Is it possible to know you existed at all without the ability reminisce/remember or a proper vessel of remembrance ?

[TheVat]

So the thread seems to be asking if there is reincarnation with memory transfer.  The answer might be this is a metaphysical conjecture which has not been empirically determined.  All evidence to date (usually from children claiming past life memories) is tainted by possible coaching from parents, information leakage, leading questions, and memories so vague or generic they could just be fantasy from an imaginative mind.   The prominent investigator in this area, Ian Stevenson, seemed to me to be an earnest and dedicated researcher but gullible.

And related theories like Sheldrake's morphic resonance, which posits a kind of memory inherent in all matter, also lack support.  Though Sheldrake I give credit for at least breaking it down into testable hypotheses.

 

Edited Friday at 08:57 PM by TheVat
fuck

[Migveg19]

3 hours ago, m_m said:

I can't answer for Migveg19, but for my understanding, this topic is about memory. I think he says that,  if there is no brain, i.e. body, memory IS there. Memory DOESN'T disappear. I believe he is talking about our soul.

And I think that we have the brightest memories when our memory is mostly connected with our body. When you do something, and you are aware of doing it. Total presence and attention. 

Yes and no. Yes this is about memories. No to everything else. I see you and others, think of this more spiritually and or emotionally. But really this a complete science based idea, ( ik I posted it on philosophy forum) and has to do more with the need for a vessel like a Brain, to hold memories. It only gets spiritual when I say how the fact that we don’t forget our memories, therefore but have a vessel past death. Thats not our brain for us to acsses these memories. If we can’t access our memories after death we can’t remember living therefore never never knowing of our existence at all.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

So the thread seems to be asking if there is reincarnation with memory transfer.  The answer might be this is a metaphysical conjecture which has not been empirically determined.  All evidence to date (usually from children claiming past life memories) is tainted by possible coaching from parents, information leakage, leading questions, and memories so vague or generic they could just be fantasy from an imaginative mind.   The prominent investigator in this area, Ian Stevenson, seemed to me to be an earnest and dedicated researcher but gullible.

And related theories like Sheldrake's morphic resonance, which posits a kind of memory inherent in all matter, also lack support.  Though Sheldrake I give credit for at least breaking it down into testable hypotheses.

 

Nope not at all it’s more that fact that you have memory in the first place. Let me explain. If I die my brain dies to, along with all my knowledge and memories, because scientifically your brain is how memory is made. But if your entire life memory goes away, then how could you remember it. To know something you must always know it. If you forget it then you would forget you ever knew it. We’re still talking on a bigger scale here since your dead and your brain is to, along with all the memories you’ve ever had. Then there would in turn be no memory of ever existing. But to say all that since I am here then and remember my existence, then my brain will still obviously die. But how could I still have those memories, therefore I must have a place to house those memories a vessel if you will. One after death, hence an afterlife 

[m_m]

Just now, Migveg19 said:

Yes and no. Yes this is about memories. No to everything else. I see you and others, think of this more spiritually and or emotionally. But really this a complete science based idea, ( ik I posted it on philosophy forum) and has to do more with the need for a vessel like a Brain, to hold memories. It only gets spiritual when I say how the fact that we don’t forget our memories, therefore but have a vessel past death. Thats not our brain for us to acsses these memories. If we can’t access our memories after death we can’t remember living therefore never never knowing of our existence at all.

But it IS a spiritual thing. So, what is memory, according to science? And something else. What is a thought?  This voice in your head. Where does it come from? How do you think yourself, without books?

[Migveg19]

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

But it IS a spiritual thing. So, what is memory, according to science? And something else. What is a thought?  This voice in your head. Where does it come from? How do you think yourself, without books?

Well I think that the answer your looking for is People "think to themselves" to process information, make decisions, reflect on experiences, plan for the future, regulate emotions, solve problems, and generally understand their own thoughts and feelings - essentially, it's a way to engage in internal dialogue and mental exploration, often without needing to verbalize it to others. but really it’s just electric signals in the brain. You need to be an able to think to do all that’s listed above, And your brain just gives you a way to do that. Survival and all that but now that it’s less about survival. We have evolved to use those thinking processes for more intellectual reasons. We have gotten very close with that “ voice” in our head. But I also saw a video that said not everyone uses an internal monologue(voice).and that some use imagery to think.

