Again, a few books by a guy named Stevenson isn't scientific documentation of anything — Thanatos Sand
Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question? — Thanatos Sand
To me it seems more sensible to think of the soul as 'having a body'; the soul is not "had", rather it is the having, so to speak. — John
Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?
— Thanatos Sand
I started with a question as a preamble, then proceeded with a reply to your question. We can validly assume the existence of something without being capable of answering the questions concerning that thing, which you ask. And I provided an example, gravity. Your questions are irrelevant to the point I was making.
Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists, so you have to establish or at least substantially establish that it does before accounting for how it behaves? Do you understand trying to ascertain how it must behave before doing so is particularly illogical? Do you also understand Gravity is something that can be shown to exist in the natural world while souls are not? Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?
.If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.
.
As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.
.If reincarnation doesn't require souls, the person arguing for its existence needs to assert what it does require.
.And reincarnation is very inconsistent with skepticism, which may not assume anything.
.but doesn't accept unsupported claims.
.And claims of reincarnation are all unsupported.
What would 'evidence' consist of? As mentioned previously, there is a large amount of documentation comprising interviews with children who claim to remember previous lives. Why would that not constitute evidence, at least of continuity between one life and another? — Wayfarer
Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.
But memories are not soul. — Banno
Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.
But memories are not soul.
SO your answer to my OP is roughly that what is reincarnated is not a "self" and hence is not subject to the issue of identifying the self over multiple incarnations. — Banno
“All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvāṇa, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated.”
“Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”
One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. In which case, one could presume that consciousness itself is, like water, everywhere the same, perhaps more or less here or there, but always self-identical, apart from its contents - what it is conscious of.
What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind? — Thanatos Sand
What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind?
— Thanatos Sand
Consciousness would be quanta. One and the same. And it is spreading spreading into duration as memory waves.
↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.
Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain. — Thanatos Sand
Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain.
— Thanatos Sand
Consciousness does lurk in quantum theory interpretation. I am being more explicit, but this type of thinking it's precisely where philosophers should be. Creativity based upon observations is where philosophy should be and exploring.
Consciousness, in this framework, would be one and the same as the physical body as is quanta. It extends though outside of the brain. Athletes and artists refer to this as body or muscle memory. Science is beginning to explore this idea:
Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain. — Thanatos Sand
No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists. — Thanatos Sand
No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid. — Thanatos Sand
If you want to disagree, don't talk about "our conscious". I'm not attributing any quality whatsoever to it beyond that it has contents which are generally called 'experience'.
↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.
What I am doing is turning the question around, and asking what makes someone think that they are not already incarnated in every living being, and suggesting that it is merely the limitation of the senses. Because I don't feel your joy and pain, I tend to think we are separate. It seems a short-sighted notion.
No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists.
— Thanatos Sand
Your characterization of who and what isn't a serious physicist is parenthetical to the discussion.
No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid.
— Thanatos Sand
The to are one and the same, and there is evidence that thinking goes on outside the brain.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.