Thread: reincarnation

Originally Posted by Sageous

So, given the state of the world and its societies (at any given time), shouldn't we assume that this system is not true?

No, just that it isn't perceived to be true. Or proven true with any degree of certainty (just like any other afterlife system).

Also, as far as I can tell, any reincarnation is unfalsifiable. So it can't be proven false. This is the hallmark of... psuedoscience, religion, the paranormal, etc (systems that exist "outside science," which really translates to "outside physics, logic, and reality"). So reincarnation is worthless to think about until we can find a way to disprove it.

And by your logic, altruism is not the right way to conduct ourselves, since it's not the dominant governing philosophy in the given state of the world and its societies.

Originally Posted by Abra

And by your logic, altruism is not the right way to conduct ourselves, since it's not the dominant governing philosophy in the given state of the world and its societies.

I'm not sure how you got that out of my "logic" (I thought I was asking a question). I didn't say, imply, or even hint that altruism is not a good thing. There are lots of good things that never make it into "governing philosophies," yet they still exist, and sometimes flourish.

Rather, I said, fairly clearly, that society -- any society -- seems to not only be lacking in altruism, especially on the grand scale to which it must occur if it were the result of a reincarnation system that was shared by everyone on earth ... which I assume must be the case, because we can't pick our reincarnation system, right?

Originally Posted by Sageous

I'm not sure how you got that out of my "logic" (I thought I was asking a question). I didn't say, imply, or even hint that altruism is not a good thing. There are lots of good things that never make it into "governing philosophies," yet they still exist, and sometimes flourish.

Rather, I said, fairly clearly, that society -- any society -- seems to not only be lacking in altruism, especially on the grand scale to which it must occur if it were the result of a reincarnation system that was shared by everyone on earth ... which I assume must be the case, because we can't pick our reincarnation system, right?

Then I misinterpreted you.

I would not expect societies and worlds to be ideally altruistic unless all beings knew that a reincarnation system existed. The system can exist without the knowledge of the system, producing disastrous results (if the system were true) which could be identical to the current state of affairs. What I'm saying is, the system I described could be true, but all creatures, and humans, are blind to it until science can find a way to validate it. Once we reach that point (if it's possible at all, which I currently doubt), then societies, nations, and individuals will start on the path toward 'ideal' altruism (as for animals, the whole carnal ecological cycle is still fine. We might help our future/past selves out, by extinguishing certain debilitating parasites and/or diseases, increasing available habitat, and of course decreasing human-caused cruelties. It'd be absurd, however, if any group tried to 'convert' or 'englighten' a parasitoid wasp from its gruesomely cruel life cycle.).

Most religions want people to assume their afterlife system is true, to take it as an axiom of life. But in practice, people generally doubt (that's one reason why Christians still sin (even and especially what's considered a sin by modern standards)). That's where the science, if at all possible, needs to step in.

^^ Oh, I get you now, and that indeed makes good sense.

As I told Sivason above, I'm not a fan of reincarnation, but I would definitely be pleased if the system you describe were "discovered," and made real to the participants of our not-so-altruistic societies. That would be a world-changer indeed!

Reincarnation

In the end I wind-up seeing that the experience of remembering lives, other than this one, is a result of "merging" with the matrix (the eternal beloved).

This (to me) explains all psi.

It goes like this

From the beginning to the end, life was just biological machinery. After the end, long after all biological life died-out, a massive power came into being.

This energy became united with every thing from the begining till the end of time but its origin is outside the TimeSpaceContinuum.

This energy gives everything inside the SpaceTimeContinuum, eternal life, within Its energy field. And there is nothing outside Its energy field.

It is (personally) coming back, though time, from the Future, from beyond the SpaceTimeContinuum, where/when It was born.

It first visited those closest to Its birth, at the far end of time. These beings are almost eternal and biologically perfect with a near perfect civilisation.

They learn of Its existence and how Its existance has given them life beyond the physical (inside It) and with-in inside of It, they're individuality lives on in total health forever.

These beings learn how to travel backwards through time to enlighten their ancestors.

