Reincarnation: A Reason Based Fact of Reality

[Hickory]

[Continued from above.]

I said:

"What is seldom understood here on Earth, however, is that there are also benefits associated with not allowing social expediency to influence your thoughts. The alternative to selective thinking is the truth-finding procedure known as reason, which works as follows:

(1) You state, as clearly as you can, the question to be answered.

(2) You state, as clearly as you can, the various possible answers to that question.

(3) You search for facts and/or logic that contradicts those answers, until you have eliminated all the answers but one.

(4) You accept the answer that remains as the truth, until and unless you discover that you have made an error in steps (1) through (3), above."

You said:

"That is roughly the scientific method and many use it."

My response:

We all use it, whether we are scientists or not, and whether we are conformists or not. Mechanics use it to figure out what is wrong with an automobile; plumbers use it to figure out why sewers are backing up; and on, and on, and on.

If we didn't use it, we would be unable to cope with the physical world, and would suffer severe adverse consequences, possibly including death.

Conformists, however, recognize at an intuitive level that socially expedient beliefs, even if untrue, also provide benefits, and that sometimes those benefits will also save your life. So while a conformist will use reason in the physical realm--e.g., to figure out why his car won't start--he will not use it in the social realm--e.g., to figure out that there is no God (assuming he is raised by religionists). He would rather have a false belief that will provide him with protective coloration and keep him safe, than have a true belief that will put him in harm's way.

I said:

"If you reject selective, socially expedient thinking in favor of reason, you will grow your understanding of the world throughout your life and, when your life ends, your conceptual repertoire will render it virtually impossible for you to be reincarnated on a world like Earth. The reason is that you can only be reborn into a species where the gene pool implants the sorts of understandings you have at the time of your death into the brains of infants. Thus if you understand the value of freedom, you can only be reborn into a species where such understanding is genetically implanted into the brains of infants. That means virtually all members of such a species will be sworn enemies of every form of tyranny, and uncompromising supporters of free societies. Result: in the worlds that they inhabit, tyranny will be impossible, just as it would be impossible here on Earth if everyone did not have a "will to believe" the self-serving lies of predatory elites, and thus did not prevent themselves from ever understanding the importance of being free."

You said:

"I suggest if you use the method you will conclude reincarnation does not occur at all."

My response:

I have done my best to use reason, and have reached the opposite conclusion. If you think you see a flaw in my extensive presentation, I suggest that you quote the passage in question and explain why you think it is wrong.

You said:

"I suggest most human understand the value of freedom throughout most of their life and still we have tyranny. It is because things are never that simple."

My response:

Freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably expect that his natural, reason-based rights will not be violated and that, in the unlikely event that they are violated, that the offender will be apprehended, that he will stand accused before a neutral arbiter, that if guilty he will be so found, and that fair punishment will be imposed.

How many people have you known in your life who had the foggiest understanding of any of that?

The reality here on Earth is that virtually no one has the slightest clue that reason-based natural rights even exist, as opposed to "rights" as defined by "the law"--i.e., by the orders of the predatory elite. Nor do they understand what neutral arbitration is, or that the notion of what is "fair" arises out of the nature of reality rather than someone's arbitrary whim.

I said:

"Bottom line: we select the type of world into which we will be reborn by means of the way we choose to think in this one. If we choose reason, we choose to be reborn into free societies--i.e., into societies even better than the former America which, with its constitution and bill of rights, was the closest thing to paradise that has ever existed on planet Earth. If, on the other hand, we choose to fit in by means of selective, socially expedient thinking, we choose to be reborn into tyranny and misery."

You said:

"Again far too simplistic."

My response:

As I said to another fellow earlier today, this is a discussion group, not a public opinion poll. I personally don't give a hoot about your unsupported opinion, on this topic or any other.

I said:

"Only social deviants, it would seem, can go to paradise."

You said:

"I wish i could believe that as I am a social deviant, but also there is no reason to accept this line of reasoning even if I were to accept reincarnation, which I do not and yes I have followed this thread."

My response:

See above.

[BlackSheep]

You need to read through the entire message before inserting responses. If you had done that in the present case, you would have discovered that your question was answered immediately below the point at which you inserted it.

Here is the answer, which was the very next thing I said:

"I say that because the core understandings which infants are born with here on Earth are designed to enable them to survive and reproduce in environments such as this one. In such environments natural rights are routinely violated and "success" is enhanced by believing the self-serving propaganda of predatory elites. Result: an understanding of the importance of fitting in and of how to accomplish that goal is genetically implanted in the brains of human children at a very early stage in their development."

I did read it. How does that explain anything?

The sort of "design" I had in mind is the kind that is accomplished by the process of natural selection, not by divine intervention, and I have made that clear at innumerable points in this thread. Evidently you either didn't read that material, or else you skimmed over it so lightly that you might as well not have read it.

