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

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Yes, many people have devoted their lives to pondering these mysteries... but usually under the aegis of one belief system or another, and their thinking reflects only that belief system.

HAH! You really don't believe you're free from any belief system effecting your judgment do you? Of course you aren't, this is almost exactly the same as re-incarnation, only some minor changes make it slightly different.

Originally Posted by tommo

HAH! You really don't believe you're free from any belief system effecting your judgment do you? Of course you aren't, this is almost exactly the same as re-incarnation, only some minor changes make it slightly different.

Of course, you're absolutely right. My point wasn't that I'm free of any belief systems, only that the people who've written in the past about similar subjects have done it from THEIR OWN perspectives. Religious or spiritual perspectives.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

OK, but you are very wrong that everything else than (established) science
is conjecture.

Ok, true... some ideas that haven't been investigated scientifically certainly might be valid. But I'm starting from bedrock here. What I keep referring to as the rational materialist perspective. And by that I mean only this... a perspective from the natural world... not accepting anything supernatural. No magic, no gods. I chose the words rational and materialist very quickly as I was typing... it's possible they carry connotations other than what I intended. Please understand.... as I've said many times now, I'm simply investigating an idea that occurred to me. Writing about it here helps me to expand my thinking on it (as long as I'm not constantly defending myself against technicalities and ill-chosen words I might have used). And you're right on another point as well... what I'm talking about is an idea... not a theory. I said that several times now in this long and winding thread, though I know I used the term theory in the title. That was a mistake, which I realized only after writing a bit.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Be a scientist with consciousness, with your own consciousness. Nobody else can be that scientist, because consciousness is personal. Go ahead of science, you don't have to wait decades before established/mainstream science comes to the right conclusion.

Yes, that is what I'm doing. That's what this thread is about after all, right? Im exploring new ideas relating to consciousness. As far as I know, science has never mentioned anything remotely like this idea. In fact as I've also mentioned already, it can't be tested by science.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

“Fundamental assumptions in general and scientific assumptions in particular are so hard to overturn because they are based on belief. Beliefs are so hard to overcome because they are irrational and therefore do not yield to logical argument.” - Thomas Campbell

That is true of beliefs. But think about what we mean by the word belief. It means faith in something even though we don't know if it's true. The term belief is used for things like religions, spirituality, ghosts, etc. It's not used for what we perceive to be realities, like gravity or light. These things are accepted realities (even though we may not completely understand HOW they work). Nobody asks "Do you believe in gravity?". Accepted realities don't need to be believed. Facts with a great deal of scientific evidence backing them don't need to be "believed". Like evolution for instance. Do I "believe" in evolution? The term doesn't apply... evolution is a well-documented reality and does not require my belief or anyone else's in order to exist. And my disbelieving in it does not make it suddenly untrue either. I accept evolution as a fact.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

We do not need to fear death, but I can't simply agree that an average atheist materialist would agree that your theory is compatible with their worldview.

Oh, I completely agree!!! That's the reason it was necessary to start this thread in the first lace. If this idea was already well known or accepted, then what would be the point? It would be like starting a thread saying "New theory.... the sun is at the center of the solar system!!".

But my point is this... I began from bedrock... from what Im referring to as the materialist, rational viewpoint which says that when the body dies the consciousness dies with it. And because I now have the conception of consciousness that I've developed in recent months (from reading Castaneda, ETWOLD, and this message board) I suddenly realized that this idea seems quite likely. Do all rational material atheists share this concept of what consciousness is? Of course not! Oh, and before anybody can attack this point... I know Castaneda hardy fits into a rational materialist worldview... but I'm selective and use my critical facilities as I read, and I sift through and separate what I consider primitive superstition from what I consider wisdom in Castaneda. My assumptions I know, but I consider myself very rational.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

If I change my mind to an atheist materialist I would not be able to see the logic.

