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

I hate to say this but, from the pretty good amount of study that I've done into buddhism, this is one of the stronger interpretations I've come to of the buddhist concept of reincarnation.

Patterns exist. You are one particular pattern. The forces that brought that particular pattern into existence are themselves patterns that reoccur through out existence. The specific pattern that is you reemerges countless times through out history. There doesn't need to be any continuity between these patterns any more than their needs to be continuity between two identical roles of dice.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I hate to say this but, from the pretty good amount of study that I've done into buddhism, this is one of the stronger interpretations I've come to of the buddhist concept of reincarnation.

Patterns exist. You are one particular pattern. The forces that brought that particular pattern into existence are themselves patterns that reoccur through out existence. The specific pattern that is you reemerges countless times through out history. There doesn't need to be any continuity between these patterns any more than their needs to be continuity between two identical roles of dice.

Darkmatters, I'm responding to you here, as well. While I agree to some extent with Xaq's summation, you're both minimizing the role of continuity a bit too much, needlessly IMO. "A consciousness" is not in fact a discrete unit, bound by birth and death and consistent within those bounds. When we think of ourselves as one life or one consciousness, it's really an approximation of many continuities, some on the scale of several generations, or of hominid history, or the time since the first twist of energy into mass in this cycle (just for some examples), while others barely bridge the span of three thoughts, or are limited to childhood or adolescence, or the span of one life. In the passing of human generations, various continuities on various scales do exhibit affinity and repulsion for one another, and if certain long continuities persist unchanged, they WILL exhibit some of the shorter continuities over and over again.

In this sense, much of what you are will persist unbroken into future incarnations, and the extent to which you get your constituent continuities to jam or harmonize will affect the plight of future "yous."

Thanks Taosaur, I appreciate the thoughtful response. It sounds like you're talking about more traditional reincarnation, with a little Karma thrown in. This is the kind of stuff that doesn't sit right with an atheist/skeptic like me. It implies that some part of you lives on after the body dies. What I'm talking about is a completely rational idea that doesn't require any kind of magic or spirit.. it's completely in agreement with the scientific ideas that a mind can't exist at all without a physical body to produce it... the same way light from a light bulb can't exist once the current is turned off. Sure, there's naturally occurring light, but not that particular light produced by that bulb.

It also sounds like you're talking about people living again and meeting each time, like for instance Cleopatra and Mark Antony being reincarnated over and over and always finding each other/ re-enacting their love through various lifetimes. It's a great idea, but again it requires a belief in some part that lives on when you die. That just goes against all scientific rationality.

so at the basic level...you mean just a new human exhibiting the same characteristics of what made you you. Like how some people are very similar and may even call them "twins"(though they arnt related) but these two people still have differences in their personalities however small, but this new being in your idea will not have any differences. They will be just like you.

No, there doesn't need to be any physical similarities at all, or any kind of similarities. Those are very superficial similarities. It's a completely different person, totally different personality... the only thing linking them is that "you" dwell inside the body and look out through the eyes.

Let me try a different way... because the part that's so hard to grasp is this concept of what awareness really is. This is something I've only thought about in this way since reading ETWOLD and finding this site.

Ok... let's say you're standing in a crowd of people. There are hundreds there... but only one of them is YOU. What is it that defines which one is you? You have access to your own thoughts in an immediate, personal way. You're inside this one body, looking out at all the others, and to you they're all only bodies... you have no access to their thoughts unless you talk to them, and then you have to think about what they say and try to understand it... hope they're not lying to you, translate due to different cultural ideas etc. So, you experience everybody else in the crowd OBJECTIVELY... from the outside. but you experience yourself SUBJECTIVELY... from the INSIDE. That's all I'm talking about... some time after your death your AWARENESS could live again, inside a completely different person.

It could be animals too... why not?

It's obvious that you are trying to fit the concept into a world that is only physical.

What you describe is not possible in that paradigm of thought, the rule-set of this physical reality does not allow for what you describe.

Even so more when your understanding of what consciousness is, consciousness is not a random configuration of matter that constitutes a specific awareness. That specific awareness is not dependent on physical matter to exist.

What kind of mechanism is there to transfer non-awareness into awareness that is purely physical? You must explain that first.

I don't know why you are trying to explain a non-physical concept with something physical. It is more logical to explain it in non-physical terms and then evaluate the reason in it.

You will be able to evolve your theory if you don't confine yourself to physicality.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

It's obvious that you are trying to fit the concept into a world that is only physical.

