Also, on a theological layer, a christian should be HAPPY to die. Because death means leaving the "valley of tears" and coming closer to God. So death isn't (shouldn't be) a problem to christians - at least for those who are truly repenting of their sins, and there is no need for a second life on Earth. The other people (unrepenting sinners, unbelievers) are going to hell, pure and simple, because they "rejected" God.

well, yea, there would be new people being born. and there would also be people who stopped being reincarnated. also if one was reincarnated, the memories of the previous life would have some effect on your personality, even if you didnt remember them, much like a good childhood effects who we are, even if we dont remember it well, or at all.

If this is the case, then studies of the personalities of twins and adoptees have shot the whole reincarnation idea to hell, because through this research the origins of personalities are well understood. There's a genetic influence, and an environmental influence, and the numbers leave no leftover mystery percent that can be filled with Prior Life.

no, I don't believe in reincarnation.

(EDIT: I'm not demanding, or expecting, you to have all the answers to the questions below, I just want to point out that any competent theory of reincarnation has a lot of philosophical stumbling blocks to overcome.)

Some massive problems here.

Firstly, there’s the ol’ nut of mind-body dualism and its associated queries: if the mind and the body are separate, how do they interact? How can private and subjective mental states have any frame of reference with other private, subjective mental states?

Then there’s some questions about souls: how exactly do we locate souls? If our bodies and our souls are separate substances, where do disembodied souls reside? Do they extend into space-time? Is the soul ‘in’ the brain? If it is ‘in’ the brain, then how, and where does it interact with the brain? How does a soul distribute energy through neural fibres? How is my soul ‘attached’ to my body? When I’m sitting in an aircraft travelling at excess of 500 mph, does my soul also travel at 500 mph along beside my body?

More importantly than the questions above, I don’t think you’ve adequately laid out why I should consider any of my past or future lives as part of the same identity I have now. I stress that part of what makes up one’s individuality, or at least our traditional view of individuality, is the life we lead. If my current life is merely one identity that changes after I die, surely the traditional conception of the individual does not contain what you claim.

To put it more clearly, part of what makes me ‘me’ is being *John Smith*. But it makes no sense to say ‘I’ am John Smith if that is merely one stage of the soul within John Smith. No matter what happens after death, ‘I’ won’t be John Smith, because ‘I’ won’t inhabit John Smith’s body, or live John Smith’s life.


That makes no sense.

Either it is the same individual or not.


How could there be an ‘effect’ without any memories? Is the soul secretly motivating itself down certain paths without being aware of itself doing this? Is there a third thing, beyond body and mind, which is determining choices for the forgetful soul?


This ‘state’ would be very different from being John Smith. That is my main point: the overarching ‘I’, this state that can recall all past lives, is not the same ‘I’ of John Smith. Thus it makes no sense to say that I, John Smith, will continue into another life.

1) Surely, you know that particles are basically nothing but energy? Then if your soul had "energy" too, it could interact with particles somehow, no? The amount of energy necessary for such an operation would be so small, though, that they wouldn't affect any sensory device (artificial or natural). This is all the more true if said energy can be directed only towards necessary particles. The "soul", on the other hand, could observe sensory information, basically from observing the particles' movements.

2) Souls are believed to be "attached" to one's body. Thus, they easily travel with our body. Interacting as said in 1. The way of atachment is pretty irrelevant, but one could say they are attached in the same way particles are attached between them, the soul being made of "energy".

As for "John Smith", you seem to be assuming (correct me if I'm wrong), that life is more than an actual state. Same as being under the influence of drugs. You're still you, only not your "usual self", the last being created before your first life. "John Smith" is a label that says you're under the influence of a "John Smith" life.

As for the "effect without memories", I fail to see what you mean. You can still do things with no memories (much like babies). Can you detail a bit more?

Yes, if certain conditions are met, it seems reasonable

That condition being, of course, that reincarnation exists. ;)

Though I would suppose that, since most people believe you forget almost everything when/if you reincarnate, its not really the same YOU. So its sorta a blurry area, dependent entirely on your own definition of it. So even if there is reincarnation... Ehhh!

I'm on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, my Religion traditionally holds that there's no reincarnation, as do most Christian flavors.

On the other hand, there's nothing that says it couldn't posibly change on that, and I have had a personal experience that was very compelling that I have not yet figured out how to reconcile.