Of course -- see my response above. I STARTED from the existing bedrock of the rational materialist perspective, and I made a vary small leap of intuition... I'd call it a step rather than a leap really. A step that does not require a soul or a spirit or a god or a spiritual world in order to be reborn. Nothing that goes against science in any way whatsoever. The idea is incredibly simple... far simpler than any religious or spiritual idea of reincarnation which all seem to involve ethereal spirits that live on when the body dies, and often a hidden spirit world as well. My idea requires nothing like that. Consciousness dies when the body dies. Afterwards, as happens, billions more consciousnesses are formed in wombs all around the world. Your sense of self could be in one of them. There's nothing to say it WILL of course... and no possible way to test it. But there's absolutely nothing to say it can't happen. And to me, a rational materialist for the most part... it seems more than likely. How many consciosunesses have existed on earth since the beginning? And what if we include animals and not only humans? How many more will exist in the future? Every one of them only lives so long (according to my worldview) and dies. Is every one that's created a brand new I? Are some of the I's recycled? Hmmmmm.



I've edited your post and only responded to what seems relevant to the point of this thread. Much of what you've been saying is essentially just "Your views are wrong, you should believe what I believe". But I do thank you for all the discussion, and I will look at that link you provided. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I've edited your post and only responded to what seems relevant to the point of this thread. Much of what you've been saying is essentially just "Your views are wrong, you should believe what I believe". But I do thank you for all the discussion, and I will look at that link you provided. Thank you.

You are welcome.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Don't head toward any belief, don't believe or disbelief anything without personal knowledge of it, but then it's a knowing and not a belief. Belief or disbelief (both are beliefs, the other is just anti-) are not productive, you shouldn't believe me either. One should be open-minded and sceptic at the same time, one does not limit oneself but neither does one mix fantasy with reality.

As you see, that is not what I am saying.

I am trying to provoke thought, to make you think for yourself.

It's a process. Essentially it is not important whether you or I am right. It is the mind-set that will lead one to truth, it does not matter if one is wrong, as long as one open and keeps trying to see the bigger picture. The picture just gets bigger and bigger.

I have had many epiphanies, and I think you will too.

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 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.

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!

My suggestion would be some regularly scheduled meditation on the subject. Part of the reason why I think it is so hard to define that "you-ness" that you are grasping at is because your/our experience of it is layered over by so many aspects of being human. Sit down, get comfortable, and work on stripping away those layers until you can really feel strongly what it is that is 'you' and the explanation will come much easier.

Bumblebee... actually I totally understand what you're saying, and that's another idea I really like. You did express sit quite well I think. The weird thing is... here's a post I made on my OTHER thread just yesterday:

Related quote:

"We are a way the Cosmos can know itself" ~ Carl Sagan from Cosmos

These ideas tie in with the Brahman concept posted earlier (I've lost track if it was on this thread or the other one). Individual facets of a larger whole. I dont really think of the larger whole as conscious (but who knows?)... I think of it as the fount of all creation... the almighty UNIVERSE itself, from which we were created, of its own matter and energy, through a lengthy and complex process that began with galaxies coalescing and continued through evolution. If the earth is thought of as an organism (metaphor) then humans could be the neurons... the intelligent bits where conscious thought happens. It took the cosmos many millions of centuries to evolve those neurons, but it did, and it fired them up, and was at last able to contemplate its existence. Animals may have consciousness, but when they look at the stars they don't understand what they are.

Xaq -- that's a very good idea. Actually though, my understanding of it is pretty good... it's just expressing it that gives me fits! But contemplating it in meditation is a great idea.

you? Is a word. Don't try to fit the world into words when it doesn't fit. Maybe we can't neatly put what we want here under a single title which holds it together. 'You' gives us the impression of there being a thing, a single entity, it's not helpful to pursue the problems of reconciling what there is with this word if the word is designed for usage rather than anything else. And we have to somehow bring this together with all sorts of problems, like all the classic things, someone else with the same mind or teleportation. 'You' I think when talking on the level you want is very meaningless. It's meaning is in it's use within society, which isn't the same as what you are using it in this conversation and we're doing. I say abandon "you" in this conversation. it causes confusion which could be avoided.Problems like that one, what if you are cloned right now the same body and brain and everything, would it still be "you". It's a false problem. It would be what it would be, and we could see that. You would be a word we use in order to refer to one or the other. Try and think of the situation with the clones but take it away from language constraints and just look at what is there in the world. You have very little problem then. You have two identical beings. That is what you have. do you sort of see. this thinking is very important when talking deeply about the self. I think alot of the problems we encounter are simply pitfalls in our use of language, and faulty connectors in words. This is quick post, i'll be back for it later maybe to make it clearer, hope you understand anyway.

