• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Hub - an Agnostic/Atheistic Standpoint on Reincarnation

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
So, I've been introspecting about this for several years now, and I thought that I might be able to share my insights here.

This concept will be hard to grasp for those that look at it from the standpoint of any form of religion; to fully understand this concept, one must view the universe from the non-theist standpoint, as a chaotic, yet mathematically organized, computer (in a metaphorical rather than literal sense).

To begin, I'm going to ask you what you recall before you were born. The obvious answer to this question is that you recall absolutely nothing, which actually provides more insight than one might think. Before we were born, we, the consciousness that occupies our vessel, simply weren't there. We didn't exist before we were born, but then we existed, a testament to a very antiquated paradox. How does something come from nothing? Something isn't made of nothing, because it would still be nothing, so how is this possible? The very fact that you are sitting here reading this very post definitely states that your consciousness, indeed, came from nothing and then became something, so what else has come from nothing? One may conclude that all of existence has simply arisen out of this abyss we call "nonexistence". Well, as it so happens, nonexistence doesn't exist, nor does it not exist, and the very fact that we are here illustrates this concept. If we exist, then that means that things that aren't here now have the possibility to exist (as evidence to the fact that we had the possibility to exist and then we existed). But, nothing can't have potential, for if nothing has potential, it adopts a property of something; therefore, anything that has potential exists, and anything that doesn't have potential or properties doesn't exist. But, as we just mentioned, we came out of nonexistence; we had potential, so anything else that could possibly exist must indeed exist along with us. If nothing has the possibility to exist, then nothing, quite paradoxically, isn't nothing. This means that nonexistence must not be nonexistence, for everything in nonexistence has the potential to exist.

Now for the crazy part:
Using this knowledge that nonexistence is impossible, we can confront the common atheistic viewpoint concerning what happens after death. Most atheists tend to believe that when we die, we fall into the oblivion that constitutes nonexistence, i.e. when we die, we no longer exist, and we cease to be, and that's the end of that. But, as we've learned, nonexistence is impossible, so how can one rejoin the nonexistence from whence it didn't come? That's simple, one doesn't. But what happens to us then? The only possible explanation for what happens actually lies from how we began to exist in the first place, when we die, we become nonexistent, and then instantaneously existent, for nonexistence is utterly unstable because it simply can't be. When we become instantaneously existent, we are recycled to a new vessel, as proven by the fact that our consciousness came from "nothing". But if our consciousness ceased to be, then how are we recycled? The only possible explanation is that consciousness isn't the property of the individual, but the property of the entire collective. Anything that experiences is conscious; therefore, it possesses the consciousness. When a vessel is damaged to the point where consciousness has no possible route to experience any longer, it simply takes root into a different vessel, one that is being born. But, if this is true, then how come some babies aren't born without consciousness? Now we begin to trail down the path of the singularity. The instantaneous transition that transports us from vessel to vessel is free of certain laws of existence, because technically, during that precise, infinitesimally small amount of time, we aren't apart of existence anymore, and what important concept is a property of existence? Time. Therefore, when we enter nonexistence, we no longer abide by the same rules of existence, including time. When we transition from vessel to vessel, we could be placed in a vessel 3 trillion years from now or even 13.7 billion years ago. That means, when we die, our consciousness possesses another, randomly chosen vessel, which then goes on to live a life, die, and in turn be re-purposed into a different vessel (or perhaps even the same vessel over again a few times), a process that continues indefinitely until every life-form has been lived an infinite amount of times.

With these inferences, we can make several conclusions: One, that every act of kindness or belligerence we ultimately do to ourselves, for we are doomed to live the receiver of said kindness or belligerence eventually. Two, that consciousness is one unified being, that lives every life individually and anachronistically. and Three, that life and death are ultimately a cycle or beginning, ending, and beginning once more.

I would love to hear your interpretations on my insane ramblings that I have posted on this thread, so please tell me anything you notice or any logical inconsistency or fallacy in my writing.
 
N

ndovjtjcaqidthi

Guest
Me and [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] were talking about this last night. You're doing it right, Alea.
 

