Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Different form of 'reincarnation' ?..


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 30 December 2007 - 11:09 PM

While I couldn't sleep last night, I got an idea that intrigued me and sort of got me thinking in my semiphilosophical ways, and I can think of no better word to give it than "reincarnation". Not that reüsed-and-advncing soul of Hinduism (or whatever beliefs) and social level determined by who one once was or anything, but the 'mental perception of self'.

Think of 'you': you are independent of all others – you have your thoughts, memories, emotions, and really most of all of what I'm trying to describe, just 'yourself' and control over 'yourself'. And there's 'me': I'm not you, nor him nor her, and I have my selfcontained thoughts and emotions and memories and control over 'myself'. We're all different entities, whose minds are apart, and perceptions of realities are apart because of our 'self's.

If that got anyone thinking like how I am (– words aren't doing too well for me right now...), then here's my "reincarnation" question: will there be another "you" ?, will there be another "me" ?

I really don't know if my languages is enough, but that's my best right now... :heart:

Somehow, it seems to me that this form of 'mental perceivable self' reincarnation is inevitable, because there's always a "me" and always a "you", and we're all separate entities and each person is "someone". So someday, there will be another "me" who does not and will never know the "current me" because "I" am merely one entity perceiving everything else, and "I" am only mental, and there will always be "I"s and "you"s (or something like that), and I'm just getting myself into mental jams contemplating if there will ever be another "me" in which *I* have control over...

:eek2:


(*sigh* I'm reminding me of my {slightly} young{er} days when I felt like some überthinking philosophical boy that couldn't grasp this "self" thing... I feel confusing. :winter_brr:)

EDIT: Since this really isn't an alternate theory of anything, it probably better fits in the Philosophy and Humanities that I just found. . .after searching for it (before posting) since I knew something like what I was thinking of existed here. I saw Philosophy of Science... :weather_rain:
  • Turtle likes this

#2 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 05:29 AM

Well I know I'm coming back as a Nematode.
I just hope it is in a Buddhist garden. :phones:

#3 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 31 December 2007 - 09:11 AM

Haha, but I'm not talking about 'soul reüse'. :phones: More like how the 'you' that you percieve yourself as from yourself will exist again...

EDIT: Technically, I guess in what I'm talking about 'one' could "come back" as any animal ; but animals aren't capable of human language and thus can't communicate thights and ideas with us, so stick to being a human ! :clue:

#4 Giles Corey

Giles Corey

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 10:02 AM

Well, its an interesting idea, and one thought of quite a lot id assume, but from reading i find the use of "Me" "I" "you", a bit confusing so i will have to hold off on commenting at this exact point...

If you are suggesting that in two different time frames (Such as a difference of one hundred years) that some one (Personality, thought system, logic...ect?) might have already gone through the cycle of living out their life once before...

Then i would have to say, while we have absolutley no way of knowing, it wouldnt actually affect anything even if it were true. Due to the influences of a different culture, enviornment, parents... (I could go on), an entirley different person would arise than one who lived before.

Example being...
Life #1 - Living as an immigrant in New York.
Life #2 - Living in Dublin Ireland.

The differences in culture, goals and so forth would create an entirly differente person.
Weather or not it was you... Well thats just something you would have to live without knowing about.

#5 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 07:56 PM

My pronoun use is very confusing, I know...

I think I am thinking in two different time frames, because it's 'technically' impossible in a same time frame. Doesn't deal with personality or thought system or logic – nothing with the 'software', or external hardware. I'll elaborate this.

To show how it's impossible in a single time frame, imagine two twins, 'A and B' (and they're both male just to not have to type out his/her and the like). They look alike, et cetera et cetera, but their minds are independent. A perceives B as someone else obviously, but A perceives himself as A. Same with B. Both twins don't perceive their two minds as single, thus creating the same-time frame impossibility.

But A dies. After his death, there will along the way be a new human some time. A will not be reincarnated, not in an external-hardware or software sense. But internally, New Human will perceive itself just like A did.

You're A, and you perceive yourself as A. When you die, there'll be a someone else, but that person will still perceive themself as 'A', just like you did. Different looks, ideas, personality. . .but same physical perceivance of the world.

So yes, an immigrant in New York will perceive themself from their perspective, and a Dubliner will perceive themself from theirs, hundreds of years apart, but perhaps they both – even though have not one single relation – perceived themselves in the same exact manner (not emotionally or mentally, but physically)[, because every human is a physical replication of a past one]. (I don't know if the bracketed part actually means anything of what I'm wanting it to mean...)

Culture and goal differences and the life would differ, but they're irrelevant, because it'd be their physical self that permits the mental self to perceive their self...