Yeah, it's definitely a deficiency of language. There are no good terms to talk about these ideas. At this point it's either use whatever words make a close fit ("you" when directed at the person who's reading the thread... "I", "subjectivity")... or invent new words. And I don't think randomly inventing a word would be any better... just more confusing. Until somebody has an epiphany and understands how to clearly express these ideas, I suspect we're stuck mucking about in this ineffective linguistic soup.

Bumblebee, thinking about it a little more, I came to the realization that these 2 different ideas we're discussing are actually VERY closely related. In fact, once a person is able to clearly grasp the sense of subjectivity that I've been struggling to define, then it's clear to see that the idea of one fractal mega-consciousness splitting itself into myriad fragments like drops of water dividing on a windshield to become individual mini-consciousnesses for a time and then re-form (like water drops do at the edge of the windshield) -- is only one further step conceptually.

About the clone thing... yes, I do understand what you're saying Carousoul, but that would only be a problem for anyone ELSE... to each of the clones there's never any confusion about which is "me" and which is among the numberless horde that is "not-me". It helps to keep in mind if you can, that every one of the not-me's is also a me. To themselves.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Bumblebee, thinking about it a little more, I came to the realization that these 2 different ideas we're discussing are actually VERY closely related. In fact, once a person is able to clearly grasp the sense of subjectivity that I've been struggling to define, then it's clear to see that the idea of one fractal mega-consciousness splitting itself into myriad fragments like drops of water dividing on a windshield to become individual mini-consciousnesses for a time and then re-form (like water drops do at the edge of the windshield) -- is only one further step conceptually.

What a beautiful way to put it! I got a shiver reading that. That's exactly what I mean. And it's funny, I read through the thread you linked and the same theme seems to be consistant with different words expressing it... Everyone seems to be pointing towards the same thing. If you look at the human psyche, it's actually a larger version of that. I have many "personalities" within me, the mother, the partner, the friend, the worker, but they are an integrated whole (on the most part ^.^). People with DID have "seperate" personalities within the same body. To me, it's not a huge assumption to say that our personality structure can be integrated within an even bigger structure to be used again (or even just "parts" of "me") - which ties in with the "oversoul" idea that is sometimes mentioned (a smaller "mind" within the universal "mind").

It would explain certain things which people call "supernatural"... Precognition, telepathy, gut instinct... Even "Eureka!" moments... If we assume that we aren't the only lifeform in the Universe so far along development wise, then other entities have probably worked out a lot of the physics etc of the universe, so some of these could be tapping in to that part of the "mind" (especially as often these come after a dream or meditative states).

woo. i'm a little late on reply.
and i admit, i haven't read through the whole thread nor do i completely understand what you're getting at, op.

i think my consciousness, soul, and spirit are all basically the same thing so i'm not really totally comprehending the non-spiritual part of your thread title. if your energy or whatever were "recreated" into an identical consciousness, which i think is possible (anything is, imo), i don't think there would be any way for "you" to be aware of it. i think i know what you're saying, but i'm not entirely sure. if i've missed your point, i apologize.

i may read through the whole thread after i post this (which i should've done already, but i'm lazy)... this has been so far a very interesting read!

Hey darkmatters, just wanted to let you know, that first hand experiences seem to support your ideas of subjectivity - or the subjective you. In some near death experiences the person nearly dies loses all sense of the identity. They can still remember 'who' they 'were'. But they are detached from this identity. They are still conscious! They can still feel emotions! They just don't feel they are who, well, they were. Sometimes this feeling lingers even after waking up.

Okay, I've skimmed this thread and at first the concept made no sense to me. But now I'm starting to get it. And the idea of patterns and re-occuring conciousness is interesting.

Maybe part of it can boil down to this question. 'If a perfect clone of you was made, every cell the same, would it be you?'

I would say no to my question, so I wouldn't believe in this concept. I am my brain and body. The chemical reactions of neurons and such are my thoughts. The cause and effect reactions leading up to right now and forcing myself to react in one way or another are my choices. Anything other than that isn't me.

So a body with the same patterns or 'feeling of life' would be a seperate being since it wouldn't be the emotions I feel.

Anyone who would answer yes to my question- I understand why you would believe this concept as a likely possibility.

