Rebirth?

Inyenzi

By "rebirth", I mean something along the lines of "getting caught up in consciousness/life/world again." Setting aside religious ideas for now.

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? We know, verifiably, from us presently being alive, that we have in at least one case become 'caught up' in a particular body/world/life (which is near incomprehensibly absurd and mystical in-itself! Existing is so utterly bizzare). When this body dies and we cease to be, is this not the very same 'non-state' or 'non-condition' that begot this birth as this body leading this life in the first place? Why would a 'return' to non-condition at our death therefore be permanent? When we know with absolute certainty, because of our presently conditioned state (we are conscious beings leading lives), that non-condition is not eternal. Why would 'I' stay dead? What's the difference between pre and post-birth non-condition in that pre-birth non-condition is impermanent (we presently exist), but post death is eternal? Or to put it another way, prior to my birth there was nothing, and yet my lifetime followed. Post death there will be nothing, and yet this nothing is now eternal?

To be clear I am not talking about my eternal ego or soul being reincarnated (as say, a duckling). The idea here is of getting 'caught up' in life in some way again. It already happened once. If the pre-birth and post-death condition are the same, then why would life not again come forth?

Frank Apisa

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible.

But if whatever comes next is as unavailable to us...as whatever may have come before...

...it really amounts to a big "so what?...right?

Terrapin Station

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? — Inyenzi

Yes. ;-)

You don't exist as a person, as something conscious, etc. prior to conception, by the way.

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? — Inyenzi

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. It falls under the same group as a million and one other such presumed possibilities. Why spend your time on this particular one, as opposed to, say, one involving spaghetti?

Shamshir

↪S

What about clinically dead patients who have full knowledge of what transpired during their intermission?

Frank Apisa

S
10k

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? — Inyenzi

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. It falls under the same group as a million and one other such presumed possibilities. Why spend your time on this particular one, as opposed to, say, one involving spaghetti? — S

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible.

Inyenzi

You don't exist as a person, as something conscious, etc. prior to conception, by the way. — Terrapin Station

And yet here we are, consciously perceiving and feeling. And when we die and it is the very same 'not-existing' as prior to our coming into being that is in place again, why would not "consciously perceiving and feeling" once again arise?

Why are pre-birth and post-death non-being differing in their 'results'? Why are we treating pre-birth non-consciousness as non-eternal, but post death non-consciousness is treated as eternal/timeless?

Andrew4Handel

I think whether there is an afterlife will depend on the nature of consciousness. I think there are good arguments that the mind and that body are not the same thing.

Mind body interactions seem problematic but they seem least problematic if everything is mental in some sense such as on the Idealism position.

I think coming into existence as a conscious entity from nothing and ending up as one specific person at one specific location is puzzling. "Why am I me?" is a common question.

Andrew4Handel

You don't exist as a person, as something conscious, etc. prior to conception, by the way. — Terrapin Station

How do you know this?

Andrew4Handel

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. — S

What do you consider credible evidence? It seems you are making a value judgement by using the word credible.

Inyenzi

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. — S

The OP is an attempt to give a shred of credibility in its favour.

You have direct knowledge of your own present existence. Our autobiographical memories are not eternal (i.e. we have earliest memories), so presumably there was a "time" in which there was no conscious experience present (which we can refer to as non-being, non-condition, non-existence). And yet from non-condition, we are now living and leading these lives. We can poetically say from non-existence, conscious experience has arisen. And so at my death (a cessation of all conditions and states), why would not once again conscious experience arise? Why would there not again be this presence of life?

It's as if the materialist forgets that even though prior to his birth he did not exist, he is living right now. We know directly that consciousness has presented itself, where (presumably) there was non-consciousness prior. And so at death, when consciousness ceases (presumably), why would the very same thing, that we presume has already happened once, not occur again?

Artemis

↪Inyenzi

I'm a Western materialist type and I can only make sense of rebirth in a few ways:

Literally as zombies: reviving the body before major cell damage has occurred in the brain. If the brain is gone, so is anything that makes "you" you.

Metaphorically as our actions: living on through the ripple effects of my deeds in the world and my impact on the people around me.

Semi-literally on the atomic level: the atoms that have made my body will continue to exist and be building blocks for all sorts of things at least until the end of the known universe.

Terrapin Station

why would not "consciously perceiving and feeling" once again arise? — Inyenzi

It's going to rise again, but it's not going to have anything to do with you as a person. You as a person cease to exist at death.

Why are pre-birth and post-death non-being differing in their 'results'? — Inyenzi

They don't in the sense that you don't exist at either point.

Why are we treating pre-birth non-consciousness as non-eternal, — Inyenzi

You don't have pre-birth non-consciousness. You don't exist at that point. You're not something that can have or fail to have any properties at that point.

Terrapin Station

How do you know this? — Andrew4Handel

Just the same way we know any and everything we know. Based on observation of the world.

Inyenzi

I think coming into existence as a conscious entity from nothing and ending up as one specific person at one specific location is puzzling. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. It is utterly bizarre to exist at all.

Andrew4Handel

Just the same way we know any and everything we know. Based on observation of the world. — Terrapin Station

You can't observe someone else's consciousness.

