Sure. Seems to me that there are real philosophical problems with reincarnation.

What is it that is reincarnated?

Suppose mind to be memory, intent, sensation, ratiocination and so on; what remains from one life to another? Intent, sensation, ratiocination are context-dependent; your sensations now are not the sensations you had in a previous life.

So just memory? Then reincarnation consists merely in disembodied memories moving from one mind to another.

What is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

Both sensations and memory are functions of consciousness. It is consciousness that reincarnates.

Of course, there are some problems, hence the original question. But that's not a reason to give up before even trying.

Actually you do; frozen water will always consist in a discrete chunk. For that matter even bodies of water, parts of which might freeze are generally discrete.And water vapour may form separate clouds. — Janus

Ice, water and steam/vapour are often used to illustrate how consciousness can assume various forms. However, it needs to be borne in mind that, unlike water, etc., consciousness does not break into discrete parts. It remains a unity.

Then what is it that makes the consciousness that you have now the very same as the consciousness that once inhabited Napoleon?

You don't have his memories.

Nor his sensations.

Perhaps you share his intentions, at least to some degree. But that is hardly sufficient for one to conclude that you are the reincarnation of Napoleon.

And i submit that these are not small issues. If one cannot explain what it is that is reincarnated, one has no grounds for claiming that reincarnation occurs. But in attempting such an explanation, one falls into all the issues of self, identity, mind...

Hence there are very good philosophical reasons to think reincarnation problematic.

I am not a Christian and haven't read the bible. But as I understand it, the bible says both that God created everything, and also that God created all things that have been created. The latter is consistent with God not having created us. The former is not, but is also incoherent as it means God created himself (which seems impossible). It seems that christian theists typically split the difference and say that God created everything apart from himself. That's inconsistent with us not having been created, but it is also not in the bible (so far as I know). So as long as one takes 'God created everything' to mean 'God created all things that have been created'then there's no inconsistency.

I'm not saying it isn't problematic but I don't think these are problems that can't be resolved.

Essentially, the soul that reincarnates consists of consciousness which is intelligence, awareness and has powers such as will, knowledge and action.

If you have the memory (real, not imagined) of Napoleon, then you're Napoleon reincarnated as this present person. Otherwise you aren't.

Memories remain embedded in consciousness in latent form. Aspects of memory may become active in the form of basic instincts, etc. but the rest remain dormant until such time as there is cause for them to be (re-)activated.

as I understand it, the bible says both that God created everything, and also that God created all things that have been created. The latter is consistent with God not having created us. — Bartricks

Perhaps one way of looking at it is that God created our bodies after which he infused us with his breath or spirit which would suggest that the spirit part of us is divine and therefore immortal and not strictly speaking "created".

kinda missed the point spectacularly.

But the arguments - two of them anyway - establish that our minds exist with aseity. That is, they exist without having been caused to exist. That entails that God did not create us. There's no problem with that - it's not inconsistent with the three essential divine attributes. But it does conflict, it would seem, with something the bible says. However, the statement it conflicts with is an incoherent one. And anyway, the bottom line is 'so much the worse for scripture'. At some point one has to choose between following Reason, and following tradition.

Essentially, the soul that reincarnates consists of consciousness which is intelligence, awareness and has powers such as will, knowledge and action.

If you have the memory (real, not imagined) of Napoleon, then you're Napoleon reincarnated as this present person. Otherwise you aren't. — Apollodorus

SO we have a new entity, the soul, and that is what is reincarnated... and what makes this soul the same as that soul is that they have the same memories?

Hence it is not the will, knowledge and action of the individual that is reincarnated...

Indeed, one's will, knowledge and action do not remain constant over a lifetime, let alone between lifetimes.

So again, what we have at best is memories becoming disembodied and moving into other minds.

That aspect of consciousness that is pure intelligence and is aware of itself as consciousness is always the same. What changes is that memories of a particular existence are withdrawn back into consciousness at death and new ones are created in a new incarnation.

So you barely assert...

But the arguments - two of them anyway - establish that our minds exist with aseity. That is, they exist without having been caused to exist. That entails that God did not create us. There's no problem with that - it's not inconsistent with the three essential divine attributes. But it does conflict, it would seem, with something the bible says. However, the statement it conflicts with is an incoherent one. And anyway, the bottom line is 'so much the worse for scripture'. At some point one has to choose between following Reason, and following tradition. — Bartricks

I was just about to say the same. I think we can agree on that.

You shouldn't follow the confused masses here and conflate consciousness with the mind.

