Correct. What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is impossible, irrational and evil, and that any consideration of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means. — Apollodorus

That's a trite reply. What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is essential, rational and good, and that any criticism of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means.

Such rhetoric doesn't help. You might address the conceptual issues I have raised.

Cheers. I would have liked to see some comment on the conceptual difficulties I raised, but that's OK.

What seems to be happening here is that some people have decided in advance that reincarnation is essential, rational and good, and that any criticism of the possibility should be suppressed by all available means. — Banno

However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms? — Apollodorus

Certainly any criticism of the possibility of reincarnation should be suppressed in a thread which is only about philosophical justification of it.

It's not unexpected. One would suppose that the first step in a philosophical justification of reincarnation would be to frame the concept of reincarnation as clearly as possible - but that hasn't happened.

(A note, to be clear, that the bit you quote from me was written ironically. )

Can't right now, but will later. Take care.

Following Searle and others, mind is to brain as digestion is to gut. That looks pretty clear to me, if still debatable. Suppose that someone were to suggest that digestion could become disembodied. That the digestion from one body could move to another. Would you think this idea had conceptual issues? — Banno

I don't think Searle's analogy holds any water, to say the least. First, it's clear that digestion is a biological process, there's no debate amongst philosophers and scientists about that. However, it's not clear that consciousness or mind is strictly a biological process. Of course if you assume your conclusion, then yes, it's a biological process, how could it be otherwise (being facetious)? It only has conceptual issues if you assume your conclusion, viz., that consciousness is a product of biology. However, this is the debate, and I for one would argue against Searle's analogy as being specious at best.

There are two main factors, and obviously others too, that make us who we are, continuity of memory, and continuity of experience. There has to be continuity of the self in order for anyone to say that that is Banno. I can't make any sense out of reincarnation if this continuity isn't preserved. Otherwise, you could claim to be anyone from the past, and there would be no way to distinguish you from anyone else. This would be a genuine conceptual problem.

Why don't you take the challenge of coming up with an answer? Get creative.

I don't think Searle's analogy holds any water, to say the least. — Sam26

In fairness to Searle, it holds more than water. It also holds food and alcohol - digestion is complex.

This is a review of a book by a Buddhist scholastic monastic, Bhikkhu Analayo. (Contains a further link to another article on current research.) For a serious discussion of the theory and philosophical issues this is probably the most reliable current source. There are no Western scientific or philosophical equivalents as the topic is a cultural taboo in the West; Stevenson' attempts to corroborate evidence of children's memories of past experience have all been dismissed as we've seen here.

Nothing further to say on this topic.

Ahhh, true. :ok:

There are papers on the following site about reincarnation.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/category/academic-papers/

No kidding! That's where Stevenson' privately-endowed chair was held, it was founded by him. It's a department whose entire focus seems to be paranormal psychology etc.

Actually I'm not kidding. :grin:

I was being ironic.

I know, and I was trying to be funny, but failed. lol

I would have liked to see some comment on the conceptual difficulties I raised, but that's OK — Banno

I'm not sure what you believe to have "raised" as we haven't noticed anything.

I don't think Searle's analogy holds any water, to say the least. — Sam26

I prefer dancing as an analogy for minding to Searle's "digestion" ... ; still, as Banno points out, "disembodied dancing" doesn't make conceptual sense, and the activity or process is localized and does not "travel" like a 'thing' from one container (body) to another. Besides, reification of "mind", or "consciousness", is just as groundless as the deification (myth-ification) of unknowns, so whatever is thingified about, or in relation to, the body rots away to oblivion with the body. Epicurus rather than Plato – or 'eternal recurrence of the same' rather than 'karmic wheel of rebirth'.

I've thought of the psyche as a kind of music.

The nice thing about reading Plato is you get a perspective on the assumptions of your own time. Plato was one who established ideas that worked well for people down to the Enlightenment.

So I think it's better to say "this works for me and my generation." than "I'll threaten you with censure for imagining that shit.". Socrates wouldn't approve of the latter.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Oh, and 'psyche-as-music' is nice, but still problematically reified.