My suggestion was really to use a different word as it is misleading.

Bottom line: conformity has had unarguable benefits in every social context that has ever existed on Earth. Reason-based nonconformity, however, has also had benefits, especially in the former America. But, as I stated, any such benefits that nonconformity has during life on Earth pale by comparison to the benefits it confers after death: it is the ticket to the world to come. It is reason-based nonconformity and the heretical understandings which it places in our brains, that determine the nature of the world to come.

You described the societies humans are adapted to "In such environments natural rights are routinely violated and "success" is enhanced by believing the self-serving propaganda of predatory elites." I don't think elites have been around for the majority of the human population that long. Not long enough to have adapted well to it.

Most people don't get to the point of actually asking such questions because they quickly sense that such thoughts are heading into dangerous territory, and respond by hurling them out of consciousness. Moreover, they don't just censor their own thoughts; they also censor information from external sources. If, for example, you persist in voicing such thoughts, they will hurl you out of their circle of friends. And if they find themselves reading a book that heads in that direction, they will either skip over that material, or else hurl the book into the nearest trash can. And the same thing applies to this thread: as soon as I began voicing inexpedient thoughts, you can bet your bottom dollar that the more obsessive of the conformists in the audience absented themselves from this thread.

Well I disagree. In my experience most people have no inclination to think that deeply. I doubt most extreme conformists would be here to begin with. I have never been a conformist. Never really been hurled from any friends.

"Wired" is just an analogy to hardware. The brain, however, is wetware.

I agree it is an analogy to hardware and the brain is very different, but is hardware in its own way.

In any event, we agree that such response tendencies are implanted into the brains of humans as part of their genetically controlled process of development. And I think we can also agree that the effects on thought and behavior are those of conceptual understanding: people perceive danger in not fitting in, just as they perceive danger associated with great heights or the presence of snakes and spiders. Moreover, the facts clearly indicate a genetic source for such understandings: people are influenced by them from the beginnings of their lives, before they have fallen, been bitten by a snake or a spider, or have been punished for voicing heretical opinions.

I really don't think avoiding unconventional ideas is instinctual. I think that we learn to avoid rejection because of a drive to have friends and be accepted.

[BlackSheep]

[Continued from above.]We all use it, whether we are scientists or not, and whether we are conformists or not. Mechanics use it to figure out what is wrong with an automobile; plumbers use it to figure out why sewers are backing up; and on, and on, and on.

I agree. I didn't imply we don't use it, just what it is called.

If we didn't use it, we would be unable to cope with the physical world, and would suffer severe adverse consequences, possibly including death.

Conformists, however, recognize at an intuitive level that socially expedient beliefs, even if untrue, also provide benefits, and that sometimes those benefits will also save your life. So while a conformist will use reason in the physical realm--e.g., to figure out why his car won't start--he will not use it in the social realm--e.g., to figure out that there is no God (assuming he is raised by religionists). He would rather have a false belief that will provide him with protective coloration and keep him safe, than have a true belief that will put him in harm's way.

I don't think it is that simple.

I have done my best to use reason, and have reached the opposite conclusion. If you think you see a flaw in my extensive presentation, I suggest that you quote the passage in question and explain why you think it is wrong.

I understand you have been trying and the flaws have been pointed out. First your description of reincarnation is not the normal description. Second you are just saying that we exist as a potential that means nothing. It means we are possible. There is no support to the concept that we can be reformed via normal processes as there are too many variables.

Freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably expect that his natural, reason-based rights will not be violated and that, in the unlikely event that they are violated, that the offender will be apprehended, that he will stand accused before a neutral arbiter, that if guilty he will be so found, and that fair punishment will be imposed.

How many people have you known in your life who had the foggiest understanding of any of that?

The reality here on Earth is that virtually no one has the slightest clue that reason-based natural rights even exist, as opposed to "rights" as defined by "the law"--i.e., by the orders of the predatory elite. Nor do they understand what neutral arbitration is, or that the notion of what is "fair" arises out of the nature of reality rather than someone's arbitrary whim.

You have a very particular definition of freedom that you didn't define.
Can you define "reason-based natural rights" and neural arbitration.

As I said to another fellow earlier today, this is a discussion group, not a public opinion poll. I personally don't give a hoot about your unsupported opinion, on this topic or any other.

Odd opinion to hold on a discussion group.

See above.

Seems you have no desire or ability to defend your position.

[Night]

Hickory, consciousness is not proof of reincarnation. The fact that I am me, and you are you, is simply proof that our neural structures in the brain are different. That's it.

[Hickory]

Dec. 29, 2011

To Night:

You said:

"Hickory, consciousness is not proof of reincarnation. The fact that I am me, and you are you, is simply proof that our neural structures in the brain are different. That's it."

My response:

Add in the fact that we didn't exist before, and it immediately follows that the material universe has the power to bring us from a state of nonexistence ("death") into a state of existence ("life"). That makes the lives we are living right now examples of "life after death," and immediately blows all arguments against reincarnation to smithereens: there is no argument against our coming into the world again after we die that does not apply equally to our coming into it this time. Since we are here right now and were not here before our present lives began, all such arguments must be wrong. Q.E.D.

If that's not a proof of reincarnation, where is the fallacy?

[Night]

Dec. 29, 2011

To Night:

You said:

"Hickory, consciousness is not proof of reincarnation. The fact that I am me, and you are you, is simply proof that our neural structures in the brain are different. That's it."

Did you know, there's a quoting tool on this forum...

My response:

Add in the fact that we didn't exist before, and it immediately follows that the material universe has the power to bring us from a state of nonexistence ("death") into a state of existence ("life"). That makes the lives we are living right now examples of "life after death," and immediately blows all arguments against reincarnation to smithereens: there is no argument against our coming into the world again after we die that does not apply equally to our coming into it this time. Since we are here right now and were not here before our present lives began, all such arguments must be wrong. Q.E.D.

If that's not a proof of reincarnation, where is the fallacy?

Your entire argument has one fatal error.

We were not living before we were born. That is "life after death", not "life after death after life". Which doesn't prove anything about...well, anything. And your entire argument about consciousness is human-centric, as if consciousness is somehow intrinsically special. It's not.

What element of existence do we carry over from one life to another, in your belief? Let me tell you: nothing. Everything about you is determined by the environment, genes, and your parents.

Consciousness COMPLETELY results from neurons. So it ONLY makes sense that consciousness would result only when a child's brain is ready. Newborn babies do not fit the full definition of consciousness. It takes a while before their BRAINS develop enough to make them fully conscious.

And just because the universe can contain consciousness doesn't mean it will. Consciousness is shaped by many factors, mostly your parents and nutrition in the womb. These heavily effect how you will turn out.

How can you possibly prove that I once lived before??? Your arguments don't even make logical sense. They don't logically follow one another.

[Peter]

Dec. 29, 2011

To Night:

You said:

"Hickory, consciousness is not proof of reincarnation. The fact that I am me, and you are you, is simply proof that our neural structures in the brain are different. That's it."

My response:

Add in the fact that we didn't exist before, and it immediately follows that the material universe has the power to bring us from a state of nonexistence ("death") into a state of existence ("life"). That makes the lives we are living right now examples of "life after death," and immediately blows all arguments against reincarnation to smithereens: there is no argument against our coming into the world again after we die that does not apply equally to our coming into it this time. Since we are here right now and were not here before our present lives began, all such arguments must be wrong. Q.E.D.

If that's not a proof of reincarnation, where is the fallacy?

Sorry, you can't be dead until you've been alive. The state of nonexistent is not the same as dead.

Please stop the word games.

Doh, I see night says essentially the same thing in the post above this one...

[Hickory]

To Night:

I said:

"Add in the fact that we didn't exist before, and it immediately follows that the material universe has the power to bring us from a state of nonexistence ("death") into a state of existence ("life"). That makes the lives we are living right now examples of "life after death," and immediately blows all arguments against reincarnation to smithereens: there is no argument against our coming into the world again after we die that does not apply equally to our coming into it this time. Since we are here right now and were not here before our present lives began, all such arguments must be wrong. Q.E.D.

If that's not a proof of reincarnation, where is the fallacy?"

You said:

"We were not living before we were born. That is 'life after death', not 'life after death after life'. Which doesn't prove anything about...well, anything."

My response:

Let me see if I follow this logic: the first time I point a loaded 30-06 at a whitetail buck's heart and pull the trigger, I produce "death after life." But the second time it would be "death after life after death," and so you would then say that the fact that the recipe ("point loaded 30-06 at deer's heart and pull trigger") produced a dead deer the first time "doesn't prove anything about ... well, anything"--meaning, of course, that there would be no reason to expect a dead deer the second time!

You are denying the principle of scientific induction.

Your position, in essence, is that what happened in the past implies nothing about the future. In effect, you allege that the fact that the universe had the power to bring you into the world in the past tells us nothing whatsoever about the future, that there is no basis for believing that the recipe which brought you into the world in the past will work in the future.

Well, that's ridiculous. You might as well argue that the recipe which produced a delicious porterhouse steak yesterday is no more likely to produce one today than it is to produce a steaming pile of cow manure.

Your argument is a joke, and a bad joke at that.

