Mental Energy and Reincarnation…

[JonM]

This Buddhism site suggests that there is evidence to support reincarnation….

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda05.htm

 

 

here are some highlights:

 

Question:

How does the mind go from one body to another?

 

Answer:

Think of it being like radio waves. The radio waves, which are not made up of words and music but energy at different frequencies, are transmitted, travel through space, are attracted to and picked up by the receiver from where they are broadcast as words and music. It is the same with the mind. At death, mental energy travels through space, is attracted to and picked up by the fertilized egg. As the embryo grows, it centers itself in the brain from where it later "broadcasts" itself as the new personality.

 

--------

 

Question:

You have talked a lot about rebirth but is there any proof that we are reborn when we die?

 

Answer:

Not only is there scientific evidence to support the Buddhist belief in rebirth, it is the only after-life theory that has any evidence to support it. … For example, in England, a 5 year-old girl said she could remember her "other mother and father" and she talked vividly about what sounded like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called in and they asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke of living in a particular village in what appeared to be Spain, she gave the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbors' names and details about her everyday life there. She also fearfully spoke of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later. When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was a village in Spain with the name the five-year-old girl had given. There was a house of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more, it was found that a 23-year-old woman living in the house had been killed in a car accident five years before. ….

 

 

 

Ok so now I am not saying I believe that story, (or the supposed other stories they refer too if you click the link) But it does make some sense and I was wonder what your take on this would be?

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so where does our mental energy go?

[solidsquid]

Define "mental energy".

[JonM]

I have no idea, I would imagine its the electrical impulses in our neurons.

 

I am not saying anything either way about this subject. I tend to take the science side and think that everything just ends when you die and thats it. But this stuff is interesting reguardless and I was wondering if that story is true or not.

[imasmartgirl]

I've been pondering things like this too. And I have a question. What makes us ourselves? I'm not talking about personality, but why am i this person and not the next? What exactly is it in me thats makes sure i stay me. Most people will answer a soul. But what exactly would that be made out of in my body?

[Glider]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so where does our mental energy go?

It doesn't go anywhere. Whilst it's true that energy can neither be created not destroyed, we do make use of biological processes to convert substances into energy that we can use. Once these biological processes stop, so does the energy conversion, so on death, there is no mental energy to go anywhere.

 

If you wish to think of it in terms of radio waves, the argument:

"...radio waves, which are not made up of words and music but energy at different frequencies, are transmitted, travel through space, are attracted to and picked up by the receiver from where they are broadcast as words and music."[/i]

ignores the fact that as well as a receiver, there must also be a transmitter, and this requires power (energy). It talks about radio waves as if they were autonomous and objective entities rather than the product of an energy conversion process ocurring in a transmitter. If the transmitter 'dies', i.e. you pull the plug out, there is no more power and no more radio waves. So, it's not that energy is being destroyed, it's just that it isn't being converted and transmitted anymore.

 

It is the same with the mind. At death, mental energy travels through space, is attracted to and picked up by the fertilized egg. As the embryo grows, it centers itself in the brain from where it later "broadcasts" itself as the new personality.

It isn't at all the same. The brain is not a transmitter. Although there are signals that are detectable at close range (e.g. EEG), these are a byproduct of energetic processes ocurring in the cortex. On death, these stop (as shown by the EEG 'flatline'). So, if transmission of personality were at all possible, it would only be so during life. If this were so, surely we would be 'transmitting' our personality to every emryo within range during the course of our lives?

[JohnB]

Glider, I think the original author was not being literal. "Think of it being like radio waves." The operative word here is "like", so it is pointless to refute the allegory in a literal fashion.

 

He or she is trying to explain something in non-religious terms that the layman can easily understand.

 

There is also the argument that if you believe in a spiritual realm, the concepts involved are inherently impossible to understand completely in the terms of this realm. Sort of like it is inherently impossible for a 6 month old child to understand Special Relativity. They just cannot grasp the concepts involved.

 

Intelectually, we count in the billions but emotionally we count 1,2,3, many. How are we supposed to comprehend infinity?

 

That BTW, is where I have a beef with religionists. Assuming there is a supreme, infinite creator, then how come some joker who does a few years of religious college is supposed to be able to tell me what He/She wants. That would be equivalent to asking a 2 year old what their parents want from life.

 

As a final point, the EEG is designed for a specific purpose, just because it doesn't detect something it was never designed to is no reason to assume that that something does not exist.

[Glider]

Glider' date=' I think the original author was not being literal. "Think of it being like radio waves." The operative word here is "like", so it is pointless to refute the allegory in a literal fashion.

 

He or she is trying to explain something in non-religious terms that the layman can easily understand.[/quote']

If the allegory is sound, then it should be ok to extend it to show the flaws. I wasn't talking about literal radio waves either. It doesn't matter what the 'mental energy' is, my point was that on death, energetic processes stop, therefore there is no energy to go anywhere.

 

There is also the argument that if you believe in a spiritual realm, the concepts involved are inherently impossible to understand completely in the terms of this realm. Sort of like it is inherently impossible for a 6 month old child to understand Special Relativity. They just cannot grasp the concepts involved.

Hmmm...if nobody can possibly know what they are talking about, there seems little point in discussion, does there?

Intelectually, we count in the billions but emotionally we count 1,2,3, many. How are we supposed to comprehend infinity?