I'd say identified as emergent, not reified. Emergence is the prevailing view in philosophy of mind right now (if you like to be fashionable).

Fashionable? My post history attests to my decades-old affinity for emergence (systems thinking). And if by 'music is emergent' you're implying that the brain-CNS is like a vast, highly complex, orchestra such that "mind" "consciousness" "psyche" what have you is a grand epic symphonic performance, then I completely agree with the analogy. :up:

"disembodied dancing" doesn't make conceptual sense — 180 Proof

Well, again, in this case, as in many other cases, what you believe makes conceptual sense is determined by your presuppositions, or your worldview. If it's true that people are having an OBE, and they are seeing deceased relatives and friends (as has been reported in thousands and thousands of accounts), then is it your contention that if one of these deceased relatives danced it wouldn't make conceptual sense? The only way it wouldn't make conceptual sense is if it's not logically possible to be disembodied. Don't you think that's a bit too dogmatic? Are you saying disembodied dancing has the same conceptual problem as a four-sided triangle? At the very least it would be metaphysically possible to dance as a disembodied person.

an OBE — Sam26

It is always an embodied person who has an alleged out of body experience. It is always an embodied person who related their experience.

The only way it wouldn't make conceptual sense is if it's not logically possible to be disembodied. — Sam26

What does it mean to be disembodied? Who or what is it that is without a body? "You"? Is it not you who gets hungry? You who feels pain? You who feels loves and desires? What would such things be for a disembodied you? Is it not you but a body that somehow happens to be yours that experiences these things?

Are you saying disembodied dancing has the same conceptual problem as a four-sided triangle? At the very least it would be metaphysically possible to dance as a disembodied person. — Sam26

It's a common misconception, understandably held by atheists, materialists and communists, that a soul without a physical body has no body. The fact is that many traditions state that a disembodied soul does have a "subtle" or "astral" body that is visible to other (disembodied) souls. So, I wouldn't take the deniers too seriously. They clearly have nothing better to do.

The fact is that many traditions state that a disembodied soul does have a "subtle" or "astral" body that is visible to other (disembodied) souls. — Apollodorus

And how does this woo-woo distinction make a factual difference? Changing words in itself almost never changes facts and usually just wallpapers over ignorance by trying to say what isn't sayable (or claiming to know what isn't knowable). "The fact that many traditions state that" e.g. spirits of various kinds rather than germs cause sickness or plague tells us only that most people are profoundly ignorant of – wrong about – most everything outside of their immediate everyday experiences (re: natural selection rewards such a parochial focus) ... such that they/we make shit up rather than admit "I don't know".
.
Factual possibility is the only modal distinction that makes a difference regarding matters of facts. Conceptual incoherence doesn't entail a nonexistent referent, only that incoherent concepts cannot be used consistently to refer. "Disembodied dancing", like "four-sided triangle", does not refer – both are empty names. Basic logic / semantics.

"Dogmatic"? I don't assume anything that cannot be changed or dismissed when having grounds to do so (like new evidence). As far as I or anyone is rigorously aware, "NDEs" & "OBEs" are, at most, uncorroborated anecdotes. Idle speculation, like idle doubt, maybe passes the time like daydreaming but that's context-free diversion which neither presupposes commitments nor entails prospects. Free-floating presuppositions or "worldviews" which admit just any "what if"-consideration as "possible" are indistinguisable from ad hoc make-believe (or indulgent neurosis), and thereby not philosophically probative. None of that p0m0 nonsense please.

It is always an embodied person who has an alleged out of body experience. It is always an embodied person who related their experience. — Fooloso4

So, your conclusion is that because it's an embodied person who does the reporting, it follows that disembodied existence is not true or couldn't happen? Don't you think that's a rather weak argument? After all, how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible.

What does it mean to be disembodied? Who or what is it that is without a body? "You"? Is it not you who gets hungry? You who feels pain? You who feels loves and desires? What would such things be for a disembodied you? Is it not you but a body that somehow happens to be yours that experiences these things? — Fooloso4

To be disembodied simply means that we can exist as persons apart from a biological body. Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, that doesn't negate all the testimonial evidence showing that it's possible. In fact, it's more than possible. I will state emphatically that it's not only possible that people can be disembodied, it happens all the time. There is just too much evidence that it happens to discount it.