I'm on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, my Religion traditionally holds that there's no reincarnation, as do most Christian flavors.

On the other hand, there's nothing that says it couldn't posibly change on that, and I have had a personal experience that was very compelling that I have not yet figured out how to reconcile.

Someone first needs to quote me where in the Bible it says that reincarnation is not possible or doesn't happen, because I've never seen it. But, I may have missed it, so anyone that knows it better than me please feel free to contradict me. Until then, I WILL BE BACK!

And yes, I am Christian, and yes, I do believe in reincarnation.

Someone first needs to quote me where in the Bible it says that reincarnation is not possible or doesn't happen, because I've never seen it. But, I may have missed it, so anyone that knows it better than me please feel free to contradict me. Until then, I WILL BE BACK!

And yes, I am Christian, and yes, I do believe in reincarnation.

Yeah there's a couple verses someone would quote you if you asked for such proof but my reading of those doesn't really seem conclusive to me, and that includes not only the Bible but the Book of Mormon and other Scriptures I have. One of these days I'll get around to sharing my personal experience with my Bishop just to see what his opinion is.

Yeah there's a couple verses someone would quote you if you asked for such proof but my reading of those doesn't really seem conclusive to me, and that includes not only the Bible but the Book of Mormon and other Scriptures I have. One of these days I'll get around to sharing my personal experience with my Bishop just to see what his opinion is.


Fair enough, I still want to know which verses, until then, I still believe in it because I believe I've seen it. Along with a few other things, so...

there's only one way to test if reincarnation works.

*gets chainsaw*

brb

1) Surely, you know that particles are basically nothing but energy? Then if your soul had “energy” too, it could interact with particles somehow, no?
True, but this would mean that souls were part of the physical universe, leading back to my questions of locating the soul in the universe, explaining what the soul was made from and how a physical substance gets from one ‘host’ to another. My understanding of the thesis of reincarnation similar to the one proposed by NMG is that souls are supposedly non-corporeal; they are not of the physical world.

2) Souls are believed to be “attached” to one’s body. Thus, they easily travel with our body. Interacting as said in 1. The way of atachment is pretty irrelevant, but one could say they are attached in the same way particles are attached between them, the soul being made of “energy”.
This ‘attachment’ presents Descates’ old dilemma in a new form: if souls are ‘attached’ to bodies, how are they ‘attached’? One option is that souls are physical themselves, just like our bodies. But if souls are part of the physical universe, and ‘attached’ to one’s body, then what difference are they to the bodymind?

A second option would be to say that the souls are non-physical, and attached to the physical body via some mechanism or phenomenon. But this leads us back to the old chestnut of how the non-physical and the physical interact. Is there a third substance that acts as a ‘go-between’ for the body and soul; and if so, what is it made from? A half physical, half non-physical substance makes little sense.

I cannot think of a third option, beyond the very strange ‘our bodies are non-physical’.

As for “John Smith”, you seem to be assuming (correct me if I’m wrong), that life is more than an actual state. Same as being under the influence of drugs. You’re still you, only not your “usual self”, the last being created before your first life. “John Smith” is a label that says you’re under the influence of a “John Smith” life.
I don’ believe that’s the case, but that’s the way I understand NMG’s thinking on this manner. And by saying that your are under the ‘influence’ or in the state of ‘being John Smith’ implies that there will be a time when the soul is no longer in the state of ‘being John Smith’; proving my point that ‘John Smith’ would continue onto another life, or at least have some continuation on some level of existence after death.

Thus, even if there is an overarching soul that jumps from host to host after their deaths, it is hardly reincarnation. One cannot know yourself to continue after life, or know yourself to be the soul.

As for the “effect without memories”, I fail to see what you mean. You can still do things with no memories (much like babies). Can you detail a bit more?
With pleasure.

If the soul affects John Smith, how does it do this? Beyond the problem of mind-body interaction outlined above, there’s also the problem of who or what is in charge. Is the soul ‘directing’ John Smith in the background; subtly influencing his choices or thoughts?

Though I would suppose that, since most people believe you forget almost everything when/if you reincarnate, its not really the same YOU. So its sorta a blurry area, dependent entirely on your own definition of it. So even if there is reincarnation... Ehhh!
That's broadly my position, coupled with a big scepticism over the idea of a distinction between mind and body.

there's only one way to test if reincarnation works.

