Reincarnation

I've lately pondered how weird the idea is that there is only one life. After some thinking, I find it much more complicated than the idea that life continues after death. The way I've been raised to think is this: 1. Nothing leads to something (birth) 2. Something continues to lead to something (life) 3. Something leads to nothing (death) 4. This process will not repeat. Because of reasons. So life, from a subjective perspective, is this limited sequence of experiences from time A to time B. Now, what I cannot understand is this: If something can come out of nothing, why cannot it happen again? Everything else in the universe seems repeatable. If you throw a ball in the air once and it falls down, chances are it happens again if you do that. If it never falls down again after continuing to throw it, the first time would've been a miracle. In the same way, from a subjective perspective, if nothing can turn into something only once, then it's what I'd call a miracle. What I would *not* call a miracle, is this: 1. Nothing leads to something (birth) 2. Something leads to something (life) 3. Something leads to nothing (death) 4. Go back to step 1. Assuming the laws of the universe do not change at whim, then I don't see a problem with this. We can thus describe subjective life as a state machine, where the available states are: N = nothing S = something And the available state transitions are: N -> S (birth) S -> S (life) S -> N (death) In this view, I don't see why the birth transition N -> S can only happen once. To have this transition happen only once, you'd need either: 1. An illogical universe without stable laws 2. A cosmic bookkeeper of sorts that makes sure that N -> S can only happen once per a unique thread of consciousness. A kind of God. In summary, to assume that life occurs only once is assuming a miracle. Obviously what I call 'Me' will die with this body, as my idea of 'Me' is just another 'something' based on constantly shifting phenomena. The body grows and ages, occupation changes, friends change, personality changes. There was likely another 'Me' before birth, possibly non-human, and same afterwards. Hell, when I was a toddler, there wasn't a 'Me' from a subjective perspecitve. I just 'was'. Thoughts on this reasoning? It's not that I want to believe in reincarnation, only that I find the opposite idea nonsensical. I would rather live once than engage in an amnesic journey through countless lifetimes of pain and suffering, aka. Samsara, but eh.

It would make more sense to me if you were to suggest consciousness is an innate property of matter. All it matter is conscious and alive. Therefore there is no need for a cycle of life and death and rebirth it's all life regardless just culturally and socially categorized differently.

>>4238 But how can I verify that there is such a thing as matter? All I can know for sure is that I have a perception of matter, which is just another 'something' in this sequence of mental experiences. You've probably had a dream where you walk on a pavement, hold objects, look at landscapes. At the time, it felt very matter-like, but can you say that the matter in that dream exists somewhere?

>>4239 That goes both ways though. How do you know a dream is not a thing of matter as well?

>>4240 I don't. However, concluding that matter exists independently outside perception is a question of belief. I'd rather not believe in unproven phenomena.

>>4241 Well if none is outside perception doesn't that go to support matter having consciousness? Because then nothing would be out of perception it's just how your mind fools you to only be able to see from one single viewpoint.

>>4242 But if there is nothing outside perception, how can I conclude that matter exists? The reasoning seems circular: Premises: "I exist as matter and I have a perception of matter" Conclusion 1: "Since I have a perception of matter, I conclude that matter exists" Conclusion 2: "Since matter exists, I conclude that I exist as matter" How do I justify this kind of reasoning?

>>4243 The distinction between matter and mind isn't so important when they both are so intertwined. So it's a moot point. They both are just didnt man made concepts.

>>4237 This is definitely a contradiction, and there are many such contradictions surrounding >a unique thread of consciousness All of them have a simple resolution: consciousness is a delusion. There is no subjective experience. We are machines hardwired to pretend to exist. We express our experience as a direct truth because that is simply how our brains work. We insist on the reality of qualia because we evolved to be insane. If you accept this, it all falls into place. Your chain of events only appears to be a chain (in terms of conscious continuity), but really the links do not touch each other except in an arbitrary, narrative sense.

>>4244 I agree in that they are useful, man-made concepts. But just because a concept is useful does not mean there is an underlying fundamental reality behind that concept.

>>4246 >There is no subjective experience. How so? Right now I have a perception of my fingers hitting a keyboard. From this, I can conclude that subjective experience is real.

>>4248 You are *saying* that you have such a perception. But your logic is foundational; conclusions emerge from the premise that you are experiencing your particular existence, which you accept as true. Probably the essential claim that it is true is loudly reverberating throughout your mind at all times. Does that mean it is actually true?

>>4246 Interesting view. Regardless, you previously implied that you are merely a machine without subjective experience that has been hardwired to express your experience as a direct truth. Therefore I cannot take the opinion of such a machine seriously.

>>4246 >Your chain of events only appears to be a chain (in terms of conscious continuity), but really the links do not touch each other except in an arbitrary, narrative sense. I don't see how this changes the original argument. If the state machine and its transitions describe the behaviour of this arbitrary narrative that appears continuous, then that arbitrary narrative continues after an apparent death.