Well, I wouldn't say the world is "only" physical... but I think I understand what you mean. You mean I'm describing a world with no gods, no magic, and no spirits in it. If that's what you mean, then you're absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

What you describe is not possible in that paradigm of thought, the rule-set of this physical reality does not allow for what you describe.

How so? I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't. The only things that are NOT allowed in a 'physical' world would be spirits, gods, and magic (which incidentally are REQUIRED in all other concepts of reincarnation I've ever heard of). The idea I'm talking about is completely secular and compatible with an atheist view.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Even so more when your understanding of what consciousness is, consciousness is not a random configuration of matter that constitutes a specific awareness. That specific awareness is not dependent on physical matter to exist.

Ok, now you lost me completely. How does consciousness exist without a physical body? Are you talking about spirit? As in disembodied ghosts? Sorry, but I don't believe in that. According to science you cannot have consciousness without a brain.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

What kind of mechanism is there to transfer non-awareness into awareness that is purely physical? You must explain that first.

I don't understand the question. Wait... do you mean how does awareness or consciousness come into being when a person is born? Well... I'm not a scientist, and I really don't know. But then I doubt ANYBODY knows that. I'd say that's one of the deepest mysteries. All we can say about it for a fact is that it happens. But it isn't necessary to this theory to explain how it happens, only that it does.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

I don't know why you are trying to explain a non-physical concept with something physical. It is more logical to explain it in non-physical terms and then evaluate the reason in it.

You will be able to evolve your theory if you don't confine yourself to physicality.

But this theory is entirely about scientific realities. Non-physical terms don't apply. True, consciousness itself is NOT physical, but it is dependent upon a physical brain, which depends on a body.

See, it's not that I'm "trying" to come up with some way that an atheist can believe in reincarnation... not at all. It's more that, as I now understand consciousness (or more properly awareness), it suddenly occurred to me that there's absolutely no reason an awareness can't be reborn into a completely new body. Even that is a bit of a misrepresentation of the idea really... it's just so hard to talk about because we don't have a good way to express "your consciousness". It's not your memories or your personality... these are superficial layers on top of awareness. If you strip them away completely then you're left with pretty much what Im discussing.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Thanks Taosaur, I appreciate the thoughtful response. It sounds like you're talking about more traditional reincarnation, with a little Karma thrown in. This is the kind of stuff that doesn't sit right with an atheist/skeptic like me. It implies that some part of you lives on after the body dies. What I'm talking about is a completely rational idea that doesn't require any kind of magic or spirit.. it's completely in agreement with the scientific ideas that a mind can't exist at all without a physical body to produce it... the same way light from a light bulb can't exist once the current is turned off. Sure, there's naturally occurring light, but not that particular light produced by that bulb.

It also sounds like you're talking about people living again and meeting each time, like for instance Cleopatra and Mark Antony being reincarnated over and over and always finding each other/ re-enacting their love through various lifetimes. It's a great idea, but again it requires a belief in some part that lives on when you die. That just goes against all scientific rationality.

I think your rejection here but acceptance of what I said above is only a matter of cultural misunderstanding. You said you liked the pattern analogy. Well it is not really an analogy, but a literal description in the most basic terms. A human being is put extremely simply, a pattern. Every part of a human being, from a cell to a personality to 'awareness' is another type of pattern contained within the encompassing pattern of that person.

During the course of your lifetime, there will be recurring patterns in your life. You will date very similar women, you will enjoy similar experiences. In terms of the role that they fulfill, you could say that you will date the same woman over and over again.

What Taosaur said was no different to what I had said earlier, it just applied to a larger scale. There are social and physical patterns that encompass large amounts of people, animals, plants, earth, ideas, etc. For instance, the United States, or Catholicism, or "people who have read The Lord of the Rings". These patterns act as a unified force and have the ability to create smaller patterns within themselves purely by the methodical and recurring way they effect the world and the parts that make them up.

I believe Carl Jung's 'archetypes' is the closest explanation that I've found for something like this from a scientific perspective.

The reason why 'karma' effects you from a past life is the same reason why a person's bad or good habits effects their cells now the same way they did 15 years ago. The reason why we don't understand that this is natural and not supernatural is because we are not very good at stepping back and seeing the larger patterns that we are a part of.

