And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality.
— Thanatos Sand

No more and no less sci-fi than any interpretation of Relativity or Quantum. I am referring to real phenomenon (memory, life, intelligence, evolution) but giving it a different substrate than what one is user to. For example, the brain doesn't house memory, the brain reveals memory just as a TV doesn't house TV programs it only reveals them. My paradigm is actually very straightforward and realistic.

Yes, way more since it isn't backed by Physics at all. The fact memory exists doesn't mean it is the fabric of the universe and it is not. Feel free to back up your claim with physics at any time. We both know you can't.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics. — Thanatos Sand

If you haven't observed that science is constantly changing (yes, even gravity) than there is nothing more to say. We have two different life experiences.

Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural.
— Thanatos Sand

Not at all. It simply makes memory persistent and we have plenty of evidence of this in innate and inherited traits as well as habitual movements.

There is nothing new here. It is an explanatory model that can create new opportunities for research and conceptual development. As I showed in another thread, there is already scientific evidence for a holographic universe.

Yes at all since you haven't and can't show memory is the fabric of the universe. You can't even show what memory is physically made up of at all. And an explanatory model is not physical proof by the rules of physics. And whether or not you have shown there is scientific evidence for a holographic universe, you certainly haven't show that memory is the fabric of the universe or even part of it. Until you do, your theory remains supernatural.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics.
— Thanatos Sand

If you haven't observed that science is constantly changing (yes, even gravity) than there is nothing more to say. We have two different life experiences.

If you haven't observed that the rules of the universe-like the ones I mentioned-don't change, then there is clearly nothing more to say. You don't understand physics. Science may change in correcting it's errors; the rules of the universe don't. We clearly have two different education experiences as well.

My assumption is that if a small child is familiar with the past events of another life, the child learned that information in the traditional way of being told as opposed to the information streaming in a paranormal way. It's a fairly safe assumption really.

It's like if a person describes the precise way a victim were killed and locates the body without having apparent access to that information, I'd not call that person a psychic, but instead a suspect.

Science may change in correcting it's errors; — Thanatos Sand

I guess this is one way to frame it.

In any case, there is nothing much more to discuss. Different life forces at play.

Science may change in correcting it's errors;
— Thanatos Sand

I guess this is one way to frame it.

In any case, there is nothing much more to discuss. Different life forces at play.

No, it is the correct way to frame it. And you said "nothing more to discuss" two tweets ago.

My assumption is that if a small child is familiar with the past events of another life, the child learned that information in the traditional way of being told as opposed to the information streaming in a paranormal way. It's a fairly safe assumption really. — Hanover

The way I would frame it, is not that the child is aware, but rather that the memory persists. The child's "self" it's this memory. And, yes, all learning is accomplished in the normal manner of creative exploration evolving into new memory.

Care to share Lacan? — Banno

I think he believes in underlying ambiguity. Language use paints a picture. For all practical purposes the elements of that painting are real.

Sense if self is a kind of stress response that is directly related to language use and castration.


When you reject reincarnation, you're saying it doesn't fit in the picture your people are painting.

Or maybe not. I'm still trying to understand.

Spacetime is a thing made up of space and time. — litewave

OK, I agree, spacetime is something "made up".

Activity outside of spacetime doesn't make sense to me. — litewave

Why not, we're talking about real activity aren't we? And spacetime is made up. Made up, and real are mutually exclusive. N'est-ce pas? If so, then all real activity is outside of spacetime.

It's like if a person describes the precise way a victim were killed and locates the body without having apparent access to that information, I'd not call that person a psychic, but instead a suspect. — Hanover

Buzzkill!

Without reincarnating souls, Karma doesn't make sense at all. Karma, to work, clearly requires continuation of a soul. Otherwise, innocent people are going to get hurt.

But it still doesn't make sense since you have people suffering for what someone else did years, maybe millennia ago. And none of us are replete with memories of those past misdeeds to guide us, so Karma is a great way of making people on the losing end of exchanges or events feel the winners will get theirs, particularly the nastier ones.

Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

I'd also point out that you are on to something in your evaluation of reincarnation. If it is the case that reincarnation does not exist (as I contend it does not ), then any religion that justifies poor treatment of certain peoples (as the Hindu do in their caste system) on the basis that those peoples are being punished for the sins of past lives, then that religion is horribly unjust and oppressive. It seems such a religion is being used for controlling the masses and protecting the ruling class (which I contend it is).

↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

My concern is whether Buddhism is a coherent system or not.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions


2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''.

Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. — Hanover

Yes, but there are many cases where instant Karma is absent. Unsolved crimes are aplenty.
To cover these cases Buddhism needs souls to reincarnate.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions

2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

You're predicating conjecture on conjecture. Samsara and Karma do not explain away the problem of evil and you haven't shown they have. I would sincerely like to see you do so. And it does not fit well within the general notion of causation, since there is no proof tying together the effects of events to a mystical moral judgment of causes. I am more than willing to see you show that proof as well.