There are lots of things you can't observe that can exist. I think skepticism about mental states is problematic.

For example imagine someone has been victim of crime but they can't prove it. You just have to have some faith in humanity that a majority of self reports are not lies. The same goes for mental health or biographical reports and other memories. You could be skeptical about so much that people can't directly prove and you can't directly observe.

But this skepticism is usually selective. People will believe personal accounts that they judge to be plausible by a personal or metaphysical standard. So then people will accept lies based on this plausibility criteria but will reject truths on the same criteria.

Terrapin Station

You can't observe someone else's consciousness. — Andrew4Handel

You observe it from a third-person perspective, exactly as you observe every single other thing in the world that's not yourself.

Andrew4Handel

Yes. It is utterly bizarre to exist at all — Inyenzi

I think the big bang and evolution narrative have made it seem more plausible for some people.

But consciousness is still a big mystery as well as why anything exist at all.

You can trace your DNA to a material lineage of causes but cannot do the same with consciousness.. Consciousness is like an arbitrary phenomena that it is hard to find a causal explanation for. It could be something that exists in a separate dimension or something

Shamshir

You observe it from a third-person perspective, exactly as you observe every single other thing in the world that's not yourself. — Terrapin Station

Just the same way we know any and everything we know. Based on observation of the world. — Terrapin Station

Victim to one of the classic blunders.

Terrapin Station

Victim to one of the classic blunders. — Shamshir

That blunder being?

Andrew4Handel

You observe it from a third-person perspective, exactly as you observe every single other thing in the world that's not yourself. — Terrapin Station

If someone is having a dream I cannot observe that.

I can only interpret peoples behaviour to infer what conscious state they might be undergoing.

We have to rely on analogy to form beliefs about the similarity between our mental states and anyone else's.

Whereas with a body we can look closer and closer into the body to see intricate machinery, cell structures, DNA and can even scan for atomic forms. The privacy of mind is an unbridgeable gap at the moment.

Terrapin Station

If someone is having a dream I cannot observe that. — Andrew4Handel

You're confusing observing something first-person with observing it third-person. Which is why I just pointed out the distinction. We observe someone having a dream with neuroimaging equipment, via their behavior, etc.

Andrew4Handel

I find it quite easy to imagine consciousness to be separate from the body based on preexistent phenomena.

For example it could be like CD which you can slot into different computers. Your mind could inhabit different bodies.

It could be like a radio receiving a signal.

It could be like the telephone or internet where you can communicate with someone but they are not actually in the device.

I think the link between mind and body does not entail complete dependence.

Terrapin Station

I find it quite easy to imagine consciousness to be separate from the body based on preexistent phenomena.

For example it could be like CD which you can slot into different computers. Your mind could inhabit different bodies. — Andrew4Handel

CDs aren't different than the physical item that you slot into your computer. So you're confusing yourself by not having that part clear.

Andrew4Handel

You're confusing observing something first-person with observing it third-person. Which is why I just pointed out the distinction. We observe someone having a dream with neuroimaging equipment, via their behavior, etc. — Terrapin Station

Observing someone or something is always first person. I can observe an elephant and you can observe an elephant in the external world. But I can also observe an elephant in a dream and you have access to that. But they both require a first person perspective/perceiver.

You cannot see someones dream or consciousness in their brain so you cannot judge whether that conscious preexisted their birth or exists after bodily death.

Terrapin Station

Observing someone or something is always first person. — Andrew4Handel

Wow. No. Didn't they teach you this distinction in school? First person is when you are the thing in question. Third person is when it's something other than yourself.

Andrew4Handel

CDs aren't different than the physical item that you slot into your computer. So you're confusing yourself by not having that part clear. — Terrapin Station

The issue is not about whether something is physical or not but about whether (A) can be detached from (B.)

People can mistake what is transmitted into an object, for that object.

Terrapin Station

The issue is not about whether something is physical or not but about whether (A) can be detached from (B.) — Andrew4Handel

No properties can be detached from the material stuff/relations/processes in question. That was the point. Properties are simply identical to some particular material stuff/relations/processes.

Andrew4Handel

Wow. No. Didn't they teach you this distinction in school? First person is when you are the thing in question. Third person is when it's something other than yourself. — Terrapin Station

You are always present in your experiences.

The third person is a Literary device.

We simple have no access to anyone else's immediate mental states other than speculation through analogy and interpretation through language.

Andrew4Handel

No properties can be detached from the material stuff/relations/processes in question. That was the point — Terrapin Station

I am not sure what you mean. We do not see consciousness in a brain yet we know we are conscious. I am not sure what properties you have found that relate to consciousness that could not be detached?

It seems your position must rely on something like the idea that neurons are identical to mental experiences. Which I find implausible because brains and experiences do not share any properties.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So when a body is destroyed the same amount of energy remains in other forms. So it depends on what one claims is being lost on death. For a materialist that would have to be something like functionality. But I do not view consciousness as a function.

Terrapin Station

You are always present in your experiences. — Andrew4Handel

Confusing how experience works with what's experienced.

The third person is a Literary device. — Andrew4Handel

I'm guessing, by the way, that you just now looked up the first person/third person distinction on Wikipedia.

Rebirth?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions