No one acquires these sort of beliefs disinterestedly. — S

One might acquire them by recalling a past life.

One might acquire them by recalling a past life. — Wayfarer

And pigs might fly.

You're wasting your breath.

Most likely right, but you never know...in any case I don't mind a little mental exercise. :grin:

It's not so much that you don't believe it, but that you can't believe it.

One might acquire them by recalling a past life. — Wayfarer

I agree with that, but whatever is acquired there could never provide a really good reason for anyone else to believe anything. Also, you should always hold open the possibility that what you believe is a memory is not in fact a memory at all; so I would say that at best such an experience might provide good grounds for holding a more open attitude towards the possibility. On the other hand, what people are convinced by is their own concern, provided they don't try to inflict their beliefs on others, and insist that they agree.

Have you ever remembered a past life, though, or even had a strong feeling that you have lived before?. I have never had the slightest inkling that I have lived before, and I believe I am by no means closed to the possibility, even though I don't consider it to be very important in the scheme of things.

Janus
7.1k

You are intelligent enough to see this. Why are you refusing to see it? — Frank Apisa


I've tried to show you the differences between what is logically possible and impossible, what is possible and impossible as far as we know and what may or may not be possible, ontologically speaking.

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle or non-contradiction. These kinds of things are impossible by definition, and anything else is logically possible.

In the case of the second, is included pretty much everything else. We know that what we observe to be actual is possible, obviously. And on the other side, we may have very good reasons to believe that something is impossible, but we can never prove that so it remains open as to whether it really is impossible.

Speaking purely logically this openness means that it is possible, as you have been asserting and I have agreed with that. Something may indeed be known to be logically possible and hence it is possible that it is also ontologically possible, but we don't know that, and can't know that for sure until it is observed to be actual.

Now, if you think there is something wrong with my reasoning regarding all this, then address that and explain what you think is wrong. But don't just keep coming back with repetitions of capitalized insistence about the MEANING OF THE WORDS. I have already acknowledged that meaning of the words has determinative logical and epistemological provenance. But the meaning of the words has no determinative ontological provenance; in the ontological domain what is is what is, and what is impossible is impossible, regardless of whether or not we know, or even could know, it. — Janus

No need to dispute you in any way at this point.

You agree with me. Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

We are in agreement.

As for a discussion of what "is"...and what "is not" in the REALITY of existence...as Casey Stengel might say, "Include me out."

It's not so much that you don't believe it, but that you can't believe it. — Wayfarer

Yes, of course. It's not a voluntary matter. I can't believe what I find unconvincing, and I find weakly supported claims unconvincing. I can't just flip a switch and instantaneously believe such nonsense.

I find that I can't believe anything that I don't have really solid evidence for, which means that I can only believe the things that I have observed or that are matters of common empirical fact. On pretty much everything else, I'm a skeptic, since we are dealing with mystery. Is there anything wrong with being comfortable with mystery and ignorance in your view? Must we insist that we can become enlightened and to directly know the answers to "life, the universe and everything"?

If I said I did, what would it mean? 'Oh, you can't be sure. Memory plays tricks, you know. And what about wishful thinking!' Accordingly I am not speaking from a perspective of personal experience, but I will acknowledge that, because of personal experience, my attitude towards the question is different to many others.

As this is a philosophy forum, I think the point is not to convince others of our beliefs, but to explore their nature, to expose their underlying assumptions and to consider why we think the way we do. As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions about the subject that are quite understandable in those who do (as, for them, it's a threat to the underlying worldview.)

A couple of resources - John Michael Greer, A Few Notes on Reincarnation.

Bhikkhu Analayo - Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research.

As for a discussion of what "is"...and what "is not" in the REALITY of existence...as Casey Stengel might say, "Include me out." — Frank Apisa

Oh dear, how disappointing; I was hoping to exclude you in. :joke:

I'm familiar with Greer's writings in the ecological context; the slow-motion collapse of industrial civilization and all that! The thing is I have been fascinated with "spiritual" ideas since my early teens. Mostly all I read in the way of ideas from about 15 years old to around 40 were books dealing with Western esotericism and Eastern philosophy and religion: Zen Buddhism, Vedanta, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Kabbala, Eliphas Levi, Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, Steiner, Krishnamurti, and many, many others etc. etc. I only started reading Western Philosophy beyond Plato, Plotinus, the Stoics, Spinoza and Schopenhauer around the age of 40.