Edit:
Taosaur brought up a very good point that I wanted to expand on. You say that your awareness only exists in your body and is created by the forces of that body. An absolutely materialistic world view that disregards quantum indeterminacy assumes that "you" were bound to happen exactly as you did, and you were bound to do/think exactly as you do based on a chain of cause and effect that extends backwards through time as far as we might care to look. Why then, are your predetermined actions driven by awareness and conscious thought now, but not before? Why is this particular portion of the unending, unbending chain of cause and effect aware and conscious but other portions were not? Don't you think it is extremely coincidental that the only aware portion of the particular chain of events that causes you to exist is the same portion that is now asking "why me? why now?". If we were to apply Occam's Razor, we'd say that there really is nothing special about you or now, and that the entire process is the same.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

What I'm talking about is a completely rational idea completely in agreement with the scientific ideas that a mind can't exist at all without a physical body to produce it.the same way light from a light bulb can't exist once the current is turned off. Sure, there's naturally occurring light, but not that particular light produced by that bulb.

Science has never found this or proved that the mind exists because of the brain. It is just as plausible that the brain is the radio reciever and the mind are like radio waves. However, that too, is an assumption.

The energy that makes the light bulb light up still exists, it just isn't connected to the light bulb anymore.

I used to lay awake at night when I was a kid and ask myself the same questions you are asking. Like: why am I alive now and not then? Why am I me and not him? How come if he is conscious and I am conscious why can't I be him? You are right, it is hard to say.

I like your enquiries and your avoidance of simple pre-fabricated answers like magic and supernatural things. But what do you mean by supernatural?

So basically, my consciousness dies, my sense of I dies. Another consciousness is born and with it a sense of I is born that fills the vacuum of the sense of I that died. For example, if I die and there is another consciousness it basically is my consciousness because how can it be separate from me? If it is separate from me that means I exist in relation to it. Yet there is no continuity. It is hard to talk about.

This thread has been a fascinating read. Thank you Darkmatters for starting it, and to everyone who has contributed. Specialis Sapientia, I want to say thanks for bringing My Big TOE into it as well as I recognise you from the forum over there and it was the last thing I have read prior to coming to this LD forum. I haven't finished the book yet though I understand the concepts. I've stopped reading for now to work through my own beliefs (hence wanting to explore my subconscious through LD) before I add too much of the bigger picture in because I want to finish reading it later and see if it still fits well with me.

Darkmatters - I understand what you are saying and I like the idea... though it feels "gappy" to me. Which is just fine, I think any theory should be kept open and built upon when new data comes up. I guess to me it feels a "waste"... Experiences are just lost when one dies, and a new "I" comes into play with the same awareness. It solves the fear of death, but what's the point? How does it help with evolution of life? Why is my awareness special enough to come back into existence? I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but to me if it's in the format you have stated, then it may be as you say, but it may just as likely be that my awareness never comes back.

I think the human brain/mind system is amazing. The very fact that we can come up with these concepts, express them in words, read others words and then integrate them into our own personality structures along with everything else we have already built into ourselves. The fact that we can do all this and yet noone *really* knows how we do it! The fact that in this lifetime, I'm likely to still not know exactly how it all works.

I hope this thread keeps going, it's given me food for thought. I might add some more tomorrow when I'm not so tired, but I found it such a good read I had to reply - it's refreshing to see a theory such as this. My own mind isn't made up either way as to whether we just have one life, or if our awareness continues somehow. It's never likely to be fixed on either idea either, I try to keep too much of an open mind - and thinking that "my" consciousness *may* rely on "my" brain gives me such a huge apprieciation of the life I have, and being able to spend time with my children and other loved ones, even when it's not going so well, I don't consider it a bad thing - it stops me from getting too caught up in the petty things (when I remember it!). Though the fear of non existance is something I would like to live without. The "who cares, you won't even know when it happens" doesn't wash with me. It just doesn't *feel* right. And gives a whole cosmic joke feeling to our amazing capacity for furthering our species.

I might post my own current stance on "life and everything" tomorrow, if you feel it would be helpful to the line of discussion. If not, I'm happy to keep my beliefs to myself. But I hope the thread continues, and I'll keep tabs on it.

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Darkmatters - I understand what you are saying and I like the idea... though it feels "gappy" to me. Which is just fine, I think any theory should be kept open and built upon when new data comes up. I guess to me it feels a "waste"... Experiences are just lost when one dies, and a new "I" comes into play with the same awareness. It solves the fear of death, but what's the point? How does it help with evolution of life?

Hi Bumblebee, thanks for popping in here! Glad to have your voice added to the thread. And I don[t think you're really expecting me to answer these questions, but here goes anyway, for bonus points

Evolution of life? To me that seems like a religious concept, at least as it applies to reincarnation. But I can see where many people would disagree. But in thinking about this question, you've just made me realize this... maybe according to this idea there's no evolution from one life to another, but YOU GET TO BE A CHILD AGAIN!!!

That in itself is pure gold!!! I hadn't thought of that aspect of it before, but now I'm filled with joy at the thought.. to return to childhood and experience that blissful naive innocence all over again... the sheer joyous energy of childhood.. the sense of all of life wide open ahead of you.. all the doors wide open... my heart is really overflowing with joy thinking about it!

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Why is my awareness special enough to come back into existence?

Ok, again, I think this is rhetorical, and I think you understand that's not the way this concept works. But no, it's not because your awareness is anything special (any more than any awareness is, which isn't to say they're not... just that they're all equally special). It's more totally random. IF this idea is fact (and I have no way to know that, it's just sheer speculation on my part), then most likely EVERYBODY lives again and again. I have no ideas about the correspondence... I would assume new consciousnesses are coming into being all the time, since the world grows more overpopulated year by year. But then, what if we include animals? They're conscious, right? And... a really weird thought... are insects? Plants? If so, then maybe there's more of a balance, since many species of plants and animals have gone extinct in recent decades (I think?) or at least there's a lot less wilderness to support them. But this is getting weird now, and I really don't think there's any balancing factor... what "feels" right to me is that new awarenesses are created every day -- in fact all of them are absolutely brand new... it's only the sense of subjectivity that makes it "you". I've had some thoughts on how to try to express this slightly better, and I'll try to make sense of them in a minute here...

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but to me if it's in the format you have stated, then it may be as you say, but it may just as likely be that my awareness never comes back.

Yep.. it's a crap shoot!

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

I think the human brain/mind system is amazing. The very fact that we can come up with these concepts, express them in words, read others words and then integrate them into our own personality structures along with everything else we have already built into ourselves. The fact that we can do all this and yet noone *really* knows how we do it! The fact that in this lifetime, I'm likely to still not know exactly how it all works.

I hope this thread keeps going, it's given me food for thought. I might add some more tomorrow when I'm not so tired, but I found it such a good read I had to reply - it's refreshing to see a theory such as this. My own mind isn't made up either way as to whether we just have one life, or if our awareness continues somehow.

Same here... the jury is totally out. Im definitely not saying "This IS what happens"... just that it's an idea that struck me the other day and it actually feels more possible to me than any other ideas I've encountered about reincarnation or an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

It's never likely to be fixed on either idea either, I try to keep too much of an open mind - and thinking that "my" consciousness *may* rely on "my" brain gives me such a huge apprieciation of the life I have, and being able to spend time with my children and other loved ones, even when it's not going so well, I don't consider it a bad thing - it stops me from getting too caught up in the petty things (when I remember it!). Though the fear of non existance is something I would like to live without. The "who cares, you won't even know when it happens" doesn't wash with me. It just doesn't *feel* right. And gives a whole cosmic joke feeling to our amazing capacity for furthering our species.

I might post my own current stance on "life and everything" tomorrow, if you feel it would be helpful to the line of discussion. If not, I'm happy to keep my beliefs to myself. But I hope the thread continues, and I'll keep tabs on it.

Sure, by all means!! I'd love to hear it!

I'm going to go ahead and post this and start a new one for my new analogy that will make this idea so clear everyone will understand it!

Ok, some thoughts I had while sitting in McDonald's today -- this might help to explain the idea better:

First, the all-important concept of SUBJECTIVITY. This concept is crucial to understanding what I'm talking about. And for the sake of keeping this simple, Ill confine it to talking about people... though keep in mind animals might be included as consciousnesses.

How many people exist in the world right now? I don't know... billions anyway. Only one of them is YOU. All the rest are what I'l call NOT-YOU. Think about the differences.

YOU have total and immediate access to your own thoughts and feelings, your memories (well, some have better and quicker access to those than others... ). You DON'T have direct access to anyone else's thoughts feelings or memories... to get to them you need to communicate with that person, a process fraught with mishap and distortions. Would that we could plug a USB cable directly between our heads and uplink mind to mind, but alas, the technology is not yet here.