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
485
MBTI Type
INTp
I would love to hear your interpretations on my insane ramblings that I have posted on this thread, so please tell me anything you notice or any logical inconsistency or fallacy in my writing.
You've made the mistake of thinking of conciousness as a special independent entity. It's not. It's a byproduct of your brain activity. It's no different than body heat in this regard.

So it doesn't come from nothing. It's a matter to energy conversion. Deprive your brain of the raw materials it needs to operate (calories and oxygen) and your conciousness will disappear fast enough.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
You've made the mistake of thinking of conciousness as a special independent entity. It's not. It's a byproduct of your brain activity. It's no different than body heat in this regard.

So it doesn't come from nothing. It's a matter to energy conversion. Deprive your brain of the raw materials it needs to operate (calories and oxygen) and your conciousness will disappear fast enough.

I probably should have utilized the computer metaphor to illustrate what I meant. I know that consciousness is the byproduct of brain activity, but in the same sense, consciousness is also a definitive part of our brain, like memory is to a computer. The data from a computer's memory is never truly deleted, it is emptied of its contents and recycled. Therefore, it could be shown that consciousness acts in the same manner, but once it is deleted from the brain, it is released, for it cannot be re-purposed inside something that does not function, and it is never destroyed because of the law of conservation of energy.

You are right on all points, but I think you misinterpreted the whole "Consciousness comes from nothing" part, the point of the first portion of my post explains why non-existence can't be, so consciousness couldn't have come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist. Consciousness does come from something.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
I probably should have utilized the computer metaphor to illustrate what I meant. I know that consciousness is the byproduct of brain activity, but in the same sense, consciousness is also a definitive part of our brain, like memory is to a computer. The data from a computer's memory is never truly deleted, it is emptied of its contents and recycled. Therefore, it could be shown that consciousness acts in the same manner, but once it is deleted from the brain, it is released, for it cannot be re-purposed inside something that does not function, and it is never destroyed because of the law of conservation of energy.

You are right on all points, but I think you misinterpreted the whole "Consciousness comes from nothing" part, the point of the first portion of my post explains why non-existence can't be, so consciousness couldn't have come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist. Consciousness does come from something.

Memory is substance and form. When the cache is empties, it only loses form. Substance awaits.

Upon death, both substance and form are absolved from the mind.

I think you are still hanging on to the core problem SensEye identified; I identified it in your first post as well, and still do.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Memory is substance and form. When the cache is empties, it only loses form. Substance awaits.

Upon death, both substance and form are absolved from the mind.

I think you are still hanging on to the core problem SensEye identified; I identified it in your first post as well, and still do.

You both have said that the mind simply leaves the body and disappears, but where does it go from there? It simply can't disappear from existence.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Are you guys under the impression that I am saying that consciousness is detached from the human form? As if it is compiled somewhere and that it siphons off to each individual? My actual statement is that consciousness can only be in one place at a time, but because it can maneuver around the existential concept of time after death due to the paradox created that was mentioned in my post, it can occupy several bodies at once in the past, present, and future. I'm saying that consciousness is one being that occupies one vessel at a time, then moves on to a different vessel after that one has become dysfunctional, but since it can move throughout time and occupy any vessel, we have circumstances where the consciousness occupies several vessels at once, such as the 7 billion people living today.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Mind is everything

All we are is what we have thought

etc

This sounds very akin to an enlightenment era philosophy, that the external world is just a manifestation and simulation to keep the mind (which doesn't have a physical form but simply wanders around aimlessly in the blackness of nothing) entertained throughout its infinite existence.
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Are you guys under the impression that I am saying that consciousness is detached from the human form? As if it is compiled somewhere and that it siphons off to each individual? My actual statement is that consciousness can only be in one place at a time, but because it can maneuver around the existential concept of time after death due to the paradox created that was mentioned in my post, it can occupy several bodies at once in the past, present, and future. I'm saying that consciousness is one being that occupies one vessel at a time, then moves on to a different vessel after that one has become dysfunctional, but since it can move throughout time and occupy any vessel, we have circumstances where the consciousness occupies several vessels at once, such as the 7 billion people living today.