So, I am fairly well versed in all the theories of reincarnation, rebirth, karma, and so on. I also practiced consistent meditation for probably about 18-20 years. So, none of what you say is new to me at all. The one thing I have definitely come not to accept is any notion of spiritual authority, beyond the possibility of becoming adept at inducing altered states in oneself, and perhaps being able to facilitate others in achieving those states. I don't at all discount the experiences that come in altered states, but I refuse to draw any conclusions from them, because I don't think they provide sufficient evidence to warrant doing so.

If I said I did, what would it mean? 'Oh, you can't be sure. Memory plays tricks, you know. And what about wishful thinking!' Accordingly I am not speaking from a perspective of personal experience, but I will acknowledge that, because of personal experience, my attitude towards the question is different to many others.

As this is a philosophy forum, I think the point is not to convince others of our beliefs, but to explore their nature, to expose their underlying assumptions and to consider why we think the way we do. As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions about the subject that are quite understandable in those who do (as, for them, it's a threat to the underlying worldview.) — Wayfarer

If you said you did, it would mean you did have such a memory or memories, given that you answered honestly. I was merely asking out of curiosity, but of course you are under no obligation to answer the question.

You say your attitude is different to many others with the implication seeming to be that you see more than they do. You're not "wedded to a secular-scienfitifc worldview" with the implication seemingly being that the "others" are. I don't believe I am wedded to such a view. The problem is that you seem to assume that others have "underlying inhibitions" rather than simply healthy skepticism, and it comes across as patronizing when you say that these 'inhibitions" are "quite understandable" because they feel their worldview to be "'threatened".

I don't think this characterization is generally accurate (it might be in some instances) any more than the counter claim that those who believe in some form of afterlife do so because they are threatened by the notion of death. That also might be true in some instances, but it is dangerous to generalize. It is really down to the individual because only they can know (even if it might be so that they often, or even most often, don't) what their real motives are for believing whatever they believe.

Lol. It's really not a threat. But keep up the rhetoric. Maybe someone will fall for it. :up:

As this is a philosophy forum, I think the point is not to convince others of our beliefs, but to explore their nature, to expose their underlying assumptions and to consider why we think the way we do. As I'm not wedded to a secular~scientific philosophy, then I don't have the same underlying inhibitions about the subject that are quite understandable in those who do (as, for them, it's a threat to the underlying worldview.) — Wayfarer

See, and this is the most irritating thing about Buddhists. All the preaching about being humble and reassessing beliefs, yadayadayada, but then there's this underlying current of "but, of course, I have insights that are beyond you and your 'logic' and only accessible to true believers."

Relativists and Buddhists are the least inclined to actually question the foundations of their own theories.

but, of course, I have insights that are beyond you and your 'logic' and only accessible to true believers." — NKBJ

Not what I meant. I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs and prevents consideration of them.

You say your attitude is different to many others with the implication seeming to be that you see more than they do. You're not "wedded to a secular-scienfitifc worldview" with the implication seemingly being that the "others" are — Janus

What I mean is, if you're not attached to such an attitude, then such ideas as these may not appear as threatening or offensive as the plainly do to many of those here. I'm not saying that out of a sense of superiority to others but because I really do understand how outlandish the idea is, from their viewpoint. It's a sensitive and difficult topic. That's what I meant.

But are you not saying that they are the ones who are prejudiced by their (unexamined?) view that these ideas are "outlandish"? I mean is not the implication that your view is more open, more educated, and thus "superior" to the views of those who cannot extricate themselves from the prejudice that such views are outlandish, and that anyone who had examined these issues and critically studied the history and nature of the scientific worldview would necessarily agree with you?

You seem to be of the mind that no one with an enlightened view could disagree with you about the evidence in favour of belief in rebirth. Perhaps I am wrong and you are not saying that, but it certainly does not seem like it, to me at least.