Another feature of subjectivity... you see the inside of your own eyelids, where as you see the outside of everyone else's. Unless they're doing that gross trick where they turn their eyelids inside out... but I digress.

By SUBJECTIVITY I am not referring to your awareness (though I'm sure I called it that earlier... hey, I'm slowly learning how to express this, ok? Give me a break!). I'm also not referring to your consciousness or your mind. Not your personality or your thoughts or memories... ONLY the sense that it's YOU in there... behind those eyes, between those ears.

I thought I had more on the sense of subjectivity, but I guess that's it. Well, I had this stupid thing with a bunch of ping-pong balls all white except for one blue one, but that's just dumb. We're not here to talk about blue balls anyway.

Alright with that concept of subjectivity firmly in mind, let's begin at the beginning. You were brought into this world as an embryo. Somewhere along the way, I have no idea just when, the brain of said embryo developed to the point that it began to function. I don't know if a fetus is considered conscious or not... and I'm not here to debate that point. Really it's not important if it happens in the womb or sometime during infancy, but consciousness forms in your soft little head. I understand now that some of you believe the brain doesn't CREATE consciousness but is rather an organic machine that downloads or receives it. I'm not familiar enough yet with these ideas to say whether this affects the sense of subjectivity or not. My gut instinct is to say subjectivity dies with the body, but who can say? I just think that, without eyes to look out through and ears to nestle between there's no real sense of "I". But I could be wrong.

This is how you came into the world. According to my idea, when your body dies that sense of subjectivity goes with it.

On the day you die, how many new consciousnesses are born? Thousands? ... And how about in the following year? Decade?

Look at it another way. How many consciousnesses have ever been created in the world? EVER. That's a loooong time friends!! Even if we include only humans (not sure at what point we draw the line between protohuman and true human, but anyway... ) the number is astronomical. Now... how many MORE consciousnesses will ever be born into the world in the future? And let's assume the future doesn't end in 2012, shall we?

Ok, back to where I left off before this little side-track... how many consciousnesses will be born on the day you die? They're all brand spankin' new (I believe anyway)... but EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS A SENSE OF SUBJECTIVITY FOR WHOEVER IS INSIDE THAT BODY. Let's not forget... every "NOT-YOU" is somebody too... to them, THEY are a YOU and you are a NOT-YOU. Gets confusing, don't it? But my point is... every one of those little baby consciousnesses (never used that weird word before getting to this forum... see what this place is doing to me!!?? ) -- every one of them has its own subjective sense of being somebody's I.

All I'm saying is, why couldn't ONE of them (not necessarily on the same day you die, could be years later or decades, any amount of time really) subjectively be YOU again?

Damn, and once again I run into that wall!

I can just see over it, but I can't get past it. Words always fail me right at that point.

But I'm glad a couple of people understand... thats very encouraging. My hope is that it's like seeing a cockroach.. you know, they say for every one you actually see there are a hundred more hiding. So maybe some people have read it and "get it" but just haven't posted.

Man, every time I try to express it better I feel like I just went through the wringer!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Hi Bumblebee, thanks for popping in here! Glad to have your voice added to the thread. And I don[t think you're really expecting me to answer these questions, but here goes anyway, for bonus points

Thanks! Actually, I had a pretty good idea that you would answer those questions and hoped you would, as it would give me a launching pad to try to explain my own POV. Ahh, I'm building a mental model of you already, isn't it great!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Evolution of life? To me that seems like a religious concept, at least as it applies to reincarnation. But I can see where many people would disagree. But in thinking about this question, you've just made me realize this... maybe according to this idea there's no evolution from one life to another, but YOU GET TO BE A CHILD AGAIN!!!

That in itself is pure gold!!! I hadn't thought of that aspect of it before, but now I'm filled with joy at the thought.. to return to childhood and experience that blissful naive innocence all over again... the sheer joyous energy of childhood.. the sense of all of life wide open ahead of you.. all the doors wide open... my heart is really overflowing with joy thinking about it!