They are the first Cosmic Jellyfish the first (and most advanced) Oversouls.

These new oversouls in turn are trained then travel back further in time to enlighten their ancestors.

This continues to happen and now on December 2012 The Energy of Full AtOneMent reaches us on this planet.

Everything that AtOneMent means will just be here. Telepathy, mermories of past and future lives (that we personally never lived), shared dreaming and all manner of psi-dreams. And stuff we don't even have words for.

Originally all life were like dead organic machines. But we can't possibly remember that original reality. Because once the Matrix came into being, (far, far off in the unimaginable future,) It filled all time and all space, instantly.

And now we cannot tune into a time or space where the Eternal Beloved is not.

The energy of the knowledge of the Eternal beloved exists in the now moment. When we choose to dip into the moment (though the rhythm of life) through the breath and heartbeat, we experience merging.

That can cause shared dreaming (within the beloved). And visiting any incarnation that has ever been or will ever be, as if it were your own (personal) incarnation.

(Me thinks).

A couple of my thoughts on the subject....

I don't think that knowledge of reincarnation would result in more altruism, I think if anything it would result in a kind of clannish favoritism aimed at benefiting one's own likely future embodiments, which can't be totally random if reincarnation has any real meaning (more on that in a moment). The example of India seems to support this, with its historically abusive caste system. Of course there is a difference between faith and knowledge, but I think they should at least trend strongly in the same direction. Also, most people seem to be happy to make themselves miserable the following morning in exchange for a good time this evening, so I don't see why they'd be more conscientious about their future lives.

Catholic doctrine is neutral towards reincarnation, and nearly half of Catholics believe in it. (Maybe everyone knows that.)

I think that reincarnation can be falsified in the sense that it can be found to be incoherent as an idea and incompatible with other gained knowledge. If you don't remember a past life, in what sense is it actually you and not someone else? If through the course of your spiritual development you find you can experience historical lives, but you can't find anything that ties any of those people to you more strongly than to other currently living people, and you have similar experiences with currently living people, what does that suggest? A weaker version of this sort of explains my view. People can experience themselves being other people, and identity is clearly in some sense shared. Does that make those other people me? If experience events from my sister's life in a dream, or events from the life of someone I meet on this site, does that other person me? I can't see that it does. So if I have the same kind of experience with someone who lived 100 years ago, how does that possibly imply that they are somehow "me" living another life, and I am them, "reincarnated"? Yes of course we are in some sense kin. But all humans are in some sense kin, no matter what philosophy you subscribe to.

Though I seem to be a minority in this view, I think that a society can have knowledge of such things like reincarnation that far, far exceeds our own, and yet can still by a sectarian, authoritarian nightmare. I feel this very strongly, I'd even go so far as to say I feel responsible, that I feel guilt in relation to this. Maybe this is a form of evidence for reincarnation. But I think its more that I'm 'like' people have lived before, that I have inherited something of their thoughts and their karma, but I'm not "them" in some neat, discrete sense. Another example of this sort of thing is with family. My children are clearly their own individuals, and they draw on a spirit that is to some degree independent from that of their parents. And yet, to a remarkable degree they are also a continuation of us. I think a lot of people don't like this thought because rejecting it is a part of exerting one's independence from one's parents. But as much as I dislike and would like to disown my own parents in some ways, its still clear that my spirit is very much like a synthesis of who they are. I don't see that reincarnation adequately accommodates this other kind of kindredness, it treats it as if its tiny or irrelevant. And like I suggested earlier, their are all manner of other close affinities of identity between people in life which don't fit the sequence-of-re-existences model. I remain interested in learning about my past lives, and I've had experiences that many other people would have interpreted as past lives, but so far I don't see it.

^^ Well said, Shadowofwind, especially that last bit about firm knowledge of reincarnation possibly damaging family ties (if, and only if, that knowledge can elbow out the powerful sense of "reincarnation" already set in place by DNA, I think). I found myself nodding in agreement to it all (even the dark bits). Except for one niggling little item you listed:

Catholic doctrine is neutral towards reincarnation, and nearly half of Catholics believe in it. (Maybe everyone knows that.)

