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. — baker

I don't know. I do know that since the Western encounter with Tibetan Buddhists, that some Western-born children have been designated as incarnations of prominent lamas (e.g. Osel Hita).

You can't say something has powers or energies but it isn't a power, energy or force. — Apollodorus

Here's a slightly rhetorical question - what power does reason have? It can compel, persuade, construct, and so on - but only through the agency of a rational being who is able to act according to its dictates. But reason isn't a substance, nor energy, although the 'force of reason' is certainly an acceptable expression. But even so, it's not directly analogous to energy. The power it has is not like 'intelligent energy'. With respect, I think you’re engaging in reification here.

Reincarnation is no more consoling than whatever the alternatives are. — Nils Loc

I have noticed that in cultures where re-birth is accepted, it's generally felt that the odds are not good that whatever realm you're born into will be as good or better than this one.

the soul is not 'made of particles' — Wayfarer

So it's not physical. Yet here's the thing: it moves physical stuff; the mind decides to move an arm, and the darn thing moves.

So you have to be able to provide a causal link between mind and arm. Now arms are most defiantly particles.

Decisions are not particulate either. See my post above - reason has power, yes? But you can’t measure or detect it, other than by the actions of a rational agent.

arms are most defiantly particles. — Banno

Ought not to be forgotten that ‘the atom’ is an abstraction. It’s not particles - it’s a particle zoo, which still confounds science.

Decisions are not physical - we talk about them using intentional language. YOu want to understand the soul in both physical and intentinal terms at the very same time -

But I think the soul could more easily be conceived in terms of a field that acts as an organising principle - analogous to the physical and magnetic fields that were discovered during the 19th century, — Wayfarer

- same issue as @Apollodorus has with the confused "intelligent energy".

And morphic resonance? Shame.

Another name for the magic intelligent energy cloud.

It'll all be quantum, won't it.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated?

Is the best answer really a morphic intelligent energy field quantum resonance?

Hand waving.

I'd have very much more respect for folk who admited "I don't know"

I don’t think that will do. There is quite strong evidence of children who recall previous lives. It is true that belief in reincarnation is a cultural taboo, One of Stevenson’s many critics said he was a deadly threat to everything Western culture holds dear. I think criticism of his work is certainly warranted, but I question that the criticism is sufficient to debunk the entire collection although it is certainly assumed to have by many of his critics.

Stevenson didn’t propose a mechanism - unfortunate word but tellingly the only one available - for the supposed transmission of memories outside a direct physical connection. That’s why I suggested morphic fields, as they at least provide some kind of conceptual basis. Of course I understand that Sheldrake is also taboo. It’s probably not coincidental that he is also a critic of scientific materialism.

The only point about the ‘particle zoo’ is simply to say that something - like the human body - is ‘particles’ or ‘made of atoms’ may not actually be saying anything much at all. We presume we know what is physical, but even that is an open question. ‘The world is queerer than we can suppose’, and all that.

I'm not interested in the evidence one way or the other - it's inconclusive, at best.

I'm interested in the philosophical implications, and that means sorting out the conceptual stuff.

The key issue is "What is it that is reincarnated?" - think I mentioned that.

And a morphic intelligent energy field quantum resonance will not do.

The key issue is "What is it that is reincarnated?" - think I mentioned that. — Banno

I wonder how you would research that.

I wonder how you would research that. — Wayfarer

By asking advocates of reincarnation to explain what it is they think is reincarnated, perhaps? That'd be one way. Then we could examine what they suggest and see if it is coherent. We might see if it fits in with our understanding of other areas - ethics, psychology, physics. Stuff like we are doing.

Stevenson did the only thing that could be done - cross checked accounts against documents, witnesses, locations, accident records, death certificates. IN the end, what he got was a lot of eye-rolling from other scientists. And thus it will always be.

Perhaps because he could not provide an account of what was reincarnated. Apparently random memories and strawberry birthmarks were not very convincing.

A sentiment with which I agree.

The reincarnation that can be told is not the eternal reincarnation; The transmigration that can be named is not the eternal transmigration. :yikes:

Now we are getting somewhere...

Yeah, bugger the evidence.

Any chance of expanding on that a bit? — Apollodorus

Well, if consciousness is energy then it is subject to conservation, which means it could be recycled theoretically. Perhaps the brain may not be so much the source of consciousness as a window onto it, an intersection point.

The evidence is insufficient.

I don't know whether you are countering my claim, or agreeing with it. Sounds like countering, but you are actually agreeing. — god must be atheist

So we agree then.

Perhaps the brain may not be so much the source of consciousness as a window onto it, an intersection point. — Pantagruel

I think it wouldn't be wrong to assume this to be the case.

As already stated, the reason I chose to describe soul as "intelligent energy" or "consciousness" is that the Platonic texts describe it as having intelligence and powers or energies. Of course, there may be other/better ways of describing it in philosophical or scientific terms.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

Before I respond, let me just say that because reincarnation carries a lot of religious baggage I don't like the term. However, that aside, I'll respond a bit to Banno's question.

First, even if the question can't be answered fully that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support the idea that consciousness survives death, and may indeed be able to reside in other bodies. So, "...what is it that's reincarnated?" The answer is, your consciousness, viz., whatever it is that makes you, you, for example, your memories and your experiences. Do we know how that's possible? No. Do we know the mechanism? No. Do we understand any of the physics of such a process? It's doubtful.

Many investigations start out with unanswered questions, and many theories have unanswered questions, but that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence to support the theory. The question really is, is there any evidence to support the idea that consciousness survives the death of the body? The answer is emphatically yes. There is a ton of strong testimonial evidence, and there is some evidence to support the idea that consciousness can move out of a body, and back into another body, as a choice, i.e., we can choose to do it. If the testimonial evidence for NDEs is veridical (genuine objective experiences of reality), which I believe they are, then they, at the very least, demonstrate that our consciousness can move in and out of our body, and probably other bodies as well.

There are many unanswered questions about consciousness, but that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't exist, or that consciousness isn't more than brain activity.

There are many unanswered questions about consciousness, but that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't exist, or that consciousness isn't more than brain activity. — Sam26

Correct. As testified by trustworthy people, "paranormal experience" such as telepathy, clairvoyant dreams and the like, rare though it may be, does exist. And this logically suggests that something like "consciousness" or "mind" can operate and exist independently of the physical body. Therefore it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because some people find the concept unsettling or beyond their intellectual abilities.

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. — Apollodorus

My personal experience with "accounts" of life-after-death was the Christian doctrine of Resurrection. It had the same general effect as Reincarnation -- a second chance for Justice and Happiness -- but in a one-shot deal. No need to try over & over to get it right. And no need for "philosophical justification", because it was based on faith in "reliable accounts", by witnesses to Jesus' revival after a gruesome death. Eventually though, I concluded that the testimony of those obviously biased witnesses was not "reliable". That's because they had an ideology (belief-system) to sell, and "the advertisement spoke well of it".

Nevertheless, if I had to chose, the straight-to-heaven Resurrection sounds much better than the unpredictable results of rebirth, and the possibility to Reincarnate as an insect. The bottom line is that I don't put much stock in second-hand "accounts" and hear-say anecdotes about events that I have never observed in my own experience. So, I'm not living in anticipation of Reincarnation or Resurrection. If I wake-up after death in a new body, or a naked Soul, I'll just think "what a nice surprise". :cool:


Resurrection vs Reincarnation :
There is a great deal of “fuzziness of thinking” regarding death that many Christians hold besides reincarnation, Barstad added, such as believing that after death one dies and goes to heaven and stays there forever, rather than joining with their resurrected body at the end of time. . . .
“The vague notion that something called a soul or a spirit or a shade lingers after death in some kind of place or condition where it can be more or less happy is not Christian,” Barstad said. “A human soul without a body is a tragedy. . . .
Reincarnation is “irreconcilable with the Christian belief that a human person is a distinct being, who lives one life, for which he or she is fully responsible: this understanding of the person puts into question both responsibility and freedom,”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/39710/why-christians-believe-in-resurrection-not-reincarnation

The bottom line is that I don't put much stock in second-hand "accounts" and hear-say anecdotes about events that I have never observed in my own experience. — Gnomon

That's a perfectly reasonable approach. However, when I say "reliable accounts" I mean reliable accounts i.e. accounts that are about as close to established fact as you can get, not mere hear-say.

Plus, don't forget that even when we accept scientific theories we tend to do it on faith as we have no possibility of personally verifying all the claims that science makes.

"What gets reincarnated" that also belongs to the self? — 180 Proof

This is the crux of the matter, so it speak, and it's telling that no one has yet proposed a coherent, evidence-based, 'transmigratory (metempsychotic)' candidate.

edit:

Btw, while dismissive of literal Reincarnation, I do find prospects of Not-Aging/Dying (e.g. 'immorbidity') and Resurrection (e.g. 'phenomenal self-continuity transfer/extension') philosophically plausable ... These prospects I elaborate on further here.

The soul is a form of intelligent energy. An immaterial substance that has the power of knowledge and action, of being aware of itself and of other things and of acting upon or interacting with itself and other things.
— Apollodorus

I think you’d have a fair amount of difficulty supporting that with reference to original sources. I personally believe the notion of an ‘immaterial substance’ is incoherent, as no such ‘substance’ can be detected by means of the senses or instruments. — Wayfarer

It makes for standard Hare Krishna doctrine:

/.../ The “soul” is defined as a non-material, eternal spiritual entity present within any living being. The symptom of the presence of the soul within a body is consciousness. The soul continues to exist after the destruction of the body and it existed prior to the creation of the body. The material body develops, changes and produces by-products [offspring] because of the presence of the soul within. The material body deteriorates in due cause of time and when it is no longer a suitable residence for the soul it is forced to leave the body. This we call death.
/.../
https://krishna.org/the-scientific-theory-of-the-soul/

And they claim (at the link) that they can prove all of this with the scientific method.

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

I answered your question. Why did you ignore it?

I'm interested in the philosophical implications, and that means sorting out the conceptual stuff. — Banno

But you're like someone who claims to want to learn and talk about "gravity", and then insists on categorically ignoring all physics books about gravity.


What makes all this into woo-woo is that so many people insist on being Humpy Dumpty -- "When I use a word" -- they say in a scornful tone -- "it means exactly what I choose it to mean!!"

The evidence is insufficient. — Banno

You're a semantic atomist.

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

Thanks for the find!

The discussion of recollection of past lives starts on page 404 here. It includes the differences between the ways different categories of people recollect past lives and what sense they can make of them.

What makes all this into woo-woo is that so many people insist on being Humpy Dumpty -- "When I use a word" -- they say in a scornful tone -- "it means exactly what I choose it to mean!!" — baker

Sadly, this seems to be the case here.

You're a semantic atomist. — baker

You're a fool.