Nope, I don't mean it in a religious sense at all. I'll explain why. The universe is never wasteful. The molecules in my body didn't always reside here, heck I'm losing them constantly and they are being replaced constantly. When I die, my body will break down and nourish the earth (well, not so much if I get buried in a coffin... Which is why I'm thinking about being cremated... Humans seem to love going against the grain of the natural world. But that's the way nature works, even if we try to go against it). From a purely materialist POV, our experiences are carried down by teaching on the most part. It's the whole nature vs nurture thing. There's no doubt that nurture has a huge impact. Yet you can treat two children in exactly the same way, and they would react differently. The big question is if this difference is due to *just* genetics, or "something else" as well. Note I'm not saying there IS "something else". I'm just open to the possibility.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, again, I think this is rhetorical, and I think you understand that's not the way this concept works. But no, it's not because your awareness is anything special (any more than any awareness is, which isn't to say they're not... just that they're all equally special). It's more totally random. IF this idea is fact (and I have no way to know that, it's just sheer speculation on my part), then most likely EVERYBODY lives again and again. I have no ideas about the correspondence... I would assume new consciousnesses are coming into being all the time, since the world grows more overpopulated year by year. But then, what if we include animals? They're conscious, right? And... a really weird thought... are insects? Plants? If so, then maybe there's more of a balance, since many species of plants and animals have gone extinct in recent decades (I think?) or at least there's a lot less wilderness to support them. But this is getting weird now, and I really don't think there's any balancing factor... what "feels" right to me is that new awarenesses are created every day -- in fact all of them are absolutely brand new... it's only the sense of subjectivity that makes it "you". I've had some thoughts on how to try to express this slightly better, and I'll try to make sense of them in a minute here...

This is where the stumbling point for me comes in... And where I see you hit your brick wall again when further explaining it. I do know exactly (filtered through my own subjectivity of course ) what you are saying.

I'll try to explain why from a purely materialist POV, this isn't possible IMO. According the the materialist POV, I am simply an input/output device. An extremely complex one, but nothing more than that. When I developed in my Mum's womb, I was the product of an egg and sperm meeting through random chance, determining how my body and mind would turn out. Had a different sperm met that egg, or they waited a month, "I" would not exist and would not be having this conversation with you. As a baby, because of my brain/body make up, certain things felt good, other things felt bad. This created feedback loops which developed a mind. This continues until I am the age I am now where I am a much more complex being than I was back then which gives rise to the illusion of ego. I am actually much more than my ego, as described in ETWOLD (thanks for the reference, awesome book and I ate it up!) but this is stored in my subconscious mind and I have disowned much of it, preferring to believe certain parts of it as "me". However it's still purely I/O, as I am not aware of the underlying subconscious associations which have been programmed into me as I developed it feels like "I" am making the shots. But actually there would be no "free will", due to the exact way my subconscious has been programmed whatever actions I take are inevitable and based on the exact circumstances that my body/brain is faced with.

Of course this is a gross simplification of the system, and so many variables are thrown in that it's possible to see why we feel that we have freewill and a "self", but from this POV, had I not developed in this body, the awareness that is me would not be existant. If I become non existant, due to the I/O nature of "me", I don't think I'm coming back. I'm kind of pointing in the direction I'm meaning when I say this but I don't think I'm completely explaining it, but hopefully you can understand what I'm saying.

I'll try to explain my own views but they are likely to be even more fragmented than when you started your topic. I haven't tried to fully write it out, it's more a concept that has been brewing. I'll do my best though.

Let's go back to the begginning of the Universe. There was the big bang, and the Universe came into existance. Before then, what? That's the key point that leads me to believe that there is "something else". Because out of nothing, came everything. It's the paradox that made existance possible. And however you try to explain it you come up with something "Supernatural". Though obviously it's not. It is how it is, and something that we don't yet understand how it happened, yet it obviously did happen. This, by the way, is also a key point in My Big TOE referenced by Specialis Sapientia and I think it's a good one. The reference for the book if you fancy a read is My Big TOE, and it's worth a read IMO.

So, the question I pose is which comes first, the mind or the brain? I know from the materialist POV, it's a given. The mind arises from the brain until scientifically proven otherwise. My theory however is that this isn't quite true.

This is going to be hard to put into words... When I look around me, I see the outside world. But it's an illusion. What i'm seeing is the data that my brain is processing from what is really "out there" and it is displayed in my "mind". When you LD, that outside input is cut off and your brain interupts what is in your subconscious and displays that in your "mind" instead. This is a literal infinity of "worlds" that can be created based on your subjective experience. Even when I'm awake and view the "objective" world, this is filtered by the mental constructs I have created around certain things, giving me the "that is good", "that is bad" feeling. The brain and mind are a totallity, but which comes first?