 

That BTW, is where I have a beef with religionists. Assuming there is a supreme, infinite creator, then how come some joker who does a few years of religious college is supposed to be able to tell me what He/She wants. That would be equivalent to asking a 2 year old what their parents want from life.

Yeah, funny that. You'd think that if God wanted everybody to believe, it would be within His/Her/Its power to make sure we did. On the other hand, if God really wanted us to have free will, how come followers think they know better and spend so much time trying to convert us heathens? Surely they can't think they know better than God in their attempts to deny us the freedom of choice that was granted by God? A third option is that God wants those who have 'seen the light' to convert those who haven't. But it seems to me that that's just asking for trouble and brings His/Her/Its wisdom into some question I would think.

 

 

As a final point, the EEG is designed for a specific purpose, just because it doesn't detect something it was never designed to is no reason to assume that that something does not exist.

I used EEG as an example (note the e.g.). Although, to continue in the same logic, if something has never been detected, then there is equally no reason to suppose it does exist.

 

As an aside, Buddhism is one of the belief systems I have the least problem with. In fact, for the most part, I have a lot of sympathy for it as a philosophy of life.

 

I tend to have a problem where such systems turn to philosophies of death and thereafter, because these are attempts to direct people's lives using threats and promises of unknowable and non-demonstrable outcomes.

 

I don't need the threat of hell, purgatory or being reborn as a slug to stop me being a bad person. I don't need the promise of eternal bliss, 70 virgins or living forever wearing fluffy white wings to make me a good person.

 

I have what I consider to be a resonable set of ethics. If I do a good thing, I do so because I believe it's the right thing to do, not for the promise of reward. If I avoid or refuse to do a bad thing, it will be because I think it's the wrong thing to do, not because somebody threatened me with an eternity of paddling in molten brimstone.

 

Whatever I do, good or bad, I do in the knowledge (belief) that this is my only shot at it. If I screw this one up, then tough, but it won't really blemish the big picture that much.

[JohnB]

It doesn't matter what the 'mental energy' is, my point was that on death, energetic processes stop, therefore there is no energy to go anywhere.

I'm not sure if I'm going to explain what I mean clearly here, so please bear with me.

 

On death the chemical and electrical processes in the body stop. This does not neccessarily mean that there is no energy to go anywhere, it may mean that the energy has already gone. Is a flat battery dead because there is no energy to go anywhere or because the energy has gone?

Hmmm...if nobody can possibly know what they are talking about, there seems little point in discussion, does there?

Please note I said "impossible to understand completely". The child may understand that there is something going on, but not understand completely the ins and outs of the situation. And yes, in this type of situation, I do view myself as a child.

Although, to continue in the same logic, if something has never been detected, then there is equally no reason to suppose it does exist.

Until recently Gamma rays, Radio waves, X rays and a dozen other things had never been detected either, does that mean that those who postulated their existence were perhaps mislead? Dark matter AFAIK has never actually been detected either, but there are many people far more learned and intelligent than I who believe it exists.

 

Except for the last paragraph I agree entirely with the rest of your post. There are religions and there are ways of living, Buddhism I think is more the latter than the former and is very close to my own belief system. Like you I think I have a good ethical system, but it's because I choose it, not because of threats of punishment or promise of reward.

 

Out of curiousity, what is your take on the stories of those who claimed to remember things that have checked out? (Please note, I'm not talking about the amazing number of people who think they were Napoleon or Cleopatra in a past life. ) People like the woman mentioned in original web page. I am aware of others.

 

Unfortunately many try to use these people as evidence to push their own particular barrow, or to interpret the data through the lens of their own particular belief system.

 

Peter Ramster has been conducting research for many years and I have found some of his examples extremely interesting. He produced a program a number of years ago that I found rather compelling. The results of the regression of Gwen MacDonald, listed here (about 1/4 the way down the page) are quite extraordinary. (Assuming the whole thing wasn't a set up of course.)

[Glider]

I'm not sure if I'm going to explain what I mean clearly here' date=' so please bear with me.

 

On death the chemical and electrical processes in the body stop. This does not neccessarily mean that there is no energy to go anywhere, it may mean that the energy has already gone. Is a flat battery dead because there is no energy to go anywhere or because the energy has gone?[/quote']

A flat battery is dead because the processes resulting in the production of energy have stopped, therefore there is no more energy to go anywhere. It's the same when somebody dies; the processes of energy conversion/production stop, so there is no more energy. All chemical/electrical activity ceases, temperature drops to ambient and decomposition begins.

 

Until recently Gamma rays, Radio waves, X rays and a dozen other things had never been detected either, does that mean that those who postulated their existence were perhaps mislead? Dark matter AFAIK has never actually been detected either, but there are many people far more learned and intelligent than I who believe it exists.

As far as I know, those who postulated the existence of these things did so by extrapolating from what was already known using logical steps, e.g. 'if A = 1 and B = 2 then it is likely that C = 3' and so-on. This is a far cry from the kind of 'knights move' progression that proposes 'if we are conscious when we are alive, then our consciousness must pass into another being when we die'. In this case, the 'then' is not a logical progression from the 'if', or at the very least, it is no more logical than proposing 'if we die in battle with a sword in our hands then we must gain access to the halls of Valhalla' (or be accepted into the arms of Mithras, or be greeted across the river by Briga and Nemain' or any other such postulation).