*gets chainsaw*

brb

only if it works, otherwise not....

Fair enough, I still want to know which verses, until then, I still believe in it because I believe I've seen it. Along with a few other things, so...

What have you seen? (If you don't mind sharing)

Fair enough, I still want to know which verses, until then, I still believe in it because I believe I've seen it. Along with a few other things, so...

yea, similiar idea. I dont see how it goes against anything the bible says....

I have to go for 'define reincarnation'. I believe that consciousness is a universal function of the mechanisms of physical life. Thousands of years of philosophy have failed to explain the problem of 'self': why do we see out of one set of eyes; hear through one set of ears? Why do we see the world from only one perspective, and assume that, once one life dies, there is nothing more?

I think the answer is that there is no 'self', except in terms of what we remember. There is just life. All lives are lived. Like parallel dimensions, which are said to exist in the same place and the same time as our world, but are eternally separated from us, we perceive only one life at once because our idea of 'self' is dependent on what we remember, and our memories are dependent on the physical constraints of the body and the brain. We remember only one life at once - but who's to say that the life you think you're experiencing now is the same one you were experiencing a moment ago? Or that the one you're experiencing now will be the one you remember in a moment's time?

When one life dies its memories may be lost, but consciousness continues on, and will continue on while there is life in the universe.

There are more people alive now than there are people who have died. Kind of makes reincarnation pretty unlikely unless 'new' people are also being born.

Unless the population of the world increased 14-fold when I wasn't paying attention, there are not more people alive now than people who have died.

If this is the case, then studies of the personalities of twins and adoptees have shot the whole reincarnation idea to hell, because through this research the origins of personalities are well understood. There's a genetic influence, and an environmental influence, and the numbers leave no leftover mystery percent that can be filled with Prior Life.

:D

My major is psychology and the whole discipline comes down to "we dont know". There are many theories and certainly no one formula which explains how much genetic and environment influence one's personality has in percentages. There isnt even a consensus on how to define personality: 16PF, Eysenck's 3 or big 5 or whatever.

Our prof told the class psychological laws are outdated since everyone now agrees there is no certainity on anything.

True, but this would mean that souls were part of the physical universe, leading back to my questions of locating the soul in the universe, explaining what the soul was made from and how a physical substance gets from one ‘host’ to another. My understanding of the thesis of reincarnation similar to the one proposed by NMG is that souls are supposedly non-corporeal; they are not of the physical world.


I didnt say they were not of the physical world. They may or may not be. Space was once "heavens", it was just a religious matter or pure philosophic debate or source of myths or whatever until we had the technology to send vehicles to space.

Maybe one day we can understand souls. We still can not understand how universe works, with the two most fundemental principles of physics being discordant with eachother.


This ‘attachment’ presents Descates’ old dilemma in a new form: if souls are ‘attached’ to bodies, how are they ‘attached’? One option is that souls are physical themselves, just like our bodies. But if souls are part of the physical universe, and ‘attached’ to one’s body, then what difference are they to the bodymind?

A second option would be to say that the souls are non-physical, and attached to the physical body via some mechanism or phenomenon. But this leads us back to the old chestnut of how the non-physical and the physical interact. Is there a third substance that acts as a ‘go-between’ for the body and soul; and if so, what is it made from? A half physical, half non-physical substance makes little sense.

I cannot think of a third option, beyond the very strange ‘our bodies are non-physical’.


I don’ believe that’s the case, but that’s the way I understand NMG’s thinking on this manner. And by saying that your are under the ‘influence’ or in the state of ‘being John Smith’ implies that there will be a time when the soul is no longer in the state of ‘being John Smith’; proving my point that ‘John Smith’ would continue onto another life, or at least have some continuation on some level of existence after death.

Thus, even if there is an overarching soul that jumps from host to host after their deaths, it is hardly reincarnation. One cannot know yourself to continue after life, or know yourself to be the soul.


With pleasure.

If the soul affects John Smith, how does it do this? Beyond the problem of mind-body interaction outlined above, there’s also the problem of who or what is in charge. Is the soul ‘directing’ John Smith in the background; subtly influencing his choices or thoughts?


That's broadly my position, coupled with a big scepticism over the idea of a distinction between mind and body.

I understand what you are saying but I also think you are somewhat playing with semantics or maybe have the wrong reference point.

