opinions of reincarnation

Sandvich

King Mob wrote: »

Well that's the thing. Some types of brain damage can cause people to radically change personality.It can even do stuff like alter the processes which determine how a person judges right and wrong, how they make decisions.

Again, that's not what's meant by consciousness. Consciousness is the "subjective experience".

You are confusing the "Easy" problem of consciousness with the "Hard" problem of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

So if all of this happens can you really say its the same person?

This is an interesting question. I dislike how many atheists act as if they have it answered as easily as a religious person would.

My point was that if a supernatural soul existed, surely these things would remain intact despite any brain damage.

I am not religious and certainly not interesting in defending any idea such as a christian "soul". I'm just pointing out that a lot of people tend to overlook the consciousness problem.

Someone's personally and thought process is not what is meant by "consciousness" in this matter.

What's meant is the "Blick Winkel", the point of view, the one final receptor of information.

It is a notoriously difficult concept to explain, and it is difficult to get any two people to agree on the same definition of consciousness.

Though in a sense what you say could be "Possible"; going along with the computer terminology, and looking at ideas such as middleware, or even basic class based programming. In a sense, we could all be remote controlled by another human being half way across the galaxy without our knowledge. What about brain damage, etc.? If the brain is an interface, then it will not be able to send and recieve information regarding aspects that are not available to it. The part which governs "Memory" in the brain could actually be the part that connects memory - since you are totally interfaced with your "avatar", you are unable to avail of any memory at all. A class may in theory contain a function; but if it's not being called upon, it makes no difference. I used to have a better example when I was actually programming, but I forgot it.

What I'm trying to get at is that it'd be irrelevant if there was a "Supernatural soul" containing some kind of record of your real personality; since it's ability to interface with the world is limited by whatever it has to interact with in it's interface. If the section controlling "Memory" is damaged; then much of it is simply left out of the loop. It's like an adapter class that leaves out a function.

Of course this functions purely as a thought experiment, but I think maybe some people shy away from thinking about things like this.

Zillah

Sandvich wrote: »

Of course this functions purely as a thought experiment, but I think maybe some people shy away from thinking about things like this.

I've thought about it plenty. I've also considered tons of other arbitrary thought experiments, and while sometimes fun, they are largely useless.

We don't know what causes subjective conciousness. We might never know due to its subjective nature.

If anyone tries to explain it beyond that all I hear are varying forms of "Magic! Its magic! Special magic! Magic magic magic!"

It's been proven that the brain is intimately tied with the appearance of subjective conciousness. Considering that my assumption of the existence of the sentience of anyone but me is based upon the appearance of their sentience, it seems reasonable to tentatively conclude that subjective conciousness is a result of the brain.

King Mob

Sandvich wrote: »

Again, that's not what's meant by consciousness. Consciousness is the "subjective experience".

You are confusing the "Easy" problem of consciousness with the "Hard" problem of consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

I was referring to personality, what makes a person that particular person.
No matter what definition of personhood you use, memory and personality will have to come up in some form or another.
And both of these can be changed completely by brain damage.

Remember my post was in response to a claim that a soul must exist because these things persist despite the brain renewing it's cells.

Sandvich wrote: »

This is an interesting question. I dislike how many atheists act as if they have it answered as easily as a religious person would.

I'm not sure how you mean...
It's clear from the evidence available that conciousness comes from the brain.
We're not sure how exactly this happens, but there are no other explanations that have any supporting evidence.

Sandvich wrote: »

I am not religious and certainly not interesting in defending any idea such as a christian "soul". I'm just pointing out that a lot of people tend to overlook the consciousness problem.

Again, if you're not suggesting a soul as the origin of consciousness what else is there than the brain?

Sandvich wrote: »

Someone's personally and thought process is not what is meant by "consciousness" in this matter.

But it's part of what makes them an individual.

Sandvich wrote: »

Though in a sense what you say could be "Possible"; going along with the computer terminology, and looking at ideas such as middleware, or even basic class based programming. In a sense, we could all be remote controlled by another human being half way across the galaxy without our knowledge. What about brain damage, etc.? If the brain is an interface, then it will not be able to send and recieve information regarding aspects that are not available to it. The part which governs "Memory" in the brain could actually be the part that connects memory - since you are totally interfaced with your "avatar", you are unable to avail of any memory at all. A class may in theory contain a function; but if it's not being called upon, it makes no difference. I used to have a better example when I was actually programming, but I forgot it.

it's entirely possible, but there's no evidence to support it, there's nothing observed that requires this to be the case and it doesn't really explain it any better.
So why bother with the idea of an external source at all?