 

If you accept that it is possible that on death, our consciousness passes into another being (and I'm not saying it's impossible, just not likely), then you must accept the possibility of all the other propositions, and they can't all be right.

 

Except for the last paragraph I agree entirely with the rest of your post. There are religions and there are ways of living, Buddhism I think is more the latter than the former and is very close to my own belief system. Like you I think I have a good ethical system, but it's because I choose it, not because of threats of punishment or promise of reward.

 

Out of curiousity, what is your take on the stories of those who claimed to remember things that have checked out? (Please note, I'm not talking about the amazing number of people who think they were Napoleon or Cleopatra in a past life. ) People like the woman mentioned in original web page. I am aware of others.

 

Unfortunately many try to use these people as evidence to push their own particular barrow, or to interpret the data through the lens of their own particular belief system.

I have seen one or two examples of this, but I have also seen as many examples of these being refuted, or equally reasonable alternative explanations. My personal take on such examples is that they're interesting, and I'd like to know more, but so far, I haven't seen enough to make any particular inferences.

Peter Ramster has been conducting research for many years and I have found some of his examples extremely interesting. He produced a program a number of years ago that I found rather compelling. The results of the regression of Gwen MacDonald, listed here (about 1/4 the way down the page) are quite extraordinary. (Assuming the whole thing wasn't a set up of course.)

His logic worries me. He states for example that "...there is no EVIDENCE that human beings come back as anything less than human as some Eastern sects believe.". This argument, for a lawyer, is worrying (or merely a confirmation of the lawyer stereotype) because whilst he uses 'lack of evidence' to refute claims that humans come back as anything less than human, implicit within his statement is the assumption that (therefore) humans (must) come back as humans, for which there is an equal lack of evidence.

 

Bloody lawyers trick. It means that if you agree with him that there is no evidence that humans come back as anything less than human, then you have already agreed with him that humans come back as human. Clever, and it might work in court, but not in science.

 

He then goes on to present a number of anecdotes (many of which would be counted as hearsay in a court). These are interesting, but do not constitute evidence.

 

Whilst I accept his statement that there is no evidence that human beings come back as anything less than human, I have to say that I have seen no evidence that human beings come back at all.

 

A while ago there was a furore over the validity of evidence for childhood abuse gained under hypnosis. It turned out in many cases that, without intent, these 'memories of abuse' were produced as a function of the hypnotic process and the questioning that occurred whilst in that highly suggestible state. This became known as 'false memory syndrome'.

 

As far as I'm aware, 'evidence' gained under hypnosis is no longer accepted in court (if it ever was, I'm not sure). If this can happen in investigations into a person's 'current' life, I don't believe evidence of 'previous' lives gained by the same process can be given any more credence. If such evidence is not at least acceptable in a court of law, I see no reason to accept it at all.

[JonM]

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter24.html

 

is there any evidence to show that what supposedly occured in these hyposis instances were hoaxes or made up?

[JohnB]

Okay, so the battery wasn't the best analogy. What I was getting at was "Did the energy stop because the processes did or vice versa?"

If you accept that it is possible that on death, our consciousness passes into another being (and I'm not saying it's impossible, just not likely), then you must accept the possibility of all the other propositions, and they can't all be right.

Actually I don't. I'm interested in what happens. It doesn't follow that I have to accept some religious ideologues version of what happens afterwards. Similarly, if I drop an item it falls to the ground. This is what happens. I choose to believe that this is the result of gravity, not because the FSM pushed it down with his noodly appendage.

 

I too have problems with the laguage used by the author of that site. I used it as an example because it had the best listing I could find of Gwen MacDonald's regression. It was that list that was important, not the lawyers take on it.

A while ago there was a furore over the validity of evidence for childhood abuse gained under hypnosis. It turned out in many cases that, without intent, these 'memories of abuse' were produced as a function of the hypnotic process and the questioning that occurred whilst in that highly suggestible state. This became known as 'false memory syndrome'.

Originally known as "Repressed Memory Syndrome" it was used in courts in Australia. (With little to no outcry from the Psychologists here BTW. Bloody disgusting, blind freddy could see it was a crock of sh*t.) I don't see the relevence though.

 

The defining point of RMS is that there is no evidence of any kind to back up the memory. This is not the case here. The regressed person is displaying knowledge that is;

a) Not generally known. and

b) Later verified by investigation.

 

There is of course always the possibilty of a hoax, but to put this forward as a refutation would require evidence of falsehood. Without that, the argument is nothing more than "It's a hoax because I don't believe it."

 

I would be most interested in hearing how an Australian woman could possibly know the pattern on floor tiles in a chicken shed in Somerset without actually seeing them. Not even the owner knew they were there. Coincidence? How many coincidences are allowed?

If such evidence is not at least acceptable in a court of law, I see no reason to accept it at all.

Which begs the question, what evidence would you accept?

[Glider]

Okay, so the battery wasn't the best analogy. What I was getting at was "Did the energy stop because the processes did or vice versa?"

As I said, the energy stopped because the processes producing it stopped.

 

Actually I don't. I'm interested in what happens. It doesn't follow that I have to accept some religious ideologues version of what happens afterwards. Similarly, if I drop an item it falls to the ground. This is what happens. I choose to believe that this is the result of gravity, not because the FSM pushed it down with his noodly appendage.