>>4253 Sort of. This is like saying that because Orion's belt is only a manmade grouping, that it continues beyond the original three stars to encompass the whole sky. You could claim that Orion has this super long belt and that you're right because constellations are arbitrary, but that claim can't have more weight than the claim of a three star belt. The deeper truth is that you are looking at stars and the constellations are abstractions superimposed on top of them.

>>4255 I'm not sure if I understand the analogy. Regardless, my point stands: If this particular iteration of an arbitrary conscious narrative that appears continuous, which I've grouped as 'my life', can emerge out of nothingess once, then I don't see why it cannot happen again at some other time and form. To claim that it can only appear once is more akin to a miracle. As you said, to call it 'my life' would be a mistake. I'd just call it life, then. And as I said, I'd like to believe in non-continuity. If you have any non-miraculous explanations for that, then I'd love to hear them.

>>4246 >>4250 >no subjective experience >pretend You just refuted your own argument. How can a machine pretend and at the same time realize it's pretending? We are logically definitely not-machines locked in the biological shell. Perceptions and feels are just sensors, it doesn't matter what these sensors are as long as they guide you through life, which is what defines their trueness. What matters is that your thinking and subjective experience can go way beyond your own sensors and perceptions and this thread is a very proof of this: no machine can ever wonder if there is anything beyond its own existence, if there are machines alike, if they are real. Machines simply function. Materialistic determinists are honestly the worst because they are ignorant but act as if they know everything because, from their point of view, everything can be explained with a basic course of science, ignoring all these years of philosophical debate their science was based on with many scientists believing there is much more to life than just senses.

>>4257 >If this particular iteration of an arbitrary conscious narrative that appears continuous, which I've grouped as 'my life', can emerge out of nothingess once If it's a narrative, then, like in my analogy, it is superimposed on top of the actual thing. The narrative is not a property of the thing itself. >then I don't see why it cannot happen again at some other time and form. You could choose to tell a different story about it. It would still be just a story, either way. >To claim that it can only appear once is more akin to a miracle It's true that the idea of experiencing only a single life that begins and ends would be a bit miraculous and doesn't make a lot of sense. But every arrangement of experience suffers from the same problems. >And as I said, I'd like to believe in non-continuity. If you have any non-miraculous explanations for that, then I'd love to hear them. Continuous consciousness is itself "miraculous". First assume that it is an emergent property of the brain (metaphysical magic is incompatible with non-miraculousness). Now imagine what would happen if a physically identical copy of an existing conscious being was created. The data composing their minds would in that moment be identical, and therefore incapable of representing differing properties. There would be no mechanism for either the original or the copy to have a true claim to continuity. Both have memories of existing a moment ago as a single entity, both have the strong feeling of being themself. A linear, nonbranching chain is ruled out. And as it seems like you've alluded to with >Obviously what I call 'Me' will die with this body, as my idea of 'Me' is just another 'something' based on constantly shifting phenomena. there isn't necessarily any reason why properties of self should determine continuity. So why should the connection depend on how closely matched you are from one moment to the next (memories of having just existed, having the same personality, etc.)? Why not instead wildly careening across space and time between experiencing being everyone in whatever order, and only not realizing this is happening because there is no memory of what was *actually* just experienced? Of course the reason why not is, there is no basis for choosing who next; such a transition would be "miraculous", as would any continuation, including the one we have a built-in assumption for, because there is really no actual reason to keep experiencing reality as yourself. And from there it isn't much of a leap to go from concluding that we are frozen points of experience locked forever in one time and space, to realizing that things make a lot more sense if you deny experience altogether. This is, I think, the least miraculous way of interpreting it. Sorry if that's confusing, I'm tired and not sure the best way to put this all together.

Try readings Plato's mystical dialogues like Phaedo and Timaeus

>>4261 >First assume that it is an emergent property of the brain I won't, because I don't want to make assumptions that cannot be proven. >things make a lot more sense if you deny experience altogether. So your argument only make sense if you deny the only thing of whose existence you can be 100% certain of? Yeah, hard pass.

>>4263 >I won't, because I don't want to make assumptions that cannot be proven. I meant 'assume' as in, consider it as a premise, not, accept without proof. I could go deeper into making the case for that aspect of this but let's be real, no one cares. >So your argument only make sense if No, that part is closer to the conclusion, not a premise. >whose existence you can be 100% certain of If you're going to take it on faith, that's fine, it's very hard not to, regardless of the contradictions it generates.

>>4265 >If you're going to take it on faith, that's fine, it's very hard not to, regardless of the contradictions it generates. Why? No one can see, hear, feel and know beyond perception. If acknowledging perception as a part of reality leads to contradictions, then you should revise your way of thinking instead of attempting to deny this part of reality altogether. You sound just like those creationists who deny science in order to cling to their views of the world. Not only this, but you rely on this perception, which you deny, in order to make these statements of yours, and then act as if those statements have meaning. Garbage in, value out? Now that's an actual contradiction.