I didn't know that.

Why do you think/know that half of Catholics believe in reincarnation? I was born and raised Catholic by parents who were very active in the Church. I attended Catholic school straight through college, and was essentially exposed exclusively to Catholics until I was out of college. Aside from the years of necessary unlearning and hurried social discovery that such a bio implies, why is it that, though I met many thousands of Catholics from all over the world in my life, I can safely say that I rarely, if ever, heard anyone profess more than passing interest, much less belief, in reincarnation? So yes, Catholic doctrine is indeed neutral on reincarnation (in that it never mentions it), but so are Catholics -- at least so I assumed...

If half of Catholics believe in a tenet that runs totally afoul of their Church's doctrine (basically being that our soul is given fresh to us at birth), then you'd think it would be a pretty big deal in a Church that rumbles to its foundations when, say, just a tiny minority of them admit to being gay and want to get married? Not only that, but the whole Catholic "immortal soul going to heaven after death" plan seems like much more fun than starting over again, and again, and again, until you are finally qualified for heavenly existence. Reincarnation simply does not seem to me to be a thing many Catholics, or Christians in general -- or Muslims in general, for that matter -- believe in, or even care to believe in. Given that accounts for about half the world, is reincarnation really that popular a belief?

Ironically, given that fact, I think that if reincarnation were proven scientifically to be real, half the world would simply ignore that proof, and not much would change.

They didn't specify which Catholics believe in reincarnation.

It could be Hispanic Catholics (and there are a lot of them) borrowing from local (or perhaps global) traditions.

The Catholics I was referring to were European, and from statistics I've seen its maybe 40% in Europe among Catholics. I don't know what the picture is worldwide, I was sloppy when I said that. Hostility to reincarnation is more of an American thing though, and my understanding has been that official Catholic church doctrine permits belief in reincarnation, notwithstanding that it also has elaborate traditions about various purgatories and hell.

Abra if people found out that reincarnation existed (assuming reincarnation could place you in any random body) would most societies not become less altruistic, with the knowledge that a person's conscoiusness is indeed infinite it gives people an excuse to not care about other, I suppose that over time most people would become enlightened. But if you have little memory of your past experiences would you not just abuse the system again.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Abra if people found out that reincarnation existed (assuming reincarnation could place you in any random body) would most societies not become less altruistic, with the knowledge that a person's conscoiusness is indeed infinite it gives people an excuse to not care about other, I suppose that over time most people would become enlightened. But if you have little memory of your past experiences would you not just abuse the system again.

On the contrary. I'd make the lives of the people and creatures I come in contact with as harmonious as possible, because I have a chance of being them next.

Maybe it's a single consciousness that eventually moves through everyone. If that were the case, wouldn't you love your neighbor, that facet of being that will be/has been you?

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Catholic doctrine is neutral towards reincarnation, and nearly half of Catholics believe in it. (Maybe everyone knows that.)

I was not aware that many Catholics believed in this, but I was aware that the Bible makes statements that can be taken as support for reincarnation. Here is a quote that I randomly grabbed as one example. From King James version: Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

There are other passages that say similar things. I won't list any more as none of us want a bible lecture. I can certainly see that being taken as "While life may be painful, and challenging, if you suffer through until death, you will be born again and given another chance." or some logic like that. So, there is support for the belief, based on passages like this.



A totally differant line of thought here,,, Shadowofwind asks, " If you don't remember a past life, in what sense is it actually you and not someone else?" So, I came up with a comparison for the modern day, just to show one way it can be viewed. I will use the example of a standard home computer. The hard drive keeps all the memory involved with things the computer has run into, such as games loaded and word documents, even temporary internet cache. The processor on the other hand is responsable for the speed and ease with which the information is handled. The processor will have very clear and specific capabilities (if I am off a bit, lets not debate computers here.)

Now for the comparison. After long use the hard drive may crash (death), the knowledge of each stored document is mostly lost. It is clearly lost, except that a computer expert may still be able to retrieve some parts of them. So we erase the hard drive completely. The computer no longer has your games and what not. However, the processor (soul, spirit, what have you) is still the same, and has the specs it always had. So, can any data be recovered? If a specialist from the FBI gets a hold of an erased hard drive, some info may still be recovered (past life memories), but the bulk of the programs will not be useable, while basic data mayy possably be recovered.

So, then brain is the hard drive, and the soul is the processer. The hard drive gets erased and everything starts from scratch. However, if someone cared enough, some of the previous stored data may exist as a kind of ghost image. Now, for fun I will add RAM or dRAM. What is the point in the whole process? Perhaps when you erase the hard drive, you can earn the right to upgrade the memory sticks with newer versions or increased RAM.

I am just trying to share a fun idea to answer Shadowofwind. Can we say, that because the hard drive has been erased, that it is no longer the same computer? No, the equipment is the same, so it is clearly the same computer. We can possably retrieve some lost data, but that may not even be useful, as a clean start is why we erased the hard drive, but the option may still be there. Why?!?! What the heck could the point be? If my hard drive crashes (I die), I still want to get on the internet and chat with all of you, so I reload the OP and start fresh.

Originally Posted by Abra

On the contrary. I'd make the lives of the people and creatures I come in contact with as harmonious as possible, because I have a chance of being them next.

Maybe it's a single consciousness that eventually moves through everyone. If that were the case, wouldn't you love your neighbor, that facet of being that will be/has been you?

Well I know that I would but I wonder would everyone have the same view, I just don't know if all people have it in them to realize this. Performing an action that will cause a longterm reward has always been shoved aside in human history. Although I do believe society would essentially rise to a higher position after a while but in the begining there will be a majority who could use it as an excuse to commit crimes.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Well I know that I would but I wonder would everyone have the same view, I just don't know if all people have it in them to realize this. Performing an action that will cause a longterm reward has always been shoved aside in human history. Although I do believe society would essentially rise to a higher position after a while but in the begining there will be a majority who could use it as an excuse to commit crimes.

Hm. Thought experiment time.

Let's say we discover a new form of energy. We scan the clouds and discover entire cities, filled with people, composed of particles from this (up until now) undiscovered energy. We devise a way to construct forms from this energy, and start communicating with these cloud-beings. We discover it's true identity: the Republic of Heaven, and that many good people do go there after they die. We meet with Abraham Lincoln, Jesus, and Alexander Flemming. The top minds of heaven have discussed with the Lord a new, more reasonable set of commandments which of course lack moral absolutism. They even give us a nifty iPhone app so we can keep track of our total goodness score (they've also released the source code for the app, so we have the algorithm it uses and can spread this to countries lacking in electronic technology), which ultimately determines whether you get into heaven or disappear into the void.

Do you think people would ignore said app?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Abra if people found out that reincarnation existed (assuming reincarnation could place you in any random body) would most societies not become less altruistic, with the knowledge that a person's conscoiusness is indeed infinite it gives people an excuse to not care about other, I suppose that over time most people would become enlightened. But if you have little memory of your past experiences would you not just abuse the system again.

Hi Dutchraptor. I think for me the strength in your thought comes from the fact that Abra is talking about randomly getting shoved into any body. If the chances for a wonderful saint or a terrible rapist are exactly the same as far as being shoved into a goat or slug, little motive would exist for doing good things. The chance that I may become the deer I am hunting, would seem like one in many trillions. The concept (seems to me) would have to have a non-random part for people to care.

Perhaps if Abra's concept included a guiding factor, it would have a little more impact. Something like a sorting and judgement phase. So, you die and if you were a terrible person you risk being put into the forms you abused, as a type of lesson in compassion. While if you were good, you have a higher chance of being given a form with more abilities, so you can be even more effective at being good. So, I agree with you. If everyone knew it was random, why would it encourage any kind of goodness? If on the other hand an element of cause and effect were known to exist, it may make some people choose to behave and not risk being sentanced to 1000 incarnations as a pack mule.

