Consciousness and the Soul

[RedJamaX]

I never even heard of reincarnation when I had my first past life memory. I did not even recognize it for what it was. My parents did not believe in it and never taught me to believe in it.

Then your case may be interesting... Can you provide the details??

1. When did you have your first memory?

2. what was it about?

3. how did it come to you? (dream?, feeling?, in the form of a memory)

4. When did it come to you (wide awake? asleep? falling asleep, or still waking up?)

5. What led you to believe it was a "past life" experience? and not just the creativity of your own mind?

6. Do you have any original documentation that would be considered a testimony that you presented BEFORE you could collaborate any of your claims with the previous life of another individual?

7. And after that, do you have any documentation that can corroborate your "experience" with the individual you believe to have been reincarnated from?

8. Were there any variances at all between what you "remember" in comparison to the individual you believe you were previously?

9. How were those memories confirmed? documents? pictures? interview with family member of the person you believe you were in that past life?

10. How many OTHER vivid dreams and/or memories have you had that had nothing to do with any kind of possible re-incarnation?

I believe these would be some of the places I would start for an investigation...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Can we define reincarnation as well? What type of reincarnation are we talking of?

 

[gnostic]

I believe that the soul is the bottom of my foot. I stand on them, walk around them...and it is ticklish if one brushes my soul with a feather. Most of the time I'm not conscious of them, unless I'm walking around bare feet on cold hard floor or feels like they are burning on hot sandy beach, and of course g@@-damn awful feather. And....

...waitasec! That's the wrong soul. Oh, that's embarrassing.

Where's that damn delete-button!

 

[nazz]

Well that was what I was trying to figure out what Nazz meant.

When I think of independent I usually think of something that can function without the need of another. I would assume that when people mention the mind independent of the brain, they mean that the brain exists in the physical plain and mind exists somewhere else?

I should point out that I do not think that the mind is physical, but is the result of physical activities.

I guess an example is, I don't think love is physical (though it can be) but it is the result of physical activities.

That's fine but what is the process of causation? Until you can demonstrate that all you really have is a belief.

 

[nazz]

1. When did you have your first memory?

I'm not sure my exact age at the time. Probably around 7 or 8

2. what was it about?

3. how did it come to you? (dream?, feeling?, in the form of a memory)

4. When did it come to you (wide awake? asleep? falling asleep, or still waking up?)

It started when I was riding my bike on our gravel driveway. There was something about the sound that made. I kept doing it over and over again. And suddenly I was transported back to the 18th century. I remembered what it was like to be a person from that era and felt like that person.

5. What led you to believe it was a "past life" experience? and not just the creativity of your own mind?

Because I was not imagining anything. I just experienced it. But at the time I really did not think about the cause. I did not think it was a memory from a past life.

6. Do you have any original documentation that would be considered a testimony that you presented BEFORE you could collaborate any of your claims with the previous life of another individual?

No

7. And after that, do you have any documentation that can corroborate your "experience" with the individual you believe to have been reincarnated from?

No

8. Were there any variances at all between what you "remember" in comparison to the individual you believe you were previously?

I was not remembering being an identifiable person.

9. How were those memories confirmed? documents? pictures? interview with family member of the person you believe you were in that past life?

They were not. But a later one was.

10. How many OTHER vivid dreams and/or memories have you had that had nothing to do with any kind of possible re-incarnation?

Well that is a really good question because I actually did have an intense memory about something that never happened in this life yet happened in the 60's when I was alive. So that does make me wonder about what this is all about.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's fine but what is the process of causation? Until you can demonstrate that all you really have is a belief.

Can you explain by what do you mean process?

 

[nazz]

Can you explain by what do you mean process?

All established causation has a definable process. How we get from A (the cause) to B (the result). It's the lack of this "how" that is at the heart of the Hard problem of consciousness

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

All established causation has a definable process. How we get from A (the cause) to B (the result). It's the lack of this "how" that is at the heart of the Hard problem of consciousness

Unless if it's multiple causes.

 

[nazz]

Unless if it's multiple causes.

If it is then you need multiple explanations to establish causation.

 

[George-ananda]

You don't pick a "definitive answer". Something a lot of Theists can't grasp is that sometimes, things cannot be explained. You don't have to make up an answer for it. You can literally just say, "I don't know" and leave it at that.

I didn't pick a definitive answer as I was not addressing that question with my post. I was showing the materialist explanation must be dramatically incomplete.

My answer. I have come (through evidence and study) to accept the eastern (Hindu) worldview on things. That our entire universe is a thought-creation of God/Brahman. There is nothing that is not Brahman. We are sparks of Brahman in the illusion of separation (Maya). We are in the process of working our way back to the Oneness. We are Brahman encased in five sheaths (bodies) and the outermost sheath is the physical body. The other bodies are super-physical and beyond our ability to detect with physical instruments. The so-called soul body grows through multiple experiences on the physical plane through multiple outer bodies.

Where did these concepts come from? From great masters/seers/sages/God-men/saints/gurus/whatever-term. They are souls more advanced than us and able to experience through their super-physical bodies and are re-born for the purpose of teaching. After careful consideration, and considering evidence of the paranormal, I have objectively decided the best of these teachers are to be revered and learned from. I’ve certainly well considered the atheist argument that they must be all self-deluded/con-men/frauds/crazies/ego-maniacs/whatever-term.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If it is then you need multiple explanations to establish causation.

At that pont it becomes correlation, as each one plays a role, but it is possible for D to have occurred without the interaction of A, B or C.

But how are you defining reincarnation? You mentioned that you were someone from the 18th century? Where in th 18th century?

Mind you I may end up reaching a different conclusion then you about your experiences, but I do believe that to you they were geniune.

 

[RedJamaX]

1. When did you have your first memory?

I'm not sure my exact age at the time. Probably around 7 or 8

...

So, I can see from your answers that it seems you are basing at least some portion of your belief on personal experience... This is similar to how many people claim their personal experience with god... I can't possibly confirm or deny their experience, because I wasn't part of it.

But from a critical thinking and analysis point, will you concede that you don't have enough information to be considered proof for me to believe your claim? And there is no reason that I should.

 

[RedJamaX]

All established causation has a definable process. How we get from A (the cause) to B (the result). It's the lack of this "how" that is at the heart of the Hard problem of consciousness

It would also be good to consider what "level" of consciousness you are discussing...

At the most basic level, A fly is conscious of it's own existence... if you swat at it, it will attempt to fly away due to self-preservation.

A more complex level may be our early ancestors seeing sparks ignite dry leaves and then translating that into striking stones together over dry leaves to deliberately start a fire. Complex problem solving abilities.

 

[nazz]

It would also be good to consider what "level" of consciousness you are discussing...

At the most basic level, A fly is conscious of it's own existence... if you swat at it, it will attempt to fly away due to self-preservation.

A more complex level may be our early ancestors seeing sparks ignite dry leaves and then translating that into striking stones together over dry leaves to deliberately start a fire. Complex problem solving abilities.

The level has no bearing on the problem one way or another

 

[nazz]

So, I can see from your answers that it seems you are basing at least some portion of your belief on personal experience... This is similar to how many people claim their personal experience with god... I can't possibly confirm or deny their experience, because I wasn't part of it.

But from a critical thinking and analysis point, will you concede that you don't have enough information to be considered proof for me to believe your claim? And there is no reason that I should.

Which claim exactly? That I had such an experience? Because that's the only claim I've made.

 

[nazz]

At that pont it becomes correlation, as each one plays a role, but it is possible for D to have occurred without the interaction of A, B or C.

But how are you defining reincarnation? You mentioned that you were someone from the 18th century? Where in th 18th century

All I am claiming is that I felt like someone from the 18th century. Nothing more.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I applaud you for taking an unpopular stance but although it is better then "the mind is nothing more than the brain's electrochemical activity" it still suggests the mind is somehow physical. This is clearly not the case because if so the philosophical problem of other minds would be solved.

Most of the philosophical authors who eschew physicalism do so for reasons that ultimately are inaccurate. Nagel, Crane, and others tend to describe physicalism and other positions inaccurately:

Here I find a problem with Crane's argument. His rejects non-reductive physicalism of a rather specific type (as far as the mind is concerned, this position in Crane's view is identical to supervenience). Specifically, the reductive physicalist insists that reduction in ontological, while for the non-reductive it is simply explanatory. Some of the problems with Crane's argument here may simply be due to the nature of his book: it's an introduction to the philosophy of mind, and thus involves more explaining ideas than arguing for them. However, his account of ontological reductionism is not one that I think most reductive physicalists would claim to hold. It involves the identify claim: a thing is itself. For the reductive physicalist, says Crane, this means that e.g., the claim "Hesperus is Phosphorus is a reduction of Hesperus to Phosphorus". For the non-reductive physicalist, it simply means that something like hesperus can be explained more comprehensively in terms of other things (that it is phosphorus, that phosphorus has particular properties itself which we can explain in terms of chemistry and molecular physics, etc.).