What I mean is, if you're not attached to such an attitude, then such ideas as these may not appear as threatening or offensive as the plainly do to many of those here. I'm not saying that out of a sense of superiority to others but because I really do understand how outlandish the idea is, from their viewpoint. It's a sensitive and difficult topic. That's what I meant. — Wayfarer

Not everybody who disagrees with you is attached to that attitude, me for example. I do not feel threatened or find it offensive to some sensibility I have, I just find it unconvincing.
I would go so far as to say its only a minority of people who disagree with you in this that are doing so as a knee jerk reaction to the idea itself. You show prejudice here, judging those who disagree as biased or otherwise incapable of thinking rationally about the issue, where you actually do not have any evidence thats the case at all.
I think irony is making an appearance here, as it seems like the one that is letting bias and personal sensibility inform their view is in fact you.

I have a suggestion. Put aside the research, no one seems convinced by it anyway. Put aside the scientific reference and address the issue as a matter of pure philosophy. Begin this discussion anew with your own philosophical argument, and discuss that. After all, If the idea cannot stand up to philosophical scrutiny, people are certainly not going to put much stock into it standing up to scientific scrutiny either. Make your case philosophically, and once you have convinced people of that perhaps the science part can be re-introduced with a bit more strength to it.

what makes you think those models have any purchase on what lies beyond language, such that you could say that if something is not proven to us as impossible it must be, not merely in our model, but in actuality, possible? — Janus

I dont think that. The notion of possibility or impossibility only exists in the model, which itself is defined by language, not what is real nor not. Sometimes the notions are validated by empirical observation, and sometimes not, but whatever the case, the notions only exist as real in the language. What is observed may validate the model, and we find that which we observe as appearing real, but all we can know is (i) the appearance of reality, and (ii) the models we use to describe that which appears to be real. We may be able to filter some errors in perception, but nothing more can be known than that which appears to be real, and the models we use to describe the appearance. One error in perception is to believe that the appearance necessarily has qualities itself such as possibility or impossibility. But it doesn't. Such notions only have meaningfulness in the model.

You show prejudice here, judging those who disagree as biased or otherwise incapable of thinking rationally about the issue, where you actually do not have any evidence thats the case at all. — DingoJones

I’m not saying that others aren’t thinking rationally. I’m saying that adherence to a secular-scientific worldview inhibits consideration of such ideas. This is based on several of the remarks that have been made, to whit, ‘nonsense’, and ‘pigs might fly’. You think I am being uncharitable?

Put aside the scientific reference and address the issue as a matter of pure philosophy — DingoJones

I have attempted to do that in this thread. But I brought up the reference to this research in response to statements such as:

Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. — S

To show that there is more than a shred of evidence - which, however, was summarily dismissed as being incredible and obviously flawed.

But apparently I’m the one here exhibiting ‘bias and prejudice’, right?

I’m not saying that others aren’t thinking rationally. I’m saying that adherence to a secular-scientific worldview inhibits consideration of such ideas. This is based on several of the remarks that have been made, to whit, ‘nonsense’, and ‘pigs might fly’. You think I am being uncharitable? — Wayfarer

The word "inhibit" has a negative connotation. It rightly restrains thinking of a lower intellectual standard. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. The claims have been considered, assessed, and justifiably rejected. My use of the phrase "pigs might fly" has been quoted a few times on this forum as though I've said something wrong, but what's actually wrong with that reply, given what it was replying to? I think it was an appropriate response. You said that one might acquire beliefs by recalling a past life, which is roughly on par with saying things like aliens might exist, or a ghost might be haunting my house, or indeed that pigs might fly. I loosely refer to these sort of claims as nonsense. I don't think that that's such a big deal. It's crude terminology, but who cares? I'm not a language snob.

To show that there is more than a shred of evidence - which, however, was summarily dismissed as being incredible and obviously flawed. — Wayfarer

I never denied that there was a shred of evidence, so providing a shred of evidence does nothing. My claim was about credible evidence, and you haven't convinced those members who adhere to a higher epistemological standard that the evidence you've brought up is credible. It has been picked apart and discarded. Have you seriously considered the logical consequences of adopting a lower epistemological standard? In light of the logical consequences, I am unwilling to lower my epistemological standard. There is good reason not to do so. It would open the floodgates to all kinds of claims which you yourself would probably judge to be ridiculous and implausible.

