As with most things I believe humanity over thinks things. The closest thing we can get to physical reincarnation is someone being born with the same or similar neural network as someone who has lived before. The rest would seem to sophistry of the mind.

I gave three arguments in support of the thesis. Are our minds divisible? No.
Would they be divisible if they had parts?
Yes.
Therefore they lack parts.
If they lack parts they're uncreatable.
If they exist and are uncreatable, then they exist and have not been created.
If they have not been created but exist, then they have always existed.
Our bodies have not always existed, thus we have existed prior to our bodies existing.

That's just one argument - what's wrong with it?

I mean, it is the product of thought, but surely that is not a fault? Thought - reasoned reflection anyway - is our source of insight, is it not?

So where is the error in my reasoning above?

It's a bit like an actor on stage. The costume changes, the character changes, the stage etc. may change even during the same performance and the audience changes too. Yet the actor himself or herself remains the same. — Apollodorus

Sure - except we know what an actor is. What is it that remains the same from one life to another?

And I haven't seen a good account of that. It's not the things we usually associate with the parts of the self.

The powers of will, knowledge, action, etc, remain the same. What changes is their content, object and ways in which they operate in accordance with the new circumstances. — Apollodorus

But Apollodorus is not the power to will, knowledge, action - we each have those; Apollodorus is the content that you say changes. So it's not Apollodorus who is reincarnated.

On that argument, since you and I both have the power to will, knowledge, action, we are the same person.

SO if your account is right, it's not Apollodorus who is reincarnated.

I'm not angry Tarbricks just contemptuous of your arrogant stupidity. :smile:

Water can be divided; whether by freezing or not. Take a glass of water; I can divide that into two or ten just by pouring it into two or ten other glasses. Can you do that with a mind? No, of course not, and I've not said or suggested that you can. So water is simply not a good analogy for mind.

What is it that remains the same from one life to another? — Banno

One of Stevenson’s cases:

In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground. Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground. The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way. — Jesse Behring, Scientific American

He documented nearly 3,000 such cases over the course of decades (and rejected many more suspecting ulterior motives or lying). Also found many cases where birthmarks and deformities appeared to correspond with reported cause of death in previous life (for example at the reported site of a bullet wound).

Of course it could all be coincidence. Indeed the case above was explained away by a prominent Western Buddhist I know on just those grounds. ‘The desire not to believe’, said Stevenson, ‘ is just as powerful as the desire to believe’. That said, Stevenson never claimed to have proven that reincarnation occurs; only that these cases suggested that it might.

I've read a bit about his research. I won't reject it outright.

What I have said stands; the philosophical issue that remains is: what is reincarnated?

I think a contemporary answer would respond in terms of process philosophy - that there is no entity that transmigrates, rather a cause-and-effect pattern that transcends the boundaries of individual life-spans.

And a process has parts. — Banno

Indeed, and that is one objection to consciousness being a process. We seem to agree that consciousness being a process and consciousness being indivisible are incompatible. We have to ditch one option before settling on a view.

EDIT: do you have a view on the binding problem in relation to consciousness? (I haven't defined the binding problem tightly here, there are a number of slightly different ones I think, but I'm interested in any/all of them)

...so reincarnation consists in memories from the dead turning up in random minds...

why ‘random’? Where’d you get that?

There is copious evidence of children who remember previous lives. /.../ — Wayfarer

Children.

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. I searched ATI for it, no finds. Recollection of past lives is one of the supernormal faculties and it is an attainment, not something that would randomly happen. The Buddha had a recollection of past lives on the night of his awakening.
I also don't recal ever hearing in Hinduism that the recollection of past lives could be spontaneous.


My point is that there exist doctrines about the recollection of past lives, and that if someone presumably collects evidence of the recollection of past lives, but this evidence is not aligned with the doctrines of the recollection of past lives, then something is amiss.

So those children who are reported to be able to remember their past lives:
1. didn't actually recall their past lives,
or
2. they were highly spiritually attained (for which there should be further evidence),
or
3. the doctrines about the recollection of past lives are wrong.

If 3, then the whole project of looking for evidence of recollection of past lives is moot to begin with.
Without a theoretical framework based on the doctrines, what are you going to look for, in terms of evidence?

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. I searched ATI for it, no finds — baker

https://www.amazon.com.au/Rebirth-Early-Buddhism-Current-Research/dp/1614294461

I've read a bit about his research. I won't reject it outright.

What I have said stands; the philosophical issue that remains is: what is reincarnated? — Banno

It's futile to talk about a topic like reincarnation/rebirth or recollection of past lives without first defining the terms, or by categorically ignoring the contexts in which those terms originate from.