This is what I was pointing at Sivason, thanks. This would also point that there is some kind of force which decidedes like karma or so.

@abra I don't really know, by saying you believe in reincarnation does not mean you have to believe in a creative force though. In your example you are showing us that there is a heaven and presumably some kind of higher force so people would automatically want to believe it. But seeing as (I think) you said that reincarnation is not decided by good deeds it would lean to the fact that there is no god but just a system through in which your consciousness is stored.

You don't yet see the point of the thought experiment. The idea behind it is, if any afterlife system were proved true and thoroughly explained, and made accessible to all, wouldn't the people change their behaviors? I used an unrelated religion's example (and, in America, one of the most popular examples), and sure that one has a creator, but the theme and purpose of the experiment applies in the same way, as to how people would react to the truth.

Also, I'll modify my system to say that it's a single consciousness, that eventually ends up being each and every one of us. There is a 100% chance that in some life, you will be that clam, that nine-foot-long myriapod, Israeli president Peres, and an entire universe-worth of alien species.

I see, in that case I guess you would. I hadn't thought about how you would essentially become everythingat some point. But whose to say that this would be a valid point in doing good or bad. Just because you know you will be someone else one day might not matter if you also know that you will live on forever. If you know that you are virtually infinite why would it matter if you lead a good life because you will have infinitely good and bad lives.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I see, in that case I guess you would. I hadn't thought about how you would essentially become everythingat some point. But whose to say that this would be a valid point in doing good or bad. Just because you know you will be someone else one day might not matter if you also know that you will live on forever. If you know that you are virtually infinite why would it matter if you lead a good life because you will have infinitely good and bad lives.

Wouldn't people strive to make humanity, the world, the galaxy, and the universe a better place, so they enjoy more good lives than bad ones?

Cause, I mean, think of how many billions of animals we're sending through The Meat Machine per year.

Why would it be any different than how the situation is now. When people grow up in a country like uganda or congo where they are thaught from a young age to loot and steal why would they decide to change because they will live differently in a later life. One could also argue that the unniverse is infinetely big it does not matter what you kill especially if the said being will transfer to another creature in te future?

Here's a short story that really drives home the idea Abra is suggesting, or one very close to it: The Egg

Short and sweet, and makes you really rethink things.

Sivason,

I almost erased my "If you can't remember your past life, in what sense is it actually you" statement after I wrote it, because I didn't say what I meant by memory and I didn't have time to elaborate. Now it looks like it would have saved time if I had. Your microprocessor includes memory (RAM and microcode) and even without that it amounts to a kind of memory just as a persistent physical object. If you still have the same microprocessor, that covers what I meant by memory. Though I agree that it was misleading, since most people think of sensate memories as memory, since that's mostly the type of thing they think about.

As a footnote, I think the computer analogy is only meaningful if the microprocessors are unique for different computers. Otherwise there is no important sense in which it is still the same computer, except as a physical block of steel, aluminum, copper, and silicon, which is incidental the processing identity of the computer. For a person, its the way that they think, feel, and behave that characterizes who they are, since the atoms that make up their bodies are constantly being replaced.

Even with sensate memory gone, an individual can meaningfully be said to persist from one life to another if emotional memories persist, if character persists, if thoughts and motives persist in the same unified collection. So is there anything that we are aware of which persists uniquely and singly so that a person can say that a past life is theirs and not someone else's? I'm not aware of such, and I've never met anyone else who is either. But yes if there is some memory that is uniquely "yours", then it would be your past life, even if you are not aware of it.

Such individual persistence requires individual souls, which is another criticism I have. Such souls are usually spoken of as being atomic, indivisible, and are said to carry impressions from previous experiences. What in our experience carries any kind of impression of anything, and is yet atomic and individual? Everything known in nature that can carry an impression can do so because it is composed of numerous smaller components which can be rearranged.