The mind is the object that is conscious. That is, it 'has' consciousness as one of its properties. But it is not itself consciousness - that's a category error of the sort Banno and others who don't know their stuff are wont to make.

Memories, desires, thoughts, hopes and so forth are all states of mind, not constituents of the mind. That's why if you think less you are not less of a mind than if you thought more, etc.

That aspect of consciousness that is pure intelligence and is aware of itself as consciousness is always the same. — Apollodorus

What could that mean? It's not at all clear what intelligence is - see the discussion of IQ. SO invoking it here does not serve to clarify the issue.

"Is aware of itself" - some sort of qualia? As if what it is like to be Apollodorus is the same as what it is like to be Napoleon... But that looks just wrong.

Some people are too confused to reason with.

I knew the instant I mentioned ice that someone would say 'er, but a block of ice can be divided'.

The point - which you missed - was that simply changing water from a state of being liquid to a state of being solid does not, in and of itself, constitute dividing it.

I await you telling me more about the properties of ice.

Ice, water and steam/vapour are often used to illustrate how consciousness can assume various forms. However, it needs to be borne in mind that, unlike water, etc., consciousness does not break into discrete parts. It remains a unity. — Apollodorus

If that's true then it follows that Tarbrick's analogy was a bad one; which is all I was pointing out.

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.

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.

The point - which you missed - was that simply changing water from a state of being liquid to a state of being solid does not, in and of itself, constitute dividing it. — Bartricks

But it does, ice is divided from liquid water as is water vapour.

Some people are too confused to reason with. — Bartricks

:rofl:

My analogy was a good one - indeed it is not 'mine' at all, but a standard one used to show those capable of being shown such things that minds and mental states should not be conflated.

My analogy was a good one - indeed it is not 'mine' at all, but a standard one used to show those capable of being shown such things that minds and mental states should not be conflated. — Bartricks

Whether yours or not, it's simply a bad analogy; despite which I do agree that minds and their mental states are logically distinct.

So, just to be clear, if I said to you 'I want half that cup of water' you would freeze all of it and give it all to me and then be very surprised and confused when I say 'er, that's not half - that's all of it'.
Hmm. Did well at school did we?

No, I would tell you to fuck off if I didn't think you deserved it, or if I did think you deserved it I would get you a glass and pour half the water into it. WTF does freezing all of it and giving you ice instead of the requested water have to do with it? Is it just another of your stupid analogies?

I interepreted "reincarnation" as a metaphor for something any reasonable mind could accept. Played by the rules just not, I guess, the way the OP expected or others can / want to follow.

The mind is the object that is conscious. That is, it 'has' consciousness as one of its properties. But it is not itself consciousness - that's a category error of the sort Banno and others who don't know their stuff are wont to make. — Bartricks

That's why I said from the start that we need to define things like "mind". The way I see it consciousness is the entity or principle that reincarnates. In its pure state it it is just intelligence and self-awareness and it has powers like will, knowledge and action in latent form.

When consciousness descends into the material world by assuming a physical body, then its self-awareness focuses more and more on its new existence and on the objects of the world, and its other powers of will, knowledge and action assume the form of the "mind", i.e. intellect, emotions and sensory faculties or what Platonists may refer to (with some modifications) as λογιστικόν logistikon or intellectual aspect θυμός thymos or emotional aspect and έπιθυμητικόν epithymetikon or sensual aspect. Consciousness in itself is the nous.

I suppose it's just a matter of terminology but other than that there seems to be general agreement between what you and I are saying. Or so I think.

If consciousness is just some kind of complex energy formation then the fact that it gets "recycled" would be fairly straightforward. Certain constellations of properties might be more cohesive than others. Maybe every so often a whole personality makes it through. Who knows? It's like a surgeon doing an autopsy on himself, trying to analyze consciousness.

However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms? — Apollodorus

It would probably help if your audience was thoroughly stoned.

What an angry Hugh you are! You think that freezing water divides it, yes?
It doesn't. It just changes its state. That's obvious.

Now baby steps: changing a mind's state, does not divide it.

You can't divide a mind

When someone who doesn't have any philosophical training or aptitude responds that you can divide a mind because you can change its states, they are being as confused as someone who thinks that freezing water divides it. You.

I see what you mean. We can get back to that once we've sorted out one or two other points.

The mind is the object that has mental states. Consciousness is such a state. It is not itself the mind. Otherwise an 'unconscious mind' is a contradiction in terms - which it isn't.
Consciousness is a state, not an object. If you go unconscious you do not cease to exist.

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.