As to your question, an Early Buddhist would probably answer like this: Because there is kamma, there is rebirth. It's not that "you make kamma"; it's that kamma makes you. What is (!)born is kamma. (In this sense, Early Buddhist concepts are somewhat comparable to scientific materialism, because there is no notion of a "soul" that would be reborn.)

This is in contrast with a mainstream Hindu version of reincarnation, where it is said that a person is actually a soul that gets embodied over and over again in many bodies; the same soul can be one time around born in a human body, another time in an animal body. The way the same hand can put on different gloves.

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. I searched ATI for it, no finds
— baker

https://www.amazon.com.au/Rebirth-Early-Buddhism-Current-Research/dp/1614294461 — Wayfarer

Does Analayo's book provide doctrinal evidence of the spontaneous recollection of past lives?

Fortunately or...not, the only evidence we could rely on with any degree of certainty would be memory of past lives but then one has to consider the possibility of memory implants against a background of us being some kind of experiment being conducted by some advanced, intelligent, life-form from another dimension as one among many others.

So, my theory is that Plato's principle of Reincarnation was an attempt to justify the goodness and justice of the gods, despite all the evidence against it in the real world — Gnomon

Interesting as far as theories go. However, I've got my own.

Pythagoras or some other Greek philosopher went to Egypt in search of higher knowledge. The Egyptians believed that the Sun god was reborn every day anew. The human soul was similar to the Sun god. In popular belief it was reborn into the afterlife after death. But esoteric tradition held that it was reborn many times unless it was initiated into higher mysteries. Pythagoras or other Greeks took this secret knowledge to Greece and the Greek colonies on the Italic Peninsula.

This possibly also ties in with @180 Proof's metaphor.

Does Analayo's book provide doctrinal evidence of the spontaneous recollection of past lives? — baker

The most compelling of the children’s stories is that of Dhammaruwan, a Sri Lankan boy born in 1968. At the age of two, he spontaneously began to sit in meditation and chant for long stretches of time. Eventually someone realized he was chanting Buddhist discourses in Pali, but in a melody and meter more akin to devotional kirtan than to the monotone cadences favored today. The boy explained he had learned the chants in a previous life in India when he served as a reciter monk, one who memorizes sections of the Pali Canon. He said he studied under the renowned monk Buddhaghosa in the fifth century and moved with him to Sri Lanka, where the elder carried out his work of compiling and translating many commentaries, including the Visuddhimagga.

Dhammaruwan’s chants were recorded and circulated, making him famous in Sri Lanka, uncomfortably so for a shy child. By adulthood he had lost the memories of the chants but was still able to recall his impressions of Buddhaghosa, whom he described as a scholar but not a meditator.

From here.

But Apollodorus is not the power to will, knowledge, action - we each have those; Apollodorus is the content that you say changes. So it's not Apollodorus who is reincarnated.

On that argument, since you and I both have the power to will, knowledge, action, we are the same person. — Banno

Not at all. We all have arms, legs, heads, etc. without this making us the same person.

We all have the power of will, knowledge and action, but those powers differ from one individual to another.

The soul (psyche) has a higher aspect that remains in contact with the Universal Intelligence (Nous) at all times and a lower aspect that reincarnates, assuming a subtle body (ochema) and a physical body.

At the higher level all souls are essentially identical to one another and to the Universal Intelligence from which they emanate, like drops of water from the same ocean or rays of light from the same sun.

Water drops and sun rays are essentially identical to one another but not in the sense that they are one single drop or one single ray. Additionally, each drop or ray may be different from others in that they may contain, for example, bits of algae or particles of dust or other materials.

Likewise, even though souls are essentially identical, their psychic content such as latent memories, instincts, inclinations and other psychological features differ from soul to soul in the same way they differ in terms of physical bodies.

Stevenson's cases make very interesting reading and raise many theoretical possibilities.

For example, some children are said to intellectually and emotionally identify with the opposite sex even though biologically they are different.

This may be explicable as being due to upbringing if a child was brought up with others of the opposite sex, but where this is not the case, the phenomenon may be explicable by means of the reincarnation theory - unless science has a more plausible idea.

I asked about doctrinal evidence of the spontaneous recollection of past lives. As in, whether Buddhist doctrine makes allowances for the possibility of someone recalling past lives, even though this person engages in no actual Buddhist practice.

At some point one has to choose between following Reason, and following tradition. — Bartricks

I agree. But there is no harm trying to harmonize reason and tradition as far as logically possible, along the lines of a Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Another possibility would be to see reincarnation as an esoteric or higher teaching.

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. — baker

"There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other sectarians, ordinary disciples ..." - Visuddhimagga XIII 15

Recollection of past lives may not be "spontaneous" in the strict sense of the word, it can be the result of spiritual practice performed in a past life or due to some other reason or cause, e.g. magic, certain drugs, etc. I wouldn't accord the term "spontaneous" too much importance.

Pythagoras or some other Greek philosopher went to Egypt in search of higher knowledge. — Apollodorus

You are probably correct that the historical origin of the Reincarnation hypothesis arose in some of the older civilizations. The Egyptians, and later the Babylonians, were considered the world-class experts on Magic & Mysticism -- the subjective "science" of their day. So, the mythical worldview that incorporated Reincarnation followed a chain of authority from "higher" cultures to "lower" societies. That may explain the "how" of cultural transmission of memes.

However, my psychological theory was focused on "why" such ideas emerged. Most likely, the theory of Reincarnation was not based on objective-empirical evidence, but on hypothetical reasoning from general theories -- gods & spirits & souls -- to more specific mechanisms for how those imaginary systems might work in their mystical realms, and how such otherworldly functions might impact humans in the real world.

Since Reincarnation is just one of many ancient spiritual-mystical theories of how the invisible world works, and the details of the soul-hopping process differ from one culture to another -- Egyptian, Hinduism, Buddhism -- those conjectures about the unseen realms seem to reflect the traditional meme-plexes (belief systems) of each culture, rather than any "higher knowledge" drawn from esoteric experiences in the spirit world. In other words, these stories (cultural myths) are fictional, not verifiable. But, of course, that's just my opinion, based on my lack of experience with spirits, or knowledge of arcane "secrets". :smile:

But it is rather pointless if what we are interested in is what's true. I mean, don't we want to know whether we have actually lived before and will live again? One doesn't learn the answer to that by simply noting that this or that group of people have a tradition of believing in it. We must follow the actual evidence - that is, we must follow reason. To do anything else is to assume one knows the answer already.
So it really doesn't matter what the bible says or some Buddhist thinks. What matters is what Reason says.

It is the mind, not our consciousness, that is the object of reincarnation. There has to be something that lives a life and that has lived other lives. Two lives can be radically different, yet lived by the same mind. It's the mind that is that thing. That's why two lives that have no conscious states in common can still be lived by one and the same mind. — Bartricks

sounds similar to the Buddhist’s conception of reincarnation, where there is no permanent “self” (like personality, phobias, talent) that returns in another body, but instead the mind (and/or consciousness) transfers itself into another body plainly through a “mind-stream” and the mind redecorates and reforms itself through lived experience, which may or may not juxtapose their past lives.

The mind is the self. I am my mind I am my self. So if Buddhists deny the self, then they are either denying the mind, or playing fast and loose with language.
But anyway, they're just another bunch of dogmatists who think they know it all already.

The mind is the self. I am my mind I am my self. So if Buddhists deny the self, then they are either denying the mind, or playing fast and loose with language. — Bartricks

i could be very well misinterpreting it, but i think it may just be the loose language angle. the concept is called Anattā, which seems to be the antithesis of the Hindu concept Atmān. (they do believe in a permanent soul/self/essence)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā

it puzzled me the first time i came across it, because if the self is perpetual and forever tumultuous, what exactly is reincarnating or moving on then?

What matters is what Reason says. — Bartricks

I don't remember what the means/proofs of knowledge are called in Platonism but if I'm not mistaken they are (1) sense-perception, (2) reason, and (3) consensus or expert opinion. Any of these on its own could be wrong. Hence reason would need to be harmonized with at least one of the others.

But this isn't very important to me or to the topic so it can be left for later consideration. I think we agree on all the essential elements and I'm sure we can also sort out terminology like "mind".

But, of course, that's just my opinion, based on my lack of experience with spirits, or knowledge of arcane "secrets". — Gnomon

Personally, I'm convinced that there is such a thing as "paranormal experience" in which the human mind or consciousness displays the ability to "see" or "foresee" things or events which ability seems to operate independently of the nervous system or physical organs of perception. For example, there are some reliable accounts of telepathy, clairvoyant dreams, etc. that a strictly materialist view of the mind is unable to explain. This doesn't prove reincarnation but it suggests that our mind or consciousness is not necessarily limited to the physical body.

I think there was a discussion on reincarnation some time ago. However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms?

It isn't possible. We have the cadaver farms to prove what happens to us after death, and as far as I know, exactly zero of those cadavers have been reborn. I suppose the only way to justify reincarnation is to posit a sort of dualism between that which is proven to turn to dust and that which is hoped, fantasized, imagined to arrive in another body.