An interesting hypothesis...but it doesn't seem to have any substance. Just assumptions and/or naked assertions. How do you know all of this? What do you make the basis of these claims?
 
W

WALMART

Guest
This sounds very akin to an enlightenment era philosophy, that the external world is just a manifestation and simulation to keep the mind (which doesn't have a physical form but simply wanders around aimlessly in the blackness of nothing) entertained throughout its infinite existence.

*everything is mind

Pardon. Works both ways, really.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
An interesting hypothesis...but it doesn't seem to have any substance. Just assumptions and/or naked assertions. How do you know all of this? What do you make the basis of these claims?

No one can truly know how it works, it is indeed merely speculation. I attempted to use logical analysis to pick apart nonexistence and existence and provide a scenario from which reincarnation can occur in a godless universe. It's philosophy after all, it isn't a scientific theory.
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
No one can truly know how it works, it is indeed merely speculation. I attempted to use logical analysis to pick apart nonexistence and existence and provide a scenario from which reincarnation can occur in a godless universe. It's philosophy after all, it isn't a scientific theory.

Fair enough.

It's an interesting idea...but the premises seems to rest on an idea that I just can't agree with.

We didn't exist before we were born, but then we existed, a testament to a very antiquated paradox. How does something come from nothing? Something isn't made of nothing, because it would still be nothing, so how is this possible?

Others in this thread have pointed out that you seem to be treating consciousness as if it's something that is independent of the body. I know you've stated already that you aren't but you really are. You can't say that consciousness is NOT independent of the body and then in the same breath imply that conscious somehow has the ability or mechanism to jump from body to body. The two are mutually exclusive. Consciousness is either the byproduct of the chemicals in your body or it's something that is independent of the brain.

I can't really respond to the rest of your post because it rest on what I feel is this very faulty assumption. If I were to assume your premise correct, THEN it (might) make some sense.

Good thought though!
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Fair enough.

It's an interesting idea...but the premises seems to rest on an idea that I just can't agree with.



Others in this thread have pointed out that you seem to be treating consciousness as if it's something that is independent of the body. I know you've stated already that you aren't but you really are. You can't say that consciousness is NOT independent of the body and then in the same breath imply that conscious somehow has the ability or mechanism to jump from body to body. The two are mutually exclusive. Consciousness is either the byproduct of the chemicals in your body or it's something that is independent of the brain.

I can't really respond to the rest of your post because it rest on what I feel is this very faulty assumption. If I were to assume your premise correct, THEN it (might) make some sense.

Good thought though!

Thank you.

The reason why I am forced to go with that particular idea for consciousness is that when someone dies in a godless universe, they would be theoretically cast into nonexistence, which as evidenced by my speculation, doesn't exist (how ironic). So how can something that is no longer functioning such as thought exist but not exist at the same time? The only explanations would either be that perhaps the consciousness unique to a body jumps backwards in time and relives the same life with the same body perpetually, or that the consciousness is transported to a different body. For personal preference, I picked the latter of the two (living the same life over and over again seems so dull).

Again, this is all speculation.
 

tinker683

Whackus Bonkus
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,882
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Thank you.

The reason why I am forced to go with that particular idea for consciousness is that when someone dies in a godless universe, they would be theoretically cast into nonexistence, which as evidenced by my speculation, doesn't exist (how ironic). So how can something that is no longer functioning such as thought exist but not exist at the same time? The only explanations would either be that perhaps the consciousness unique to a body jumps backwards in time and relives the same life with the same body perpetually, or that the consciousness is transported to a different body. For personal preference, I picked the latter of the two (living the same life over and over again seems so dull).

Again, this is all speculation.

That's...because...it doesn't?

You seem to be under the impression that when something ceases to exist...it continues to exist in some form. It doesn't, it's gone. I mean, some of the byproduct of it's physical body might be found in the ground it was buried in or the urn it's ashes were placed in or whatever...but to my thought we have no scientific reason to believe that thoughts continue to occur in a dead brain.

The only way I know that a person continues to "exist" after they've died is in the memories and experiences of those they've encountered but then they don't literally "exist" so much as they're memories at that point.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
That's...because...it doesn't?