Me neither, and in the same vein, I choose to believe that death = extinction and will do so until I see some compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

I too have problems with the laguage used by the author of that site. I used it as an example because it had the best listing I could find of Gwen MacDonald's regression. It was that list that was important, not the lawyers take on it.

It's unfortunate that such cases are used by people like that to 'prove a point'. I find such cases fascinating and definitely worth further investigation, but unlike the lawyer, I would not consider these cases a sufficient basis for drawing any particular inference yet.

 

Originally known as "Repressed Memory Syndrome" it was used in courts in Australia. (With little to no outcry from the Psychologists here BTW. Bloody disgusting, blind freddy could see it was a crock of sh*t.) I don't see the relevence though.

I agree, it's a bit shoddy. However, the relevence comes from the method used to obtain these memories. The method by which these 'previous life' experiences are recalled is the same method that 'false memories' were 'recalled'. If the method is flawed, then any data gathered by using that method must be viewed with caution.

 

The defining point of RMS is that there is no evidence of any kind to back up the memory. This is not the case here. The regressed person is displaying knowledge that is;

a) Not generally known. and

b) Later verified by investigation.

 

There is of course always the possibilty of a hoax, but to put this forward as a refutation would require evidence of falsehood. Without that, the argument is nothing more than "It's a hoax because I don't believe it."

I don't believe it's a hoax. I believe that in most cases, the subjects themselves believe it is true. If a person is relating what they believe to be true, then they cannot be said to be lying, even if the information is false.

 

In cases of regression, we have no way of knowing what information the subject has been exposed to throughout the course of their lives. Due to the amount of processing that occurs outside of conscious awareness, even the subject has no way of knowing. The work of Wilder Penfield showed that we remember things we have been exposed to in great detail, even of we cannot recall it voluntarily, and that we needn't even have been aware of having been exposed to that information.

 

As far as memory goes, it seems we are capable of retaining (encoding) information even if the processing of that information took place outside of our awareness. This suggests that should we be made to recall that information, by whatever means (hypnosis or direct stimulation of the temporal lobes), we would have no knowledge of ever having been exposed to it 'in this lifetime'.

 

I would be most interested in hearing how an Australian woman could possibly know the pattern on floor tiles in a chicken shed in Somerset without actually seeing them. Not even the owner knew they were there. Coincidence? How many coincidences are allowed?

So would I. It's certainly worthy of further investigation, but as far as evidence goes, it's N=1, which is not strong enough to allow inferences or generalisations to be made.

 

How many coincidences are allowed? As many as occur. As far as I know, the frequency of coincidence can be inversely related to it's probability, i.e. the higher the number of coincidences, the lower the probability that it is coincidence, but at no point does it become impossible.

 

Which begs the question, what evidence would you accept?

Well, I would accept evidence that has managed to eliminate all equally plausable alternative explanations, and that was reliable, i.e. repeatable between subjects. If reincarnation is 'the way of things', then it must apply to all humans. If this is the case, why are there so few cases of previous life memories?

[Royston]

If the allegory is sound' date=' then it should be ok to extend it to show the flaws. I wasn't talking about literal radio waves either. It doesn't matter what the 'mental energy' is, my point was that on death, energetic processes stop, therefore there is no energy to go anywhere.

[/quote']

 

I think in the case of religion (this isn't an attack on Buddhism) but with regards to a so called 'transmitter' there will always be the argument...ahh but where did energy come from to start with, and science just hasn't answered the something from nothing conundrum...yet. I totally agree with what you said stated in a later post, that anything could be plausible if that's what the argument's boiling down to.

[JohnB]

Hmmmmm. We aren't that far apart after all.

 

As you say, if reincarnation applies, then it applies to all humans. The occurrence of memories of past lives may be more common than you think though.

 

One of my nieces had the experience without hypnosis or prompting of any kind. It started when she was about 6, travelling in the car and saying "I used to live over there." When told they had never lived "over there", she replied "Not with you, when I lived with my other family".

 

The details she later supplied (that we were able to check) tallied with her accounts. Just because something isn't reported to a Doctor or isn't in a medical journal, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

For my part, The experiences I have had in my life have led me to the conclusion that there is a "soul" and that we do "reincarnate". I don't subscribe to any given religion as none of them really match my conclusions. Although Buddhism comes close.

 

The conclusion I draw from the experiments we have been discussing is that "the evidence suggests..... and is worthy of further study", I'm not claiming it as final proof.

 

As an aside, I have contemplated regression myself. I would however view any evidence from me as highly debatable. Firstly, I agree with the reincarnation idea, so I'm biased. Secondly, while without a University degree I have been a voracious reader on just about every topic all my life, history especially. Consequently it is highly likely that anything I "remember" is something I have learnt but don't remember knowing. Still, I sometimes wonder.......

[Glider]

Hmmmmm. We aren't that far apart after all.

No, we aren't that far apart. I think it's only our starting point that differs. I start from 'nothing happens, until there's evidence to the contrary', but I don't rule anything out. I don't know enough to be able to do that.

 

As you say, if reincarnation applies, then it applies to all humans. The occurrence of memories of past lives may be more common than you think though.

It may well be. This would need to be tested though.

 

One of my nieces had the experience without hypnosis or prompting of any kind. It started when she was about 6, travelling in the car and saying "I used to live over there." When told they had never lived "over there", she replied "Not with you, when I lived with my other family".