18 minutes ago, m_m said:

But it IS a spiritual thing. So, what is memory, according to science? And something else. What is a thought?  This voice in your head. Where does it come from? How do you think yourself, without books?

and for memory’s I found this for you 

Scientifically, memory is a biological process where the brain forms connections between neurons, called synapses, to store information, essentially creating neural circuits that represent experiences and allow for later retrieval of that information; in simpler terms, memories are formed by strengthening connections between brain cells through repeated exposure to stimuli, allowing us to recall past events or knowledge

[m_m]

Just now, Migveg19 said:

Scientifically, memory is a biological process where the brain forms connections between neurons, called synapses, to store information, essentially creating neural circuits that represent experiences and allow for later retrieval of that information; in simpler terms, memories are formed by strengthening connections between brain cells through repeated exposure to stimuli, allowing us to recall past events or knowledge

I'll write this carefully.

You are writing about a brain. And our brain is situated in our head, literally. The head is a part of our body, literally. So, can we change the word "brain" to the word "body"? 

 

You haven't answered a question, what is a thought? Have you ever seen thoughts? Maybe during some neuro surgery? On a video?

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, m_m said:

And when I am under anesthesia, I don't remember myself, but a doctor DOES. So, I am his(her) memory.  When I am awake, I'm still in a doctor's memory. That's why I think that we are memories for each other. And it's up to us what memories we leave to our neighbors.

Time, and space, is the enemy of this conjecture. 🙄

Besides, I get the feeling someone is talking to themselves... 🤓

[m_m]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Time, and space

Straw man

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

I get the feeling someone is talking to themselves... 🤓

Ad hominem

[dimreepr]

Not generally... 😉

[m_m]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Not generally... 😉

flood

[dimreepr]

Just now, m_m said:

flood

Are you stoned??? (lucky bugger)...

 

[m_m]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Are you stoned??? (lucky bugger)...

 

 

Good offence is the best defense, right?

Thank you for your attention to my comments.

Edited Saturday at 01:24 PM by m_m

[TheVat]

17 hours ago, Migveg19 said:

Nope not at all it’s more that fact that you have memory in the first place. Let me explain. If I die my brain dies to, along with all my knowledge and memories, because scientifically your brain is how memory is made. But if your entire life memory goes away, then how could you remember it. To know something you must always know it. If you forget it then you would forget you ever knew it. We’re still talking on a bigger scale here since your dead and your brain is to, along with all the memories you’ve ever had....

Well, yes, that is what death is.  What were you expecting?  Did you expect magical fairies to swoop in and save all your memories in an Astral Memory Flashdrive®.??  Absent the magic, many people write memoirs, tell life stories to grandchildren, build towers, etc.  

If there were any persistence of consciousness, e.g. your consciousness jumps into the nearest foetus, that would not transfer memories.  They die with you.  Believe me, when you get old like me, this won't seem such a terrible thing.  Fresh starts are important.  

[m_m]

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

They die with you. 

What is the evidence? 

Or, since we all are subjective, you can add, In my opinion, my memories will die with me. 

Because in another topic you wrote this:

Quote

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence.

So, either science or you don't know about memories.

[Migveg19]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Well, yes, that is what death is.  What were you expecting?  Did you expect magical fairies to swoop in and save all your memories in an Astral Memory Flashdrive®.??  Absent the magic, many people write memoirs, tell life stories to grandchildren, build towers, etc.  

If there were any persistence of consciousness, e.g. your consciousness jumps into the nearest foetus, that would not transfer memories.  They die with you.  Believe me, when you get old like me, this won't seem such a terrible thing.  Fresh starts are important.  

That’s not the point. My point is that the memories can’t leave you. Or die with you. Because if you lose the memories then you will not have them to know you existed it’s cause and effect, how can I remember something and know I’m experiencing it if I’m going to forget it therefore my memories must go on for me to know of my existence I have also rewritten my thesis for a second time. This time with the help of ai, hopefully it helps to clarify my entire argument.

 

 

2 hours ago, m_m said:

What is the evidence? 

Or, since we all are subjective, you can add, In my opinion, my memories will die with me. 

Because in another topic you wrote this:

So, either science or you don't know about memories.

And your right there is no evidence but I do have evidence the fact that you know of your existence. It must mean that you will know your memory’s forever therefore not losing them when encountering death.

second rewritten theory 
 

The existence of memory relies entirely on the brain as its physical substrate. When a person dies, their brain ceases to function, along with the neural processes responsible for creating, storing, and retrieving memories. Scientifically speaking, memory formation and recall are biological functions of the brain, specifically involving structures like the hippocampus and the cerebral cortex.

