Ok, trying this again -- refining my theory on NON-SPIRITUAL, NON-RELIGIOUS reINCARNATION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephL

Yepp - here I do agree with you totally it seems to me. I am of the opinion, that even a primitive nervous system, even in primitive animals, brings forth something like this basic sense of self. So I guess, it's starting in the womb. But we'll have to wait for further scientific insight to get some clarity about the boundaries here. I could even imagine, that it's a continuum, which starts out with life in general, maybe in it's most basic state is identical to life as such

---

So yeah - see above - I can imagine consciousness without nervous system as well, Dthoughts. And I wonder if being alive might not actually equal having a very, very basic consciousness. In the sense of it being one huge continuum containing all lifeforms. Bacteria do have chemotaxia for example - swimming somewhere along a chemical gradient, that might count. But I can't imagine it without a body or other substrate. Maybe we will one fine day be able to "upload" consciousness and continuous sense of self onto a technically devised platform, but that's still science fiction. Actually - that's exactly the context, where we were originally coming from with our discussion:
http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...wn-dreams.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

...forget about the spiritual implications that are obviously implied when saying Incarnate although probably not intentional.

But my beliefs collide with you presented your theory because I personally do believe in a non-incarnate consciousness and reason that reincarnation might be a possible phenomenon. I believe that consciousness does come into a baby with memories and a sense of self already in place. I wasn't one of those babies that's for sure , I may have delved a bit into solipsism when I was 6 but that's as far as it gets. But my parents shunned those idea in the same way I think they do when a kid tells them about past-life experiences they have had.

---

Exactly!!
Only like this do the terms re-/incarnation make sense - with something incorporeal to become incarnated. Irrespective of me not believing in it, so it is at least consistent internally and also with Buddhist tradition.
I do not have a problem to understand it when people hold this belief, if they are aware of it being a belief of a religious/"supernatural" sort.
And now I decided to also not make it my problem, if somebody wants to "have it both ways" which I fail to understand. Since honestly - I do have other things to consider an actual problem to throw myself at. And concerning "virtual problems" - I'd much rather "rally" against Christianity, which I consider actually harmful in most it's serious expressions, while Buddhism does strike me as a fairly fine religion to have, all considered. Including reincarnation, if you don't come along and say somebody would suffer in this life because of having messed up their karma in the ones before. So that it would be your own fault, if you got cancer, say, or had an accident. That's very dangerous territory, I find - but I don't often hear it like that, and definitively not on here up to now.

This not making it a problem now also and "even" goes for my husband. Nice of you that you too are wondering and concerned. But no need, we had our fourth round yesterday, completely peaceful even without special music. But thank you - you are really sweet!
He didn't like that I wrote he would have suffered from cognitive dissonance under his original assumption, namely that you wouldn't need the supernatural, and didn't like me spelling it out, that he would have turned 180° the second time around. But now he says, he doesn't believe it anyway, would "stay" agnostic towards it besides energetically "not caring" about the dissonance aspect. I'm even "authorized" to write that...:wink:
And it's perfectly fine!
Or lets say it's fair enough for me to consider this a proper end-point for the domestic side of affairs.
I even believe that I did convince him deep down, but I do not have to hear him actually spell it out once more. That's unauthorized of course. :tongue::D

Wow, seriously, after I've explained it so thoroughly so many times, you guys still think there's something supernatural about this idea? No wonder you refuse to accept it - you still don't really understand what I'm saying.


I missed this before:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

there is a you being incarnate somewhere othen then your body

---

What does that even mean, and how would it be possible? As I understand it the word incarnate simply means "in the flesh" or "made flesh", which is appropriate since the self-awareness indeed can only exist in a fully functional body. At no point did I ever say anything about it existing anywhere else. And if it did that would not be called incarnate.

Steph, feel free to ignore this, I understand your mind is made up and that's cool - but I now understand exactly where the problem is - which part needs further elaboration. And I'm going to give it another shot while it's on my mind.



The part that's beyond our understanding is at the point when awareness develops in the growing body - when it comes into existence. What is it that made it you, rather than just another "somebody else"? Is it just randomness? It seems like it to me, though of course there's no way we can know. And of course, as we've discussed at length, awareness is a very basic part of the mind - what I would consider probably the most basic part of it. An emergent property of thought. And thought is the result of electrical current moving through the brain. This is important because it means the awareness is not a discrete thing at all - it's not even electrical current, but somehow results from it, to make a rather poor analogy like the light emerging from a bulb. This is why it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when people talk about "the same self" or "how does it get in there" - there is no THING to get in there! It's an emergent property. It's not necessarily even the same YOU from one moment to the next, except in the sense that a river is the same river even though the water is different every few minutes. If you would take the water from a river and put it in a different channel, would it be "the same river"? It's a completely meaningless question - it assumes that a river is somehow a discreet thing when it is far from that.