 

The details she later supplied (that we were able to check) tallied with her accounts. Just because something isn't reported to a Doctor or isn't in a medical journal, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Of course it doesn't. But until these unknown occurences are known, they can't be said to be happening either.

 

For my part, The experiences I have had in my life have led me to the conclusion that there is a "soul" and that we do "reincarnate". I don't subscribe to any given religion as none of them really match my conclusions. Although Buddhism comes close.

 

The conclusion I draw from the experiments we have been discussing is that "the evidence suggests..... and is worthy of further study", I'm not claiming it as final proof.

I agree with that. I would never state that these phenomena don't exist. I accept that there are phenomena that we don't understand. But that's the function of science as a process. To identify these phenomena and attempt to explain them. If it turns out that they are due to the reincarnation of the soul, then cool. If they turn out to be nothing more than the emergence of memories encoded through preattentive processes, then equally cool. My only reservation is that I don't like rushing to, or simply accepting an explanation of a phenomenon until it's understood. So, it's not whether or not these phenomena exist that I have a problem with. My problem is with the explanations/conclusions that people jump to based upon only their existence and with no understanding of the processes causing them.

 

As an aside, I have contemplated regression myself. I would however view any evidence from me as highly debatable. Firstly, I agree with the reincarnation idea, so I'm biased. Secondly, while without a University degree I have been a voracious reader on just about every topic all my life, history especially. Consequently it is highly likely that anything I "remember" is something I have learnt but don't remember knowing. Still, I sometimes wonder.......

True. I think your experiences would be contaminated by the amount of related reading you have done on exactly that topic. Unfortunately, it tends to be the people who have become interested in the area and therefore will have done some self-directed research into it who put themselves forward for regression. This makes it a largely self-selecting and biased sample.

 

The ideal subject would be people like your niece at the age of six. At that age it's unlikely she would have become aware of the phenomenon or to have read around the area. She would be a completely naive subject which would be ideal. However, there are the ethical issues of subjecting a six year old to what is still a poorly understood procedure. I wouldn't advocate that at all.

[JohnB]

Fair enough.

*mental note* If I get to Pomgolia, locate large bottle of Single Malt and Glider. Make no plans for the following 3 days.

[Glider]

Cool

[VikingF]

I've been pondering things like this too. And I have a question. What makes us ourselves? I'm not talking about personality, but why am i this person and not the next? What exactly is it in me thats makes sure i stay me. Most people will answer a soul. But what exactly would that be made out of in my body?

 

 

That IS an interesting question, and I guess you don't mean "why I am the way I am" (... "because my father's DNA and my mother's DNA coupled once in the past" ...)-thing, but actually "why I observe the world through VikingF's senses (that isn't my real name, though) and why you view the world through Imasmartgirl's senses". Of course we can never(?) answer this question, but that question is actually the main reason why I think there is more to it than what we/science know today... I will never give you a reason why, because - as said earlier in this thread - one possible sollution is as possible as any of the other 1000000...0 sollutions. The probability in the past that the "potential VikingF" would be born and exist and not for instance "the potential VikingG" was not too big either...

[Glider]

I've been pondering things like this too. And I have a question. What makes us ourselves? I'm not talking about personality, but why am i this person and not the next? What exactly is it in me thats makes sure i stay me. Most people will answer a soul. But what exactly would that be made out of in my body?

VikingF is right. This is an interesting question. I have often wondered too. It's one of those questions that are even hard to phrase and thinking about it leads to an odd feeling. What is me? Why did this spark of awareness; this 'I' manifest in this body? Of all the time that has passed and all the people and who have gone before, what particular combination of what particular factors made me and determined that I would be aware here and now? What am I, that I am not anybody else at any other time?

 

You can see why I was attracted to Psychology

[Red_Ninja]

I also, pointlessly enough, ponder the "self" issue quite a bit. It seems like the most obvious thing in the world, thinking about 'self' and what it means as a word and as a concept. But you just hit a conceptual brick wall every time.

 

There is the silly and somewhat half-assed idea of the 'thermodynamic miracle' - and I can kind of see the sense in it. The idea is that any one human being, as with many things, can be regarded as a thermodynamic miracle. The probability of your parents meeting, and their parents, and theirs, all the way back through three or three and a half billion years of evolution means that as an individual configuration of DNA, you are really very unlikely indeed in terms of the number of possibilities DNA holds. In terms of probability over a short term you can say its equivalent to air spontaneously turning into gold.

 

I like to skip right past questions such as 'does reincarnation really exist' because it cannot be conclusively proven. I prefer to look at the implications of us assuming it exists, if only for a moment. If we live a number of lives, do we live an infinite number ? Do we only exist as humans, or as creatures without self-awareness ? Do we exist on other planets as other conscious creatures, or do we spend millenia long strange lives as some kind of semi conscious dust cloud ?

 

One thing that seems to be important to this idea - is that your 'soul' has to forget everthing that has some before when it lives a life as a person or whatever. If we could recall everything, surely it would overwhelm us or make our life seem utterly pointless. If we imagine that the cases shown in which people seem to 'remember' information from a previous life are true, then we have to imagine that those memories only persist in a vanishingly small number of cases.

 

Philosophically and in terms of how you live your life, it seems to make next to no difference - you either survive as a consciousness and are reincarnated with no memory of your previous life, or you live one life and die. From the point of view of your consciousness running through this process, they're one and the same. You may at least imagine that the arrow of time runs true and that even you have more lives coming after this one, you'll never be 'this' person in 'this' life again. This also leaves individuals with an imperative to live the life they're in as if it's the only one you're going to get.