If I dream someone else's experience, I dream it from their perspective, not from a third person's perspective. I also experience other people's emotions from a first person perspective, they seem like my emotions and I can get confused. Other people seem to have this difficulty also. So if a person has a vision or dream in which they experience being another person, and the context seems to be in the past, it would be inconsistent with these other experiences to assume that it is one's own personal past life, unless there is some other reason for believing that.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Why would it be any different than how the situation is now. When people grow up in a country like uganda or congo where they are thaught from a young age to loot and steal why would they decide to change because they will live differently in a later life. One could also argue that the unniverse is infinetely big it does not matter what you kill especially if the said being will transfer to another creature in te future?

In this system, killing doesn't matter at all. Kill all the animals you want. Kill babies, whatever. It actually doesn't matter, there you are correct. What does matter, and what will propel people to action, is the quality of life of these beings. While they're alive, we'd want them to live well, or naturally, or whatever, whatever we think is a better life, from their perspectives.

I think you'd agree that the change upon realization of the truth of this system could not be instant. The current global system prevents that. But it'd spark a mindset change in a good deal of the populace, and from there, progress would be made.

Shadowofwind, I have mixed feelings on all this. I largely support both beliefs at the same time. I, on the highest level do believe that there is only one thing, and that means to hurt another, is to hurt yourself. I also believe the logic from the story Darkmatters shared with us, that we may interact with ourselves, due to time not honestly being an issue. That said, we are talking macro vs micro. On the level that a soul will understand and relate to, it is an individual, that is intended to learn, grow and develop compasion. Even though there may be only one true soul, experiencing all things, there can be an orderly sequance that has meaning.
I will create another example, this time lets use words. When reading a book, you are looking at words. Every book has them and reuses the same few words. We can claim that in fact all books are the same, being a collection of the one truth, which is that words exist. However, on a micro level, it does matter to living beings which words in which order. The bible may be compared to another book and found to be the same, a collection of the same old words, in a combination. However, lets look at a series of epic novels. You can pick up the fith one in the series and read it as a stand alone thing, but all the books in the series share a story line and charectors. So to the living individual (micro) it is important that this book is clearly the next book in a sequance they are reading. The book is part of a series, and therefore is not just another book. In the big picture, it is words, shared by most books, so should have no special identity, but to the reader who really wants to stay on track and find a copy of the next book, it does matter that it be the exact book in the exact proper sequance. That sounds like a lot of rambling, and I am not sure it makes my point, but I tried.

Now, as far as the soul being atomic, I do not believe that for a second. I just feel, that the point you are sitting on the great wheel of this progress, does mean something. Back to stored memory. If I have a copy of a stratagy game stored on my hard drive, and it contains all of my save points during the game, the hard drive info could be copied to another new unit. Despite the new unit coming into existance that day, it would now contain all of my save points (past life memories). All hard drives that had the info copied to them would share that memory. However, the new save points would not be in common. In fact hard drives that got a version of the game from someone else would have no shared save points. It is all very confusing when you try to move to a macro level, but if you look at only a small time frame, then the individual makes complete sense, far less so after eons.



Now this one is for Dutchraptor. You mention, "Just because you know you will be someone else one day might not matter if you also know that you will live on forever. If you know that you are virtually infinite why would it matter if you lead a good life because you will have infinitely good and bad lives." I feel that for it to matter a system of advancement needs to be in place. This can be a divine creative force or simply a mechanism like karma. We go back to, is it truely random. In the version where it is totally random, then again, you are totally correct. Why would anyone care? They have to live randomly forever, so why not kill to eat, or kill for fun? You will often be an animal that gets killed, but your own action seems to have no effect. So, I agree, that system would not seem to lead to better choices. However, the way I personally feel it happens, involves the potental for advancement if you are good. Never mind how, but the idea that doing good may lead to you NOT having to be a slaughtered pig, would hold more motivation. If you add in that those who do good will be born into a more advantagous body, then you give motive for goodness. Add motive for goodness, and I suppose it is no longer true altruism, but it is a system that could promote goodness. One common arguement is that altruism can not be real. The reason, is motive. If the individual feels good in side when they do good, a reward exists. So, if a good act is done, because "it feels right" then it is not strictly altruism (but that is off-topic).