You seem to be under the impression that when something ceases to exist...it continues to exist in some form. It doesn't, it's gone. I mean, some of the byproduct of it's physical body might be found in the ground it was buried in or the urn it's ashes were placed in or whatever...but to my thought we have no scientific reason to believe that thoughts continue to occur in a dead brain.

The only way I know that a person continues to "exist" after they've died is in the memories and experiences of those they've encountered but then they don't literally "exist" so much as they're memories at that point.

That defeats the entire point of half of my post, nonexistence isn't because existence is. It is impossible for something not to exist, even if it isn't here right now. The human consciousness simply can't be nonexistent because nonexistent is nonexistent. There is no oblivion, no abyss, and no end based on this concept. Therefore, when something such as consciousness or even computer data is erased, they are somehow recycled, they do not cease to be, they do not become nonexistent, they are re-purposed. The whole point of being able to explain this reincarnation was based on this very principle that I've hypothesized/speculated, without that concept, it is as you stated, the mind simply ceases to be. Essentially, this model doesn't prove that reincarnation happens, it is how reincarnation might be able to happen.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
I'd recommend reading Carol Bowman's "Return from Heaven". There are a handful of cases where a reincarnated soul returns to the same family. These are anecdotal accounts, but the children in the book would know names of people, locations, and have knowledge of details of their previous life. In some instances, they'd have birthmarks at places where they suffered an injury. For instance, a child with a surgical incision in his neck in one life would have a birthmark in the same place.

The author has a forum where people can submit their stories. You can read some of the accounts from actual parents of these kids.

If you want a more scientific approach, try to find Ian Stevenson's 2 volume book: Reincarnation and Biology. It's a 2200 page text with photos of the scars and birthmarks of many subjects. I believe he's investigated over 1,000 reincarnation cases.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
I have also come to the conclusion of the OP. Nonexistence is nonexistent. There is only life, there is only consciousness. From our experience anyway. Whether or not there is an external world, time is of no importance. I could cease to exist for a trillion trillion years. All that needs to happen is the same thing that already happened once - I come into being.

Of course, I won't really be me. The only commonality will be consciousness itself.

Then again, I don't believe I will die as zago. If the life expectancy didn't rise one iota in my lifetime, I would make it to around 2070. But it will rise by 2070. A lot--enough to outpace aging itself. Then again, will I have a physical body at all at that point? I'm more akin to believe my consciousness will have been uploaded to machines at that point. I'll be immortal in the sense that the Cylons of BSG were. And so will everyone.

If that turns out not to be the case, I will have myself cryogenically frozen. Lots of people are doing that these days. It's not even that expensive. And that kind of takes us back to the original point of this thread, if you think about it. So confusing.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I have also come to the conclusion of the OP. Nonexistence is nonexistent. There is only life, there is only consciousness. From our experience anyway. Whether or not there is an external world, time is of no importance. I could cease to exist for a trillion trillion years. All that needs to happen is the same thing that already happened once - I come into being.

Of course, I won't really be me. The only commonality will be consciousness itself.

Then again, I don't believe I will die as zago. If the life expectancy didn't rise one iota in my lifetime, I would make it to around 2070. But it will rise by 2070. A lot--enough to outpace aging itself. Then again, will I have a physical body at all at that point? I'm more akin to believe my consciousness will have been uploaded to machines at that point. I'll be immortal in the sense that the Cylons of BSG were. And so will everyone.

If that turns out not to be the case, I will have myself cryogenically frozen. Lots of people are doing that these days. It's not even that expensive. And that kind of takes us back to the original point of this thread, if you think about it. So confusing.

Woe to the first poor soul who uploads his mind to a machine, for I'm certain accidents are bound to happen.
It makes me wonder however, if the personality of a person is uploaded to a machine, and consciousness with it, how will consciousness recycle itself in this system? Perhaps uploading someone's mind would deplete consciousness of its vessel's customization, if you will, so that people could still be born and have consciousness. (This is extrapolated from my hypothesis of there being one consciousness living one life at a time then transposing to another body through which it lives another life parallel to the first life)
 
Top