[VikingF]

There is the silly and somewhat half-assed idea of the 'thermodynamic miracle' - and I can kind of see the sense in it. The idea is that any one human being' date=' as with many things, can be regarded as a thermodynamic miracle. The probability of your parents meeting, and their parents, and theirs, all the way back through three or three and a half billion years of evolution means that as an individual configuration of DNA, you are really very unlikely indeed in terms of the number of possibilities DNA holds. In terms of probability over a short term you can say its equivalent to air spontaneously turning into gold.

[/quote']

 

 

Very true, but then there is another question which I have wondered about too: If 'I' am that exact DNA combination and if time is "infinite" (or atleast very, very long ), then won't that combination occur "infinite" times? I mean, you can have only a finite amount of combinations of DNA, since a base in the DNA molecule only can be either A, C, T or G (unfortunately, I have forgotten what the letters stand for), and we have a finite amount of base couples in our DNA molecules. If new codes are generated every time a new person is created, then one day every code that has existed will repeat... This isn't "hoping for good weather", this is kinda logical, I think...

 

Another sollution is that 'I' am NOT my DNA. Then, what?

[Red_Ninja]

Very true' date=' but then there is another question which I have wondered about too: If 'I' am that exact DNA combination and if time is "infinite" (or atleast very, very long ), then won't that combination occur "infinite" times? I mean, you can have only a finite amount of combinations of DNA, since a base in the DNA molecule only can be either A, C, T or G (unfortunately, I have forgotten what the letters stand for), and we have a finite amount of base couples in our DNA molecules. If new codes are generated every time a new person is created, then one day every code that has existed will repeat... This isn't "hoping for good weather", this is kinda logical, I think...

 

Another sollution is that 'I' am NOT my DNA. Then, what? [/quote']

 

Heheh, greetz m8 - had a feeling this was a dead thread. I can only offer you my personal opinion on this - I believe that there is much more to a completed human being, i.e. an adult with a fully developed personality, than DNA. -

 

But putting that aside for a moment - I have a few thoughts on just the notions you described. For a start - any individual configuration of DNA on Earth can be thought of as a one-off - except in exceptional circumstances such as cloning. Why ? The Earth has not existed forever, and it will not exist forever. Indeed (I may be wrong about this, if so, apologies) the sun on which Earth derives its energy (with the beautiful name of 'sol') is a good three quarters to four fifths of the way through its own life journey. Earth has enjoyed a good three and a half or four billion years of lifebearing, and has only about a billion or so left at best. So DNA will not get anywhere near replicating all the 'instances' of the strand that are possible with billions of base pairs. I understand what you're saying with regard to the number of base pairs being finite - but we're still talking about three billion or so in the case of human beings. How many combinations of DNA can you have with three billion base pairs and four possibilities for each ? A hell of a lot. How long has the human race been around in its present state ? Barely the wink of a geological eye. Even further out again - how long in relation to the lifetime of the human species has there been a population comparable to today i.e. in the billions ? Not long at all. Probably only in the last few centuries has there been a population comparable to today's.

 

Even if we were to assume life exists on other planets, as it almost certainly does with seventy sextillion stars within sight, would the exact parameters that exist on our planet exist on another ? Even with a stellar population of that magnitude, it takes a bit of a leap of faith to imagine there is another 'Earth' in all that number, with or without people (i.e. humans) on it. Would DNA be configured in the same way and use the exact same chemistry ? We know of no other way that it can be done, but this does not mean it cannot be done another way. On Earth, natural selection leaves us with organisms that are remarkably well adapted to their environment. We would be foolish to imagine that conditions on another lifebearing planet are identical. True, it might happen, but it's not likely relative to the likelihood of life existing on another planet at all.

 

Even if all the above are given, the universe itself does not appear to last forever. It is finite in size and therefore contains a finite energy with a finite entropy. Once the universe ends, or reaches thermal equilibrium, the processes that allow life to happen will stop. Either way, there is no infinite timescale into the past and future that allows all configurations of DNA or its equivalent to create all possibilities or one possibility more than once.

 

I've been reading alot about chaos theory and fractals, and it seems more and more to me that if we are reincarnated, we in some way follow that fractal pattern - seemingly random, but actually infinitely complex. An infinite number of possiblities allows for anything to happen but for nothing to happen exactly the same way twice. Take a look at the original Lorenz attractor and you'll see what I mean. The system can be seen to follow a pattern, but never quite intersects on the same behaviour twice. If we were to extend this idea to reincarnation, it would follow that we lead an infinite number of different lives and that each one can be regarded as utterly unique.

 

Do you even go to work in the same place twice or return home to exactly the same place twice ? An unbelieveable number of imperceptible changes have occured since you were last there, the very atoms that make up the ground are seething with movement even though you don't see it. Even the very planet, solar system and galaxy are moving with imperceptible motion. If you decide to get really anally retentive about it, you could argue that no-one has ever been in the same place twice. But then again no-one has ever been in the same time twice and to us that seems obvious even to the youngest child.

 

I know it's a half assed hunch, but reading about chaos theory and taking a look at fractals and their philosophical complications makes me feel as close to an answer as I'll ever get. They contain infinite information, infinite permutations, and yet intrinsic order. How can something keep on creating information forever ? It seems almost supernatural Assuming we know what nature is, which we don't.