Crane's non-reductive physicalism appears to be (as he equates it with explanatory reductionism) what many (perhaps most) reductive physicalists would claim to hold. In contrast, his account of reductive physicalism seems to combine ontological determinancy & explanatory reduction, in that all complex systems and structures can not only be explained in terms of their constituent parts, but are wholly determined by these, the interations among these and between these and the environment, and the laws of physics. But especially since the advent of quantum mechanics along with the development of "chaos theory" (the study of nonlinear complex systems and phenomena), adherents to this kind of determinism are hard to find. For most physicists, at best we can explain complex systems and structures in terms of their properties, parts, and the laws of physics, but that there is an ontological indeterminancy at the most basic level of all reality.

Crane, then, sets up a bit of a strawman. His non-reductive physicalism is more akin to reductive physicalism, while his reductive phsyicalism is more akin to a 19th century understanding of physics and causality.

But the truth is we cannot produce any physical evidence for the existence of any minds and so only know for certain our own exist

This doesn't follow. First, we can produce physical evidence for the existence of minds. We can't produce a working model, but that is not the same thing. Second, it does not follow that even if we couldn't produce any physical existence for minds then we could be sure our own existed. There are more than a few philosophers and scientists who don't believe that we have minds in any meaningful sense. I think this is ridiculous, but not much more so than the arguments mounted so far that minds cannot be physical. Certain types of ants are perhaps the best analogy:

Like individual neurons, individual ants are mindless. In fact "Even in quite large numbers" ants will remain mindless. They' will simply "walk around in never decreasing circles until they die of exhaustion."
(Franks, N. "Army ants: a collective intelligence. American Scientist, 77")
But when you have enough ants of the right type (e.g,. army ants) and the right configuration of kinds (e.g., workers and queens) everything changes:

"A colony of 500,000 Eciton army ants can form a nest of their own bodies that will regulate temperature accurately within limits of plus or minus 10 C. In a single day, the colony can raid 200 m through the dim depths of the tropical rain forest, all the while maintaining a steady compass bearing. The ants can form super-efficient teams for the purpose of transporting large items of prey."

Just to give you an idea of the kind of complex coordinated activity mindless ants can do, here's a picture of them forming a living bridge to get across:

Like neurons, when you have enough ants configured in the right way, suddenly you get a "hive mind" of a colony.

But something else must be involved in the non-physical realm that results in non-physical conscious experience. Some process that translates the electrochemical signatures in the brain to qualia.

The conscious experiences of color are qualia.

 

[nazz]

Most of the philosophical authors who eschew physicalism do so for reasons that ultimately are inaccurate. Nagel, Crane, and others tend to describe physicalism and other positions inaccurately

I am defining physicalism as the belief that all things that are truly real are physical in nature. That is they are composed of some form of matter/energy. Did you have a different definition in mind?

This doesn't follow. First, we can produce physical evidence for the existence of minds.

Based on the definition I gave above what physical evidence is there of their existence? What physical substance are they composed of?

Second, it does not follow that even if we couldn't produce any physical existence for minds then we could be sure our own existed.

We know our own minds exist because we experience them. Not because there is any objective evidence they exist.

There are more than a few philosophers and scientists who don't believe that we have minds in any meaningful sense. I think this is ridiculous, but not much more so than the arguments mounted so far that minds cannot be physical. Certain types of ants are perhaps the best analogy

Well I think ants are conscious as individuals. Why would you think they are not? That their individual minds form a collective mind doesn't change that. This is true of all social animals, humans included.

The conscious experiences of color are qualia.

Yes, so? I am saying there is no mechanism to explain how electrochemical reactions in the brain produce the conscious sensation of color.

 

[Looncall]

I am defining physicalism as the belief that all things that are truly real are physical in nature. That is they are composed of some form of matter/energy. Did you have a different definition in mind?

Based on the definition I gave above what physical evidence is there of their existence? What physical substance are they composed of?

We know our own minds exist because we experience them. Not because there is any objective evidence they exist.

Well I think ants are conscious as individuals. Why would you think they are not? That their individual minds form a collective mind doesn't change that. This is true of all social animals, humans included.

Yes, so? I am saying there is no mechanism to explain how electrochemical reactions in the brain produce the conscious sensation of color.

Why must minds be composed of a substance? Why can't they be a set of processes happening in a physical brain? Like a computation running in a computer.

I find it odd that religiously-inclined folks seem to have trouble with the notion of process.

 

[RedJamaX]

All I am claiming is that I felt like someone from the 18th century. Nothing more.

Clearly, based on your other posts, you are claiming that there is "evidence" of re-incarnation. So far, In what I have looked up, the only "evidence" presented is in the form of anecdote and interview.. with no documentation to back them up.

This explanation is far more likely.
Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors | LiveScience