>>4258 >Materialistic determinists are honestly the worst because they are ignorant but act as if they know everything because, from their point of view, everything can be explained with a basic course of science, ignoring all these years of philosophical debate their science was based on with many scientists believing there is much more to life than just senses. They're even conveniently ignoring science itself when it contradicts their views. Example: https://noosphere.princeton.edu/index.html https://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html#alldata >When human consciousness becomes coherent, the behavior of random systems may change. Random number generators (RNGs) based on quantum tunneling produce completely unpredictable sequences of zeroes and ones. But when a great event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured. We calculate one in a trillion odds that the effect is due to chance. The evidence suggests an emerging noosphere or the unifying field of consciousness described by sages in all cultures.

>>4247 The point I was making is both mind and matter have their own arguments and both can be fairly reasonable so logically it has to be both of these or something else all together other than mere mind or mere matter.

>>4269 Holy crap, I was obsessed with noosphere theory having too many "accidents" back in 2018, but never thought anyone took it seriously. Thanks for the link

>>4273 What you mean by accidents?

>>4273 Lots of people take these things very seriously and have dont tons of research over the years, but you just dont hear much of it in the more mainstream media. Much research has been done but most of the ramifications are ignored or even supressed. Even though are 100s of documented cases of children being born with dead peoples memories and all sorts of other things, people still think its all bogus. I read many books about the subject, but sum it all up well either. The way i understood it people incarnate from the risidual unsolved karmic energy they develop in their last life. Also its a falacy to assume on the other side is "nothing", nothing from nothing leaves nothing you gotta have something.

>>4237 You are no different than the accumulation of micro life forms (somatids) forming a sentience. What makes this accumulation special is that you can have 'memories' though you lose these memories after death since they are attached into the physical brain/gut/muscular nerve. The physical (body) is meant to interact with the world and house the logos, that is the purpose of life but what happens after is a mystery or would you go through lengths and uncover such mystery in different planes? The Logos, which just means "the word". Ever wonder why some people do not have Logos in them? Modern science deem it mental retardation although these people have just the right amount of brain cells which is capable of "human intelligence" but the Logos chooses its own vessel. Some people can even have 50% or even 90% of their brain removed or be fluid yet still house average sentience. Our bodies are just (proper) vessels for the Logos. Some might argue it is the spirit or even the soul or another or all (trinity) but these individually are not the same. When you die your body is reduced into somatids and turn into spores while the Logos is ejected leaving earthly desires and memories behind however you may etch these into your soul but then what's the purpose? Everything in the end perishes into something. - Solve et Coagula. You should stop looking at reality the way you're groomed to think it is. If your perception of "space" is that of Star Wars and your perception of modern biology thinks the Five Biologocial Laws + Somatid is fraud, you still have a long way to uncover even just one of the known mysteries of ancient civilizations and even have the capacity to harness the power of Logos (I'm literally speaking to the You/Logos within your body).

>>4269 >When human consciousness becomes coherent, the behavior of random systems may change. https://archived.moe/x/thread/22463311/

I think life and consciousness are defined by the fact they are ongoing, continuous processes. What defines a life as "yours" is the time that it takes place in, and the fact that the events in it lead to the next events in it. A fire is a good analogy. It begins, continues for a set length of time, and goes out. A fire made in the same spot, or under exactly the same conditions, or that burns the exact same way, is still not the original fire, because its continuity is what defines it. This doesn't mean incredibly similar, even identical fires can't exist, fire as a general process is repeatable, but individual ones aren't.

I believe you are correct. At least in that I think a "reincarnation", which all I can really say is consciousness happened it will happen again, makes much more sense as the default assumption compared to many atheists idea of the afterlife as nothing. Consciousness itself is not unique to any specific individual, and so if you do not believe you have anything that departs your body to some afterlife there is no reason for there to be nothing after until the day there is not one conscious being in existence. Even then who knows, perhaps it always exists as some latent force or property of the universe like gravity or whatever. I think when you get into the idea of reincarnation being a reincarnation of you and not just the generation of consciousness again is when it gets religious. But the idea of there being "nothing" is an afterlife itself, no matter how you try to reason with yourself that its because we cant grasp nothing we think that. That itself should make it seem to fall apart as a reasonable option when you think about it, if we cant grasp nothing that truly opens up millions of afterlife possibilities. I dont remember not existing, and so I have no reason to believe I will ever know non-existence. Only temporary unconsciousness , thats me using I as a symbol for my pure conscious speaking. The universal I, when we say "I see a bird" for example. There is no associations or personality or ego yet outside of the language I suppose. But the I that might say "I remember" or "I like posting on lainchan" will never exist again.