As far as the idea that we are all, in a way, part of one conciousness, that we all come from the same source and are all part of the same system, I find it interesting. Now, the emotions Jane feels aren't the ones I feel- I do think we are individual lifeforms. But heck, if we all are products of the same creator than it may be true, at least we are linked together. (I do realize you guys are mostly talking about a collective mind in a secular universe.)

Quicksilvergirl, I don't think you're quite grasping the concept. I don't blame you... it's difficult to conceive of.

Joroara, VEEERY interesting!!! Thanks for posting that!

Spockman, actually I completely agree with you... a clone or completely identical copy of you would NOT subjectively be you.

On the What does spirituality provide that science doesn't thread I posted this idea yesterday:

I believe the concept of an over-consciousness, as well as many concepts like telepathy, synchronicity etc can be explained more prosaically by the relation of the conscious mind to the subconscious. The way I see it, the conscious mind is like a user interface, a small app designed to allow the consciousness to interact with the physical world. So of necessity it's a small app designed to run fast and light... with a small memory cache so to speak, and nothing unnecessary. Ergo, it's small compared to the vast but less focused subconscious, of which the conscious mind is dimly aware and occasionally connects with (mostly through dreaming and moments of intuition).

Until Freud came along and "discovered" the subconscious, we thought the conscious mind was all there was... so it's easy to understand how these dim momentary connections to a much more powerful but vague mentality (the subconscious) can make a person feel they've contacted something like a mega-consciousness, or had communication with someone else's mind or whatever. I think it also could explain why so many people are convinced of a god.

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but..

if you assume after death there is nothing, then its sort of like believing in the continuity of your awareness. because who would be experiencing nothing? instead awareness (not yours) goes on to existing and emerging beyond your death, and that's what will be experienced in life.. not nothing. so whose awareness is it anyway?

Mods, I'm adding to my old thread , so don't accuse me of necro-ing, ok??!!

A good way to get at what I was trying to say is what buddhists refer to as the Observer.

That inner part of you that, when you're meditating, can observe your thoughts, your feelings, and your memories. If it can observe them, it can't also BE any of them. So it's a much more central and essential part of your self.

Weell.
Yeah - that's about what my husband tried to convey to me as well - reincarnation would somehow be reconcilable with rationalist materialism - but it is not.
I didn't read everything in here yet - but I'm with Juroara - without invoking some sort of spirituality - it just does't make sense.

This observer-"function" - how come it doesn't simply cease to exist, once your brain goes to mush?
It would have to be something independent from your brain - something that has a continuity as a discrete entity.
Well - then it's something "spiritual".

Why on earth would you wreck your brain to accommodate for this idea, which you can't even formulate?
I think I know, why my husband does - he doesn't want to acknowledge that while meditation and studying Buddhist texts have brought him so much subjective insight and "wisdom" and wellbeing - the doctrine also has irrational elements, no matter how you twist and turn semantics in order to make it seem "scientifically" possible. I think, he fears that admitting to that fact would somehow invalidate his experiences and he would loose "trust" in the texts in general and consequently not "benefit" from them anymore, also maybe loose trust in the validity of his own "wisdom".

Why not cherry-pick and just take what you like - meditation, this detached self-observation, the wise words, too, of course - but throw out the religious crap in between? There's by far less of that in Buddhism than in any other religion I can think of - but there is - karma and reincarnation.
Without Buddhism - would you ever have come up with such concepts on your own?

Well - or take it as it comes - but being aware then, that it is faith in the spiritual, not any form of reasoning that brought you there.

Edit: as said next door - meanwhile he said he actually doesn't really believe in reincarnation despite trying to defend it kicking and screaming yesternight. Don't ask me, what believing something "unreally" might mean...

Like Steph, I think this idea is sort of silly. There too many unfounded assumptions that have to be made about the nature of consciousness for it to work. You would have to assume that it is an elemental substance that follows it's own law of conservation for example. I think that is patently absurd. If there was a finite supply of consciousness on earth, we would either see a fixed level of humans on earth or if we are generous enough to allow that different animal consciousnesses are mixable, a finite level of neural life in general. Both assumptions are emperically unfounded.

Consciousness is likely a pattern in existing matter and patterns do not follow laws of conservation. Yes, there is a limit to how much consciousness there can exist in our universe but that limit is founded on the material substrate that the consciousness is imprinted upon, not some consciousness meter of the universe!