[Night]

Let me see if I follow this logic: the first time I point a loaded 30-06 at a whitetail buck's heart and pull the trigger, I produce "death after life." But the second time it would be "death after life after death," and so you would then say that the fact that the recipe ("point loaded 30-06 at deer's heart and pull trigger") produced a dead deer the first time "doesn't prove anything about ... well, anything"--meaning, of course, that there would be no reason to expect a dead deer the second time!

Well you completely missed the point there. Just because someone is born (life after no existence), doesn't mean that reincarnation is true. Jesus, your explanation is getting really convoluted, your "logic" doesn't flow from one statement to the next.

You are denying the principle of scientific induction.

Your position, in essence, is that what happened in the past implies nothing about the future.

Nice try at the strawman argument, but that is NOT what I said at all. The past DOES have an effect on the future...

In effect, you allege that the fact that the universe had the power to bring you into the world in the past tells us nothing whatsoever about the future, that there is no basis for believing that the recipe which brought you into the world in the past will work in the future.

Exactly, you have NOT proven that the elements required to bring my exact consciousness into existence again (being every single atom in my body) actually will ever occur. Just because it is physically possible for my exact consciousness to be replicated DOESN'T MEAN IT EVER WILL be replicated.

Well, that's ridiculous. You might as well argue that the recipe which produced a delicious porterhouse steak yesterday is no more likely to produce one today than it is to produce a steaming pile of cow manure.

Again, your logic is truly, thoroughly flawed. Consciousness is a LOT more complex than a porterhouse. To produce consciousness, billions of neurons need to work together.

You have YET to explain how you can prove reincarnation has occurred. How would someone know that they were a soldier in WWII in a past life? What scientific process would we use to scientifically prove it???

Your argument is a joke, and a bad joke at that.

Thanks, you gave me a pretty good laugh there

[Night]

Hickory, can you explain (in as FEW words as possible) how reincarnation occurs? Don't try and PROVE anything, and we don't need you to write a book. Just write a single flow of your logic, and explain how when I die, I will reborn.

[minorwork]

Darwin figured there was something that passed on inherited features but he didn't know what it was.

Lightning Bolts within Cells - Technology Review

[Hickory]

Dec. 30, 2011

To Peter:

I said:

"Add in the fact that we didn't exist before, and it immediately follows that the material universe has the power to bring us from a state of nonexistence ("death") into a state of existence ("life"). That makes the lives we are living right now examples of "life after death," and immediately blows all arguments against reincarnation to smithereens: there is no argument against our coming into the world again after we die that does not apply equally to our coming into it this time. Since we are here right now and were not here before our present lives began, all such arguments must be wrong. Q.E.D.

If that's not a proof of reincarnation, where is the fallacy?"

You said:

"Sorry, you can't be dead until you've been alive. The state of nonexistence is not the same as dead."

I am perfectly aware that the usual definition of "dead" only applies to the state one enters after one's life on Earth has ended, and does not apply to the state one was in before one's life on Earth began. One of the major goals I have been attempting to accomplish in this thread, in fact, has been to open people's eyes to the fact that there is no substantive difference between the two states. That insight is the key to the entire reincarnation debate. Once a person manages to wrap his mind around that idea, everything else follows.

Virtually everyone who thinks about death and the possibility of life after death focuses on evidence relating to what happens after their lives end. Those who take that evidence seriously conclude that "When you die, you rot." I, in fact, succumbed to the same fallacy for decades, and that was my standard answer to people who seriously tried to argue for life after death. But then one day, roughly fifteen years ago, I found myself thinking about how I came into the world rather than about what would happen after I left it. Result: it occurred to me there had to be a recipe for me--which means: an arrangement of material ingredients that would produce an infant such that, when he opened his eyes, I would see. Before I began my life, such a recipe existed, but I did not, because the recipe had not yet been fulfilled. At that point I only existed in the sense that I was a possible manifestation of the laws of physics--which means: I existed only as a potentiality, as something that could be but for the present was not.

At that point I had my eureka moment: I suddenly recognized that there was no substantive difference between the state I was in before my present life began and the state I will be in after I leave it. I was just as "dead" before this life began as I will be after it ends.

That was the insight which led me to the conclusions which I have been attempting to explain in this thread.

You said:

"Please stop the word games."

My response:

Pointing out that the usual usage of the word "dead" is based on a distinction without a difference is not a word game. The fact of the matter is that before we began our present lives, a recipe existed for each of us, and after our present lives end, that will also be true. "Dead," by a definition that does not impose a distinction without a difference, means simply that at the present time the recipe for you has not been fulfilled. The implication: you were just as "dead" before this life began as you will be after it ends.

In short:

(1) The lives we are all living right now are just as much instances of "life after death" as will be any future lives we might live after our present lives end.

(2) Any argument purporting to refute the possibility of "life after death" is contradicted by the fact that we are alive right now.

Bottom line: if one of us is attempting to play "word games," that person is you.