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''.

And I showed the problem with that thinking in this post:

↪TheMadFool But it still doesn't make sense since you have people suffering for what someone else did years, maybe millennia ago. And none of us are replete with memories of those past misdeeds to guide us, so Karma is a great way of making people on the losing end of exchanges or events feel the winners will get theirs, particularly the nastier ones.

People are wrong about what will make them happy, what will satisfy them and bring them health. No wicked person dies happy, and no good person dies miserable. It's a mistake to think that material circumstances are all that relevant. The more you treat others differently, the more you lie and cheat, the more alienated you become from yourself, and everyone else. You will always die in isolation and desolation if you lived an unjust life.

The world is just, dispute appearances.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions


2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''. — TheMadFool

This is how new branches of Buddhism are developed. Because Buddhism is decentralized, it it's relatively easy to start creating one that conforms to one's own belief system. Next thing you know, somebody will be claiming it is true, and it will be for that person. There is no central authority to contradict. This is one of the attractions of Buddhism. Of course, it can also leave to some bad blood between competing Buddhist branches.

You have no idea what makes other people happy, and if your statement was correct, you couldn't even judge what makes you happy. Also wicked and good are moral concepts of human, not natural, creation. And even if we use them, many good people die miserable, like those dying in the gas chambers, watching their loved ones die too. And many wicked people die happy, loved by many, surrounded by family and good fortune. That's not all about materialism, and I never said it was. And many of those dying happy lied and cheated to get there.

I think the present Dalai Lama has an interesting take on this, including the notion that 'evidence-based logic' is required to explain the notion of the reincarnation of Tulkus or 'scholar-adepts'. This includes supposed memories of past lives, but also predictions before birth, and the testimony of others. Each Dalai Lama prepares the way for the next, as happens in other traditions too.

https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-lama/biography-and-daily-life/reincarnation

How can anyone love you if they don't know you because you've hidden from them? How can you love yourself if you've hidden from yourself, because you live in denial? Do you think that comfort and fortune beings happiness, rather than boredom and restlessness? Do you think that a calm and uneventful death brings one more joy than a violent one?

Yes, I meant me as well. I'm constantly wrong about what will bring me happiness, what will satisfy me, and bring me health. I need to be silent and subtle to discover that in every moment.

Wisdom is about living a good life, a healthy life. Whether man made or not, it doesn't render it ineffective.

So, you can't show you know what makes everyone happy. We both knew that.

How can anyone love you if they don't know you because you've hidden from them? How can you love yourself if you've hidden from yourself, because you live in denial?

Stop strawmanning me. I never said anything about anyone hiding from anyone. Some of the people in the world most honest with themselves are terrible people who know they're terrible. And there are people out there who actually love them, no matter how much that bothers you. There are also people who love people who are hiding from them, as well. And how can you love yourself when you're in denial about knowing what makes everyone happy? Using your logic, you must not.

Do you think that comfort and fortune beings happiness, rather than boredom and restlessness? Do you think that a calm and uneventful death brings one more joy than a violent one?

Again you strawman me; you need to read better if we are to actually discuss. I talked about bad people dying loved and surrounded by their loved ones. And if you think comfort and fortune inherently brings boredom and restlessness, you must have never really enjoyed real comfort and fortune. And if you don't think a comfortable uneventful death free from watching loved ones die horribly is better than a violent one watching loved ones die, you have strange notions of happy and unhappy deaths.

Wisdom is about living a good life, a healthy life. Whether man made or not, it doesn't render it ineffective.

Wisdom is knowing you don't know what makes a good and healthy life for everyone else. You can still acquire that. And concepts being man-made show they're not necessarily weighted in reality, and you haven't shown your concepts are effective at all.

You replied to me, and my conditions were lying cheaters.

No, you replied to me, so you were in no place to set conditions. So, you did strawman me.

No I didn't. Go look.

I did. This was my post to which you responded:

↪Hanover
↪TheMadFool Karma can make sense without reincarnation to the extent one believes they will reap what they sow within this life. That is, I should expect the pain I exact on the world to be returned to me before I die.

Except we know they don't. Many horrid people who do terrible things die happy with everything they want, while many excellent people endure great suffering they did not deserve. Also, mass deaths counter the notion of Karma in life, as not only does not everyone in a plane crash or those being gassed in the Holocaust not deserve what they got, they can't possibly deserve the exact same thing. No two people do the exact same things in life.

↪Wosret You have no idea what makes other people happy, and if your statement was correct, you couldn't even judge what makes you happy. Also wicked and good are moral concepts of human, not natural, creation. And even if we use them, many good people die miserable, like those dying in the gas chambers, watching their loved ones die too. And many wicked people die happy, loved by many, surrounded by family and good fortune. That's not all about materialism, and I never said it was. And many of those dying happy lied and cheated to get there. — Thanatos Sand

That was the only post to which I responded of yours. I hadn't even read that other one, let alone replied to it.

Actually, you responded to more, but at least we now know you were the first to respond.