If I have any reason, yes, there really isn't any way to confirm 'who' I last was. Really, none of this matters – it's just an überconfusing thought that I created. :confused:

#6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 08:40 PM

Reincarnation is sort of the precursor to genetic theory. One reincarnates themselves forward through genetics and reproduction. Our genetics were built upon other life forms, passing their genes forward until they reincarnated into us. It is sort of an eastern Darwinism. The idea of Karma can also be applied to genetics. If I live hard and do damage to my genetics, I can also pass this forward to create a worse state. The idea of backward reincarnation, into a bug for example, reflected the belief that the mind can exceed the genetics. What is passed forward is genetics. The advancement beyond the genetics is not preserved. The bigger the step backwards is implicit of the larger step forward in the mind, that is lost.

For example, say you came from a family of many generations of very thin people. This is your genetics. But through will power, training and diet you become 220 pounds of torqued up muscle. When you breed, unless your genes changed, your offspring or reincarnation is a fly. If by some strange circumstance the child comes out muscular then force of will has caused the genetics to change faster than the slow boat of nature. This is the final reincarnation, where recycle via nature and genetic is no longer natural, but is transcended through the power of the human mind.

#7 Giles Corey

Giles Corey

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 28 January 2008 - 08:14 AM

Ok, i more-so understand what you are getting at now. Good example, it worked. As far as the thought goes... Your thinking on the kind of idea where it would also be something to think about if everyone precieved themselves as A, and there was only one "?spirit?" in all of us? (No better word came to mind)

Im pretty sure that didnt come out as planned but i gotta run!
~Giles be Runnin

#8 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 28 January 2008 - 08:10 PM

@HydrogenBond: I never thought of a mostly literal reincarnation evolutionarily. I see what you mean how only genetics pass, and that nothing mental passes, and I agree with that, but I don't think my thought has anything thing to do with genetics.

@Giles: Just to try to make some more sense, let me steal spirit just to have a word and give it a definition: 'spirit' is the self perceiving the outer world, unrelated to other selfs.

At the same single time, we're not all of the same spirit. Let's take ten people (and pretend that the total population is at most ten; and when one dies, some random newborn is designated whichever letter of a dead):

A B C D E F G H I J

They each, while living, are completely independent from any other person and have no relationship.

I think I can't go further until I also explain this: think of you, and how you perceive things, and your feeling of your own existence. You can't see your face without a mirror because the your self is behind it in the brain. The way you see your hands on the keyboard, only you will see that way through your self – everyone elses' hands on their keyboards will always be different, because you have no control over them. If that was helpful. . .

A dies. When a new human is born, it's named A, and its spirit is the same as the last A. The newborn A will see its hands on a keyboard with the same perception as did the dead A, and the other nine's hands are all 'different', because A has no control of them.

Same when B or another dies. And when two die, say C and H, one newborn will have the same spirit as C, and one as H. If C and H could be conscious of each other's (like they or you or I are of our own) brain without 'switching minds', they'd still be different from each other. If living C and dead H were ever to be conscious of each other's brains, they'd be different. But if ever could dead H and living H be conscious of each other's, they'd feel the 'same', because they're both viewing themselves and the other 9 in the same manner....

I think this depends on population though, like I tried to implement. And a physically limited population, which is nonexistent naturally. Bs will always be Bs and Fs always Fs, but not because their names are the same – because they perceive just like the last B or F. (So Bs are Bs because the newborn has the same spirit as the last one...)

Oh, the confusement. :shrug:

#9 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 08 March 2008 - 05:59 PM

I might've figured out a more descriptive explanation for this.

Say there are ten spacesuits, each with its own visor, all ten of them being different colours. Humans 'can't see' until they are put in a spacesuit, and then, they will always see the world tinted the colour of their visor. When one human dies, that colored visor will have another set of eyes peering through it, seeing the world in the same colour as a human who has already died. The visor colours never change – the perceptives never change , but the human does. Just like I can't see myself from my perspective without a mirror, none of them will be able to see themselves in their colour without a mirror. When I die, someone else will have the same perspective – someone other future human will reüse my 'colour'...

#10 UncleAl

UncleAl

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1212 posts

Posted 29 March 2008 - 10:11 AM

Take two identical CDs. Give one 5 seconds in the microwave at "high." There is a 1:1 correspondence between starting state (unaltered CD) and product (microwaved CD). In principle one could sequentially reverse each tiny step in time to transform the microwaved CD back into the starting CD. In practice that doesn't work. Choosing a path backwards is not the same as pursuing a path forwards - undetermined branching at each decision.

#11 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 29 March 2008 - 10:16 AM

Yes, that makes sense, but does it apply ?.. :eek_big:

If both CDs had a consciousness, the microwaved CD'd obviously be dead, but, say another CD comes along and there's again two CDs, and this new CD replaces the 'viewpoint' of the microwaved one –*it sees the world the same way (like, if there were only two conscious CDs in the world, one red and one blue, the blue microwaved one would be dead, and the new CD would replace the dead blue one as another blue one, thus seeing the world – as a different being – as blue just like the last one..)..

I'm not speaking physically here, but mentally, just not in the everlasting-soul sense.