 

Long-winded, sorry. I keep feeling like I'd prefer these discussions face to face.

[VikingF]

But putting that aside for a moment - I have a few thoughts on just the notions you described. For a start - any individual configuration of DNA on Earth can be thought of as a one-off - except in exceptional circumstances such as cloning. Why ? The Earth has not existed forever, and it will not exist forever. Indeed (I may be wrong about this, if so, apologies) the sun on which Earth derives its energy (with the beautiful name of 'sol') is a good three quarters to four fifths of the way through its own life journey. Earth has enjoyed a good three and a half or four billion years of lifebearing, and has only about a billion or so left at best. So DNA will not get anywhere near replicating all the 'instances' of the strand that are possible with billions of base pairs. I understand what you're saying with regard to the number of base pairs being finite - but we're still talking about three billion or so in the case of human beings. How many combinations of DNA can you have with three billion base pairs and four possibilities for each ?

 

That's 4^3,000,000,000, which is a number a lot larger than the total number of electrons in the Universe.

 

A hell of a lot. How long has the human race been around in its present state ? Barely the wink of a geological eye. Even further out again - how long in relation to the lifetime of the human species has there been a population comparable to today i.e. in the billions ? Not long at all. Probably only in the last few centuries has there been a population comparable to today's.

 

The question then is of course whether time is finite, the same way as space is. I really can't understand the concept of "no time existing". Maybe time is infinite, but the Universe is finite? Then, IFF that is the case, I guess there is a sound chance that a Universe quite identical to this may appear again some time in the future, the way it already has done atleast once.

 

Even if we were to assume life exists on other planets' date=' as it almost certainly does with seventy sextillion stars within sight, would the exact parameters that exist on our planet exist on another ? Even with a stellar population of that magnitude, it takes a bit of a leap of faith to imagine there is another 'Earth' in all that number, with or without people (i.e. humans) on it. Would DNA be configured in the same way and use the exact same chemistry ? We know of no other way that it can be done, but this does not mean it cannot be done another way. On Earth, natural selection leaves us with organisms that are remarkably well adapted to their environment. We would be foolish to imagine that conditions on another lifebearing planet are identical. True, it might happen, but it's not likely relative to the likelihood of life existing on another planet at all.

 

Even if all the above are given, the universe itself does not appear to last forever. It is finite in size and therefore contains a finite energy with a finite entropy. Once the universe ends, or reaches thermal equilibrium, the processes that allow life to happen will stop. Either way, there is no infinite timescale into the past and future that allows all configurations of DNA or its equivalent to create all possibilities or one possibility more than once.[/quote']

 

I would say as I did above; what you say is very true if time is finite, just as space. If time on the other hand is infinite, but space is not, then "reality" - or what we might call it - will have plenty of time to create a "new" universe common to the one we are living in today, with creatures who are exactly like humans. But, of course, I don't have any proof that time IS infinite, I don't even say that it is, but it would answer a lot of questions IF it was.

 

I've been reading alot about chaos theory and fractals' date=' and it seems more and more to me that if we are reincarnated, we in some way follow that fractal pattern - seemingly random, but actually infinitely complex. An infinite number of possiblities allows for anything to happen but for nothing to happen exactly the same way twice. Take a look at the original Lorenz attractor and you'll see what I mean. The system can be seen to follow a pattern, but never quite intersects on the same behaviour twice. If we were to extend this idea to reincarnation, it would follow that we lead an infinite number of different lives and that each one can be regarded as utterly unique.

 

Do you even go to work in the same place twice or return home to exactly the same place twice ? An unbelieveable number of imperceptible changes have occured since you were last there, the very atoms that make up the ground are seething with movement even though you don't see it. Even the very planet, solar system and galaxy are moving with imperceptible motion. If you decide to get really anally retentive about it, you could argue that no-one has ever been in the same place twice. But then again no-one has ever been in the same time twice and to us that seems obvious even to the youngest child. [/quote']

 

Thinking like this, a person isn't the same person all the time, since we are changing our atoms almost all the time, the same way as my house is. But nevertheless, I am still watching the world through VikingF's senses, strangely enough. NB! I don't implicate the soul here, I'm just playing with thoughts.

 

 

I know it's a half assed hunch, but reading about chaos theory and taking a look at fractals and their philosophical complications makes me feel as close to an answer as I'll ever get. They contain infinite information, infinite permutations, and yet intrinsic order. How can something keep on creating information forever ? It seems almost supernatural Assuming we know what nature is, which we don't.

 

Where do you see the individual in all this? And what makes you believe in reincarnation? If everything is changing all the time, and nothing stays the same, then I would almost conclude that we have only one chance. Maybe I missed an important point here...?

 

As I said before, the fact(?) that all those incidents had to happen for me to exist, is one of the main reasons why I believe there is more to reality than we know today. More than pure coincidences.. I have no clue what it is though. That's why I think both philosophy and science are exciting fields. They seem to compete against each other, but in the end, they have the same goal: They want to solve the mysteries that we wonder about quite often.

 

Long-winded, sorry. I keep feeling like I'd prefer these discussions face to face.

 

No, I think it was very interesting! Thanks!

[Red_Ninja]

That's 4^3,000,000,000, which is a number a lot larger than the total number of electrons in the Universe.