Your reference point of yourself is John Smith. I'd say it should be your soul which remembers everything but forgets once in a body, if you were to believe in reincarnation.

But I also agree with you that John Smith is unique. Thats why everyone should live their life to the fullest and not accept something shitty just because they are gonna be reincarnated. But then again, if you miss something, it'd be nice if you would still have many more chances to do it. I find this outlook optimistic. But that also makes me biased, I might be engaging in wishful thinking.

Believing in reincarnation is of course not as sound as saying that Earth is not flat but it is not as silly as saying Earth is flat. There may be some evidence such as Stevenson's work and one has to keep an open mind given that our understanding of the universe is very limited at this point. We are not sure that there can be no physical mechanisms for reincarnation unlike the fact that we are sure that earth is not flat.

Your reference point of yourself is John Smith. I’d say it should be your soul which remembers everything but forgets once in a body, if you were to believe in reincarnation.
To what end?

But I also agree with you that John Smith is unique.
If so, then what do you mean by the bolded words in the following quote:

Thats why everyone should live their life to the fullest and not accept something shitty just because they are gonna be reincarnated. But then again, if you miss something, it’d be nice if you would still have many more chances to do it.
My point is that ‘you’ wouldn’t have a chance to have another go. John Smith isn’t going to get a chance to do anything again, because John Smith will have died and a new personality/life/individual, who shares no memories, experiences or feelings with John Smith, will live his or her life.

You see my quandary?

Believing in reincarnation is of course not as sound as saying that Earth is not flat but it is not as silly as saying Earth is flat.
True.

There may be some evidence such as Stevenson’s work and one has to keep an open mind given that our understanding of the universe is very limited at this point. We are not sure that there can be no physical mechanisms for reincarnation unlike the fact that we are sure that earth is not flat.
Again, very true. Indeed, in the forefront of much cognitive science and philosophy of mind, there has been a slight return by a number of theorists to the idea of mind-body dualism. And when we look at forces in the universe such as gravity (which is itself hard to pin down as a physical force, or so I’m told) then an open mind is welcome; as in all fields of study.

I’m just yet to be convinced. ;)

.....there are a number of metaphysical problems to do with reincarnation.

I can never be reincarnated, because part of what constitutes ‘I’ is my body and my memories, experiences, etc. Indeed, some would argue that all ‘I’ am are these memories and past experiences. If ‘I’ am reincarnated in a new body, with no knowledge of my ‘past life’, then ‘I’ am a completely separate person to who ‘I’ was previously.

Our experiences, and to some extent our bodies, are contingent to our identities. Take them away and our identities disappear. Thus, the notion of reincarnation, at least in the sense of one self being ‘re-born’, is nonsensical.

The same applies to most, if not all, theories of an afterlife. Part of what makes me ‘me’ is my existence as a temporal being in a mortal body. Reduce me to some ‘soul’ flying about in Heaven, Valhalla or whatever, and I am no longer the person I was.

Well, the basic premise is that 'you' are not your body, but you- the eternal soul within. If you believe in a soul and a loving god/supreme being, then you will find reincarnation as a logical construct from that. If you don't believe in a soul, then yeah, you don't believe in reincarnation either and there is no contradiction between the two beliefs.

The common argument, assuming you believe in a soul, is

a baby dies after just being born. If it goes to hell - it would mean an unjust god..cuz the baby didn't do nothing wrong.

if it goes to heaven, it would still mean a frivolous god, since what purpose did the baby serve and why does it deserve heaven for doing nothing.

so, the idea is it is serving out its past karma..

Now, don't ask me complex questions based on the above...I am not saying I believe everything I wrote myself....I am merely quoting the arguments.;)

Do you believe in reincarnation?

Nope, the concept is interesting but I don't believe in it.

On NSG, yes.

I had a good reply, but then Jolt went funky again and i lost it. so from what i can remember, i think reincarnation is possible if there is a God. But is less likely without a God.
I wonder if reincarnation works without a God? hmmmm, now Buddhism follows something along those lines doesn't it? something about reincarnating through different realms (of which there is at least...12?) to a higher state of enlightenment.
Interesting, but i think it would be cruel to have reincarnation, that is unless...well actually maybe it could be a second chance at life sort of thing, yeah i can see it as a good thing, but not for everyone.