#12 nutronjon

nutronjon

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 30 March 2008 - 10:01 AM

We can not be sure what God is, nor are we absolutely sure about what matter is. If we have an eternal soul, I think it would be like a neutrino.

It is well known that there exist extremely high energetic particles in the Universe with energies up to 10^20 eV. How they are produced and how they propagate in the Universe have been a puzzle for a long time. Recent experiments suggest that these particles come from outside the Galaxy. More detailed understanding of their origin will require detecting many more particles. It may also be necessary to observe the production process through other windows. Nucleons and nuclei lose their energies in less than 100 Mpc through interactions with the cosmic microwave background. Furthermore, intergalactic magnetic fields can bend their trajectories, masking their sites of origin. Gamma rays are even more limited in pathlength due to electron pair production when they collide with radio photons.

In this regard, neutrinos have uniquely advantageous characteristics: they can penetrate cosmological distances in the Universe and their trajectories are not deflected because they have no electric charge. They carry information about extremely high energy (EHE) production processes, even in the early Universe. It is therefore important to understand the possible processes for producing EHE neutrinos and to consider the possibilities for detecting the predicted flux resulting from several different models.

UHE Neutrinos from CR


I like the explanation of CD's. The blue ones are boys and the red ones are girls, right? A homosexual is one that carries information from a past incarnation, and decided to expereince an incarnation as the opposite sex. Because we could not have truly new experiences, if we remembered our past incarnations, we enter with clean CD's (brain tissue), but the neutruno (our soul) retains all the information.

#13 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 30 March 2008 - 10:19 AM

I heard Michio Kaku on the radio this week talking about subjects in his new book Physics of the Impossible, and the idea of 'who' is 'you' came up in relation to a human using a transporter as in Star Trek. Kaku believes human teleportaion is theoretically possible (but requiring a receiver unit unlike Star Trek) and it in effect destroys the 'you' leaving and makes a new 'you' arriving. He seemed to think a soul hasn't any degree of freedom in all that. :eek:

He talked about time travel by people to the past as theoretically possible, but maintained the many parallel worlds view prevents such paradoxes as going back to kill your parents. Here again, you return a 'different' person from a time-travel because you get back to a parallel universe, but not the exact one you left from, and 'you' is now a reincarnation. :applause:

#14 tmaromine

tmaromine

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 30 March 2008 - 12:59 PM

We can not be sure what God is, nor are we absolutely sure about what matter is. If we have an eternal soul, I think it would be like a neutrino.

I like the explanation of CD's. The blue ones are boys and the red ones are girls, right? A homosexual is one that carries information from a past incarnation, and decided to expereince an incarnation as the opposite sex. Because we could not have truly new experiences, if we remembered our past incarnations, we enter with clean CD's (brain tissue), but the neutruno (our soul) retains all the information.


I actually just arbitrarily chose two colours. :P But I think I can elaborate the idea further with sexual orientation since you brought it up.

Say the old and dead blue CD was homosexual, and the new and living blue CD is heterosexual. Now, they're both different – if you want to get souls involved then, they have two different souls – but they *see* the world the same, because they both perceive the world in a blue hue. Not only are they blue, they see with a blue bias. These two different-oriented and completely-unrelated CDs have the same perception 'just because' they're blue and see with blue. If the dead homosexual blue CD were reïncarnated into a red CD, then it would have the same 'soul', but a different perception of the world, because it now sees in red.

I believe I understand your neutrino = soul concept, but what I'm implying with this concept I've thought of is that there is no soul, simply 'different colours are reüsed', just not the minds/people/souls. :P


I heard Michio Kaku on the radio this week talking about subjects in his new book Physics of the Impossible, and the idea of 'who' is 'you' came up in relation to a human using a transporter as in Star Trek. Kaku believes human teleportaion is theoretically possible (but requiring a receiver unit unlike Star Trek) and it in effect destroys the 'you' leaving and makes a new 'you' arriving. He seemed to think a soul hasn't any degree of freedom in all that. :)

He talked about time travel by people to the past as theoretically possible, but maintained the many parallel worlds view prevents such paradoxes as going back to kill your parents. Here again, you return a 'different' person from a time-travel because you get back to a parallel universe, but not the exact one you left from, and 'you' is now a reincarnation. :)


He's fascinated me, with the few science shows I've watched with him.

Now here'd be a perfect place for a (free?) soul to exist – imagine 'linking' souls from one body to another, as to make teleportation work. If the whole divine world is [were] real, then souls are able to leave bodies, so basically the physical body could be cloned, and the soul relinked and voilà...

Anyway: would the 'you' who has time travelled be reïncarnated, or rather, cloned ? When I think of reïncarnation, I think of a new generation, or a new person with a past's experience. But I guess it could be said that a posttimetravel person would be reïncarnated, since they'd have their past self's experience and would be the 'second generation' of the person, it's just that they'd look the same, which perhaps is the only argument for it being cloning...