 

However, this presents an intriguing paradox: if all memories and the very mechanism for memory storage are lost at death, how could one ever recall or recognize their own existence? To know something, one must have access to it continually. If it is forgotten completely, it is as though it never existed in the first place. On a larger scale, death eliminates the brain and its associated memories, erasing all evidence of personal experience.

 

Yet, here I am now, aware of my existence and my memories. If the brain is destined to perish, what then becomes of the knowledge and awareness I hold? This suggests the possibility of an alternative “vessel” for memory, one independent of the physical brain and capable of persisting beyond death. In essence, such a vessel could serve as the repository for consciousness and memory in a post-mortem state.

 

This line of reasoning implies the potential existence of an afterlife or a non-material construct capable of housing consciousness and memory beyond the confines of the biological brain. The scientific inquiry into this concept often touches on fields like quantum mechanics, metaphysics, and neuroscience, each attempting to explore whether consciousness could transcend the physical body and persist in another form.

 

And also the idea of memory, existence, and self-awareness is inherently personal. While we may observe others claiming awareness of their existence, there’s no way to verify if their experience aligns with ours. If someone were to forget their existence entirely, they wouldn’t even recognize that they had lost it. To you, they seem like you—living, aware, and walking the same path. But this makes their existence and memory an untrustworthy reference point for understanding your own.

 

This brings the question into deeply personal territory. The theory of memory persistence and the possibility of an afterlife can only truly apply to oneself because the external world and the people within it might not be as they appear. For instance, if the world and everyone in it were merely a product of your imagination, there would be no way for you to distinguish them from “real” people. They could act, speak, and even believe themselves to be real, but if they were constructs of your mind, they would lack true existence.

 

This uncertainty emphasizes the solitary nature of the question. If all existence outside of yourself is subjective or imagined, then the persistence of memory and consciousness after death would be a purely personal phenomenon. It challenges the assumption that reality, as we perceive it, exists independently of the individual observer.

[m_m]

Just now, Migveg19 said:

That’s not the point. My point is that the memories can’t leave you. Or die with you.

You contradict yourself. You wrote that memory is a biological process.

Quote

 

Scientifically, memory is a biological process where the brain forms connections between neurons

 

And all biological processes come to an end one day.

So, what is memory for you?

And I want to bring here the quote of Saint Augustine 

"Since the soul animates the body and fills it with life, it is called the soul; since it expresses desire - the will; since it remembers - the memory; since it reasons and distinguishes - the mind; since it gives itself to contemplation - the spirit; since it receives the ability to feel - the soul is a feeling."

once again, you have to decide what you believe in. 

 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, m_m said:

What is the evidence? 

Can you remember what it's like to be dead?

17 hours ago, Migveg19 said:

That’s not the point. My point is that the memories can’t leave you. Or die with you.

"Look on my work's ye mighty and despair"

[m_m]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Can you remember what it's like to be dead?

Exactly. What is the evidence that memories die.

[dimreepr]

Just now, m_m said:

Exactly. What is the evidence that memories die.

That's not evidence of the antipode...

If you want to be scientific, then you must address all of the variables, not just what you perceived to be important...

[m_m]

Just now, dimreepr said:

That's not evidence of the antipode...

 

You are trying to change the topic again, that's why it's hard to have a conversation with you. 

I gave this quote:

Quote

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence.

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, m_m said:

What is the evidence that memories die.

The lack of blood flow and any electrical activity whatsoever in the neural regions responsible for it. If this is not obvious to you, then you’re either making up your own definitions of what memory is, not arguing in good faith, or both. 

[m_m]

Just now, iNow said:

The lack of blood flow and any electrical activity whatsoever in the neural regions responsible for it. If this is not obvious to you, then you’re either making up your own definitions of what memory is, not arguing in good faith, or both. 

Quote

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence.

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, m_m said:

You are trying to change the topic again, that's why it's hard to have a conversation with you. 

I gave this quote:

Quote

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence.

 

Nope, it's more you don't understand the topic; Science is just a tool, it has an application that yield results; what you're suggesting is a monkey wrench is the only tool available in the scientific toolbox...  

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, m_m said:

I gave this quote:

Science can't be the tool for all aspects of existence.

Firstly, you introduced it for the first time 30 minutes ago here in this thread. No need to rely on memory to validate. You only have 20 posts so it’s easy to check.

Secondly, nobody suggested otherwise so strawman much?

Just another boring troll it seems