Sandvich wrote: »

What I'm trying to get at is that it'd be irrelevant if there was a "Supernatural soul" containing some kind of record of your real personality; since it's ability to interface with the world is limited by whatever it has to interact with in it's interface. If the section controlling "Memory" is damaged; then much of it is simply left out of the loop. It's like an adapter class that leaves out a function.

But then literally anything change to you brain could interfere with this translation from soul to body. An alteration of brain chemistry at birth could make you a totally different person than otherwise.
So if this was the case, then it's unlikely that any one on earth is in fact their "true selfs" and similarly the self you have been and developed on Earth would certainly not survive death of the body.

Sandvich wrote: »

Of course this functions purely as a thought experiment, but I think maybe some people shy away from thinking about things like this.

Well as has been pointed out, thought experiments are all well and good, but useless unless they're making testable predictions.
And they're doubly useless if the only conclusion you reach is "Magic."

Sandvich

It's clear from the evidence available that conciousness comes from the brain.

The "Hard" consciousness problem is a very real issue and I don't think it's fair to write it off as if there's a consensus against it. I think people are a little afraid of it because it might be something that there is no answer on.

Again, if you're not suggesting a soul as the origin of consciousness what else is there than the brain?

I have absolutely no idea. Pinker came up with one idea - but it wasn't massively popular.

But it's part of what makes them an individual.

That's not what's meant by consciousness. You're still misunderstanding the "Hard" consciousness problem.

But then literally anything change to you brain could interfere with this translation from soul to body. An alteration of brain chemistry at birth could make you a totally different person than otherwise.
So if this was the case, then it's unlikely that any one on earth is in fact their "true selfs" and similarly the self you have been and developed on Earth would certainly not survive death of the body.

Absolutely. Double so for reincarnation. But again, it was a thought experiment to try and rethink how consciousness works. If you then abstarct all the "Personality" bits and just leave the point of view.

Well as has been pointed out, thought experiments are all well and good, but useless unless they're making testable predictions.

But I think this is the basic issue here - consciousness, qualia, are things that inherently to our knowledge can NOT be tested. From a scientific point of view, it makes them a bit useless. But it makes me angry when people reject them on a philosophical level because of it, because it's one of the most interesting subjects.

HavingCrack

I'm suprised nobody has mention Ian Stevenson in this thread. He was the head of the paranormal research faculty in the University of Virginia and conducted a huge amount of research into reincarnation using emperical methods.

He spent years researching cases where children coudl remember past lives and while most of them were fake at least 3 were simply inexplicable. The case of a child in India in the 1980's remembering life during depression era Kansas being one that sticks in my mind.

Basically there has been scientific research done into this by a respected researcher. So make of it what you will.

1. ^ a b c d e Cadoret, R (2005). "Book Forum: Ethics, Values, and Religion - European Cases of the Reincarnation Type". The American Journal of Psychiatry 162 (4): 823–4. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/823.
2. ^ Carroll RT (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley. pp. 276–7. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.
3. ^ a b Tucker, Jim (2005). Life before life: a scientific investigation of children's memories of previous lives. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 10. ISBN 0-312-32137-6.
4. ^ R. Cadoret. Review of European Cases of the Reincarnation Type American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 162(4) April 2005, 823-824. The similarities of cases from culture to culture suggest some organizing process —-Stevenson proposes a paranormal process such as reincarnation or extrasensory perception.
5. ^ Rockley, R (2002-11-01). "Book Review: Children who remember previous lives, A question of reincarnation, Ian Stevenson". Skeptic Report. http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=482. Retrieved 2010-03-01.

Mark Hamill

HavingCrack wrote: »

I'm suprised nobody has mention Ian Stevenson in this thread. He was the head of the paranormal research faculty in the University of Virginia and conducted a huge amount of research into reincarnation using emperical methods.

He spent years researching cases where children coudl remember past lives and while most of them were fake at least 3 were simply inexplicable. The case of a child in India in the 1980's remembering life during depression era Kansas being one that sticks in my mind.

Basically there has been scientific research done into this by a respected researcher. So make of it what you will.

Respected researcher? The guy thought diseases where, in part, caused by past lives:

Stevenson is best known for his studies of children who claim to remember past lives, but he retained a lifelong interest in psychosomatic issues and believed his reincarnation data could prove useful in medicine. He did not think that every disease could be explained by heredity or environment; some diseases require reference to past life experiences. He believed that reincarnation could help him answer the question that had bothered him for decades: Why does a person acquire one particular disease instead of another?

Quote from skepdic.com, where you can read the long article detailing Stevensons methods and myriad of problems associated with them.

checkyabadself

Reincarnation is like listening to your parents say " If I`d my time over again I`d have been a vet ".

And come on, there`s never been a middle eastern society ranting about it so it cant be true.