But apparently I’m the one here exhibiting ‘bias and prejudice’, right? — Wayfarer

Right.

I’m not saying that others aren’t thinking rationally. I’m saying that adherence to a secular-scientific worldview inhibits consideration of such ideas. This is based on several of the remarks that have been made, to whit, ‘nonsense’, and ‘pigs might fly’. You think I am being uncharitable? — Wayfarer

You are saying that they have come to the conclusion that your “rebirth” idea is nonsense because of their own bias or lack of consideration. If they have done so, that would be irrational.
Therefore, you are calling them irrational, incapable of giving your idea a fair shake.
You are not accepting that they could have given your idea full rational consideration and found it to be unconvincing and non-sensical.
You did not make a philosophical argument in the OP, you asked a series of questions, made some suggestions but didnt really make a case. Then when you were met with skepticism you brought in the research, which is very weak and unconvincing to people.
So, instead of dismissing the responses as irrational and summary dismissal Im suggesting you accept that the science just isnt convincing and instead make an actual philosophical argument.

But apparently I’m the one here exhibiting ‘bias and prejudice’, right? — Wayfarer

Yes, I believe that is the case. It seems to me that you are projecting here. At the very least, you are no more open to your view being wrong than they are that your view is right.

I never denied that there was a shred of evidence, — S

You said it outright.

You are saying that they have come to the conclusion that your “rebirth” idea is nonsense because of their own bias or lack of consideration. If they have done so, that would be irrational. — DingoJones

Judge for yourself. In this matter there is a strong prejudice against the very notion. That is un-arguable.

I have not been attempting to convince anyone in this thread, and now I’m being criticised for failure to try and convince.

Once more, and for the last time - Stevenson presents volumes of testimonial and documentary evidence for children who claim to recall past lives. But it doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, if only a fool would believe such a thing, right? :smile:

I never denied that there was a shred of evidence,
— S

You said it outright. — Wayfarer

Yes, if you miss out one really important word. Did you do that deliberately? Because it's hard to miss.

Once more, and for the last time - Stevenson presents volumes of testimonial and documentary evidence for children who claim to recall past lives. — Wayfarer

And this has been critically assessed and justifiably rejected as insufficient. You don't like that, apparently. But you'd have to actually make the case for a lower standard.

Not what I meant. I mean that commitment to a secular~scientific view rules out such beliefs and prevents consideration of them. — Wayfarer

I don't think you understand how "secular-scientific views" work. Of course we can and do consider possibilities of rebirth and even illogic. There's a huge difference, however, between considering and accepting or believing in these things.

But again, that's the continual Buddhist mistake--the assumption that just because I don't agree with you, that I haven't considered, or do not understand your position.

Of course the notions of possibility exist only in discourse, and can be applied as they are relative to our knowledge within our models, but whether reality is such that what is ontologically possible and impossible is determined by natural laws that are completely independent of human knowledge, of their being known or not, is an entirely different question. What is possible or impossible could be determined by human consciousness if the universe were ideal, but we don't know whether that is so or not.

Janus
7.2k
↪ernestm
Of course the notions of possibility exist only in discourse, and can be applied as they are relative to our knowledge within our models, but whether reality is such that what is ontologically possible and impossible is determined by natural laws that are completely independent of human knowledge, of their being known or not, is an entirely different question. What is possible or impossible could be determined by human consciousness if the universe were ideal, but we don't know whether that is so or not. — Janus

So what are you saying?

Are you actually implying that anything we humans cannot determine...CANNOT be classified as possible?

We do not know if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Absolutely no idea whatsoever.

But it is POSSIBLE there are sentient beings on one of those planets.

It also is POSSIBLE there are no sentient beings on any of them. In fact, it is POSSIBLE there are no life forms of any sort...down to the lowest single cell life...on any of those planets.

You are confusing "possible" with "what is."

For whatever reason you do not want to concede this point.

Bad sportsmanship in a philosophical discussion.