My theory is along the lines that the "mind" comes first. The "I" I think myself to be is part of a greater "mind". This is true even from a materialist POV - My "ego" is actually part of a greater "subconscious" that most of us don't even really know. What I propose is that even this "subconscious" is part of an even bigger, universal mind. Yes, I know this sounds like "God". But honestly, I hate that word and it's not quite what I mean. This mind is an awareness of everything in the universe all at once. It doesn't however act on anything directly, such as the typical concept of "God". It just is. And through this mind organising itself cyclically it creates organisims capable of expressing more of this mind at one time thereby being able to have more of an organising effect. So "I" represent one part of this mind and I can influence other parts of this mind (represented by "you") by giving my views. When this happens, a subset of this universal mind is strengthened and things like religions, morals, instincts, etc etc are formed. So when I die, the "me" is absorbed into the universal mind and possibly my awareness expands to this universal mind (as experienced in some NDEs and mystical experiences where you get a sense of every question being answered before it's asked). That awareness is then indiviualised again and subconsciously moulds the new brain.

I think I've vaguely explained what I mean, but not very well... Whatever seems unclear please do question, it will help me evolve my own theory. But to me that's the missing link in your own theory - the awareness isn't lost, but expanded. And this universal mind isn't "done", it's constanly evolving through all kinds of life possible. Yes, it's a very "life" based theory - The universe could well exist with no "life", but there would be no observer and therefore it would not be known to exist - making life a simply beautiful thing. But from what I'm saying, every atom is "aware" via the universal mind, only at the level of human existance we shut ourselves into a little box which says "this" is me, rather than I am merely part of a "whole" awareness...

That's the best I can do at the moment!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Science has never found this or proved that the mind exists because of the brain. It is just as plausible that the brain is the radio reciever and the mind are like radio waves. However, that too, is an assumption.

The energy that makes the light bulb light up still exists, it just isn't connected to the light bulb anymore.

I used to lay awake at night when I was a kid and ask myself the same questions you are asking. Like: why am I alive now and not then? Why am I me and not him? How come if he is conscious and I am conscious why can't I be him? You are right, it is hard to say.

I like your enquiries and your avoidance of simple pre-fabricated answers like magic and supernatural things. But what do you mean by supernatural?

When I refer to a "supernatural" concept of the soul I mean as in the religious sense... a soul that not only lives forever after the body dies (this in itself isn't necessarily a supernatural idea, as you and several other people have suggested) - but that ALSO carries your karma and possibly your memories and personality into the afterlife or another body with it. Coming from a rationalist viewpoint, it's too hard for me to accept a soul capable of all that! And it just seems a little too convenient too... it carries a totally pat reward/Punishment meme with it. "Do well in this life and you'll be rewarded n the next... do wrong and you'll be punished." Actually in many religions it's more like "Accept only THIS god over all others and you'll be rewarded.... " I don't know... it doesn't jibe with anything we understand about the world, and it suggest there's someone keeping score like I mentioned earlier... looking over you report card and deciding what level to promote you to. This is not the way things work in the natural world. So to me these ideas just raise the red flag that says "Somebody made this idea up".

Now a NATURAL soul or spirit I can totally accept... like what's being described currently on the What does spirituality provide that science doesn't thread. Spirit in the sense of "lift my spirit" or "team spirit". These concepts describe something hard to define but definitely real, which seems capable of affecting groups of people all together. Personally I cant describe just what this is, but I know it's real because I've experienced it.

Oh, and when I say "supernatural" ideas about soul or spirit, that also tends to include a supernatural world (like heaven or hell) that somehow exists in a completely different dimension.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So basically, my consciousness dies, my sense of I dies. Another consciousness is born and with it a sense of I is born that fills the vacuum of the sense of I that died. For example, if I die and there is another consciousness it basically is my consciousness because how can it be separate from me? If it is separate from me that means I exist in relation to it. Yet there is no continuity. It is hard to talk about.

Yeah!!! EXACTLY!!! It sounds like you understand. The idea is in full accordance with my understanding of how the natural world works.. no alternate universe filled with angels, no scorecards keeping track of your good deeds and bad deeds, no personality traits transferred to the new body, or physical traits. Personally I don't remember any former lives... do you? And that doesn't fill me with sorrow... why would I care about former lives as long as I'm alive now? Heh.. and I gotta say... now that I've been thinking bout this for a few days, it actually seems better... I prefer the idea of starting with a clean slate each time as a totally different person with no memories rather than starting from where you left off last time.