Thousands of these awarenesses come into existence every day in thousands of little bodies - billions or more if you include animals - and for whatever reason which is utterly beyond our comprehension, one of them at one time was YOU. Why that particular one? No telling. I don't know how to explain what it even means to say "one of them is you" - it's simply as close as I can come to explaining what I mean. The words fail miserably at their job, but I don't know of any better terms. But hopefully people understand what I'm trying to say. I suspect this is exactly the stumbling point for everybody who doesn't understand. If I could only explain it a little better, suddenly everybody (who doesn't have religious beliefs or other spiritual beliefs that preclude this) would just slap themselves on the forehead and say "D'OH!! Is THAT all it is?It's so simple and so obvious, but I couldn't understand it before because I thought we could only choose between the already existing options - either you go to Heaven/Hell/Purgatory, you (insert spiritual belief here) or you simply cease to exist, forever and ever."

And I think this may be another stumbling block. I think some people love the "cease to exist forever and ever" part specifically because it shocks and terrifies Christians. It's a flail to whip them with. And if they were to accept my theory then they lose that.

Wow, I really understand it much better now.

Let's say that consciousness is pure unaldurated H2O and my body is the molds of how this water has flown through it since birth. My body being my nervous system and housing my memories and all of my personalities. When I switch up this waterflow with the water that flows through your body. Did our personalities just change? No. Nothing changed. Even though you actually did something to evoke it. You played with awareness. I think maybe where you may run into trouble is with those who believe firmly that consciousness arises out of complexity from a nervous system. For them, consciousness dies completely with the body and a sense of self is a short phenomenon that lasts only one lifetime. You see to explain your theory i (well you did actually) brought into existence a substance (h2o in this case) to represent consciousness. But for them, there is no substance. I now think that this is the main cause for your opposition.

The very words Incarnate into flesh implies in the mind of the reader a sense of past experience. It simply does this. I understand you did not mean it this way. But in a semantic sense, the choice of words isn't optimal. Emergence is the only word that I know of that does the job. But I don't think it would appeal to a broad audience. But I think it certainly does the job better than Reincarnation

There's more to talk about. But I'll be awaiting your reponse, I hope my post was helpful to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I think maybe where you may run into trouble is with those who believe firmly that consciousness arises out of complexity from a nervous system. For them, consciousness dies completely with the body and a sense of self is a short phenomenon that lasts only one lifetime.

---

^ This is what I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

You see to explain your theory i (well you did actually) brought into existence a substance (h2o in this case) to represent consciousness. But for them, there is no substance. I now think that this is the main cause for your opposition.

---

I intended the water to represent the electrical current (flow of electrons, like flow of water molecules), not consciousness itself, which arises as an emergent property from that electrical activity. See, the emergent property of consciousness, or more properly of thought, or to be even more reductionist about it simply of awareness, is a pattern arising from the flow of electrons, analogous to the patterns of ripples on the surface of the river, or the deeper but invisible currents that are the 'subconscious' element of those surface ripples. But this is getting too complex now and away from the clarity of the metaphor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

The very words Incarnate into flesh implies in the mind of the reader a sense of past experience. It simply does this.

---

Reincarnate implies past experience - 're' meaning again. Incarnate simply means to live in the flesh, at least as I understand it. If incarnate carried that meaning then there would be no need to call living again reincarnation, it would just be called incarnation. But I do think you're right that most people seeing the word reincarnation automatically knee-jerk all the way to full-on Buddhist or magical ideas. And incarnate to most people probably does conjure ideas of body/spirit duality. Maybe it's foolish of me to assume that by now I've laid this idea to rest through the course of this thread, but that is what I assume. And I do realize that generally the term incarnate implies a god or spirit being invested with flesh - but then I've explained countless times that what I'm talking about is not a god or a spirit, but simply the awareness that each of us has - the sense of being alive. But I also believe it depends on the kind of person. Some will get it right away, or have already thought about it. The ones who don't get it right away probably never will due to some kind of inbuilt bias. But I do think that for the future I should strip away certain ideas that tend to mislead people - there's really no reason to go into such depth about the awareness or the observer - it was just a way to get people to understand that all I'm talking about is the simple brute sense of being alive inside a particular body. You're undoubtedly right that it's counterproductive to go through all that other stuff. In this idea's next incarnation (see what I did there? :chuckle: ) I'll strip all that stuff away. I think now I have much better ways to explain it more concisely. Hehe - and don't worry - no, it won't be on this message board next time. I think this message board has had all it can bear of this endless and endlessly repeated topic. Though I do thank everybody for giving me so many opportunities to refine and elaborate on it and to think deeper into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

There's more to talk about. But I'll be awaiting your reponse, I hope my post was helpful to you.

---

It was indeed, and I thank you for it.