 

Now that's what you just got to call a big number

 

The question then is of course whether time is finite, the same way as space is. I really can't understand the concept of "no time existing". Maybe time is infinite, but the Universe is finite? Then, IFF that is the case, I guess there is a sound chance that a Universe quite identical to this may appear again some time in the future, the way it already has done at least once.

 

Charles Lamb, who I believe was an author from the nineteenth century, once said "Nothing puzzles me like time and space. And yet nothing troubles me less than time and space, because I never think of them." In the old Newtonian model, time was simply a line into the infinite past and on into the infinite future. By constrast at that point in history, people generally believed that the universe had only existed a few thousand years.

 

One major implication of infinite time is that the universe should have reached thermal equilibrium. Every line of sight would end on a star and the sky would be akin to the surface of the sun. I don't really understand the mathematics of relativity because they're too hard for me, but the concept of spacetime means that time is simply a dimension along with the spatial dimensions, and that in a way you could view that four-dimensional model of spacetime as a finite area with no boundaries - like a four-dimensional analogue of a sphere. On Earth, you can go in any direction for as long as you like and you don't reach a boundary where Earth 'stops'. The universe is then seen like a four dimensional version of this. If you go far enough in one direction in the universe you'll eventually end up where you started, though you'd have to be travelling faster than light which is just another way of saying it can't be done. In this sense, old philosphical questions of the type that so troubled Immanual Kant become irrelevant. What happened before the Universe was created or after it ends is akin to asking what's north of the North Pole. Nothing is. Again much of this is stuff that I've just read and to an extent remembered hence it might be inaccurate but you get the general idea

 

 

 

I would say as I did above; what you say is very true if time is finite, just as space. If time on the other hand is infinite, but space is not, then "reality" - or what we might call it - will have plenty of time to create a "new" universe common to the one we are living in today, with creatures who are exactly like humans. But, of course, I don't have any proof that time IS infinite, I don't even say that it is, but it would answer a lot of questions IF it was.

 

This is just my opinion but I suspect brighter people have a similar one: it doesn't seem as if you can have time without space - they seem to be essentially the one animal.

 

 

 

Thinking like this, a person isn't the same person all the time, since we are changing our atoms almost all the time, the same way as my house is. But nevertheless, I am still watching the world through VikingF's senses, strangely enough. NB! I don't implicate the soul here, I'm just playing with thoughts.

 

An interesting point, and one I hadn't really considered before - yes on that level you cannot even really be said to be the same person from one second to the next. Common sense, which von Goethe said was the genuis of humanity, semms to tell us otherwise though - if we disregard the physical person and concentrate on the perception, or intelligence, consciousness, whatever - the entity that we can perform abstract thought with and are unconsciously aware of everytime we say 'me' or 'I' - doesn't differ wildly from one moment to the next. On the contrary in a reasonably intelligent, happy and open minded person their personality grows, takes on new facets and new memories. We percieve a smoothness in the universe. We know deep down that even the most tranquil country scene is in fact a seething maelstrom of atoms - but that's not what we see. We see stillness, smoothness and continuity.

 

Where do you see the individual in all this? And what makes you believe in reincarnation? If everything is changing all the time, and nothing stays the same, then I would almost conclude that we have only one chance. Maybe I missed an important point here...?

 

Heheh...! Of course, this is where we get right down to the nitty gritty of personal belief, things I don't have a good argument for but feel instinctively. I believe that there are things about humans that differ wildly from everything else known. There are many peculiarities about humans that I don't buy the brutally simple darwinian arguments for.

 

We are esentially able to create order if we choose to. We can turn white noise into one frequency. I know that under strict dynamics we are creating more disorder than order, but this mostly dissapates into our surroundings and our perception is left with a tidy room, a fixed road, whatever. We choose to reverse entropy in our immediate surroundings as far as our peception is concerned.

 

As an example let's imagine an untidy room and work out roughly how much chemical energy is needed for a human being to perform the motions and thoughts required to tidy it. We get some kind of value in Joules, and then strike a little match in the room, releasing the same energy. Everyone knows we don't get in a tidy room, but on a really simple level we've put the same energy in both cases. The difference is that one of the examples involves energy that was directed - but how do we quantify the thing that gave the direction? To me it's unquantifiable and therefore it has to be 'outside' science.

 

I feel that simple things set us apart as an animal, appreciation of music and art, a sense of humour and an ability to laugh - how does laughing make us more likely to survive as an organism ? Or storytelling ? Yet these kinds of things are central to our nature. For these kind of reasons I believe there is something semi-supernatural about human consciousness. In a way I believe in a soul for reasons such as this. Oh, and more recently I've read some of the research of a professor called Ian Stevenson, who has (pretty thoroughly) researched some five thousand or more cases of young children, all around the globe, who were spontaneously claiming to have lived another life recently. Pretty startling - I like it because it's fairly hard science and doesn't involve any hocus-pocus.

 

As I said before, the fact(?) that all those incidents had to happen for me to exist, is one of the main reasons why I believe there is more to reality than we know today. More than pure coincidences.. I have no clue what it is though. That's why I think both philosophy and science are exciting fields. They seem to compete against each other, but in the end, they have the same goal: They want to solve the mysteries that we wonder about quite often.

 

Very true, I don't really see philosphy as something that falls outside science's scope. It simply allows for more speculation !

[bascule]

Define "mental energy".

 

What shows up on an EEG, duh!