Yes, it's me that gets hungry and feels pain, etc, and it would be me as a disembodied being who would feel some of the same things.

I can't discount reports like Pam's out of Atlanta, GA who underwent surgery for an aneurysm deep in her brain. While not only sedated, but the blood drained from her brain, and her heart stopped, she described what doctors and nurses said and did to her, including describing instruments they used. And, she described it from a position outside her body according to her. Moreover, her eyes were taped shut and there was a covering shielding her face from the rest of her body. Her description of the proceedings were verified or corroborated by doctors and nurses at the scene. Now one incident is not particularly convincing, but there are literally millions of accounts across the world of people having similar experiences. The testimonial evidence is just too vast to just discount these experiences.

Fashionable? My post history attests to my decades-old affinity for emergence (systems thinking). And if by 'music is emergent' you're implying that the brain-CNS is like a vast, highly complex, orchestra such that "mind" "consciousness" "psyche" what have you is a grand epic symphonic performance, then I completely agree with the analogy. :up: — 180 Proof

So once you accept nonreductive physicalism, then you'll see that you have no reason to require the symphony have an organic infrastructure. Chalmer's thought experiment about replacing a brain a few bits at a time with silicon shows this.

I'm not advocating reincarnation. I'm just aware that I don't have the means to rule it out.

Factual possibility is the only modal distinction that makes a difference regarding facts of the matter. — 180 Proof

Well, that depends, because if someone claims that something is not factually possible, as you seem to be claiming, then are you saying that it's logically impossible (viz., contradictory). If it's logically impossible like a four-sided triangle, then conceptually you can't even imagine it. Again, this seems to be what you're implying. But surely I can imagine things like dancing cartoons, which have no bodies other than what we imagine. Moreover, I'm able to conceptualize these kinds of things. We can even conceptualize dancing ghosts, and we know what we mean by dancing ghosts. You seem to want to say that if my dead father appeared before me, as a ghostly figure, yet recognizable, and he danced, that would have no conceptual meaning. Most people would understand what that meant whether they agreed that people really see dead people or not.

On the other hand, if we are referring to square circles, there is no conceptual framework that includes such a thing, unless you make it up. Under our current ideas of geometry there just isn't such a thing as a square circle, it's contradictory. But this isn't the same conceptual problem as disembodied dancing, because I can clearly imagine such a thing; and I can talk about it with some understanding of what it would mean.

As far as I or anyone is rigorously aware "NDEs" & "OBEs" are, at most, uncorroborated anecdotes. Idle speculation, like idle doubt, maybe passes the time like daydreaming but that's context-free diversion which neither presupposes commitments nor entails prospects. — 180 Proof

This just shows that you have really studied the issue. The testimonial evidence is not all just anecdotal. It has been corroborated in many many cases. There are objective means to verify what people claim to have seen while out of their bodies. Like interviewing doctors, nurses, hospice workers, etc, who can verify some of what these NDEers claim. The testimonial evidence for NDEs is extremely strong, and only those committed to a particular worldview seem to reject the evidence.

I love how people try to belittle the beliefs of other with whom they disagree. Using words like "idle speculation," or "daydreaming." Now to be honest, I've done my fair share of saying things to others that may belittle or otherwise dismiss them too, so I'm not complaining. I'm only pointing out that this is mostly done to make it look like your beliefs are somehow superior, and maybe in some cases they are. However, the only thing that counts are good arguments, not using words that dismiss others.

Stevenson' attempts to corroborate evidence of children's memories of past experience have all been dismissed as we've seen here. — Wayfarer

True, I dismiss them too, but for other reasons than most. I dismiss them because they are not relevant in terms of insight into how to make an end to suffering. The past lives acounts of those children don't contain any insight into the workings of dependent co-arising, nor the causal linkage between one birth and the next.

Factual possibility is the only modal distinction that makes a difference regarding facts of the matter. — 180 Proof

In phil of mind, the argument is sometimes about who has the burden if proof. Lacking facts, they resort to trying to discover the elephant like blind men.

It's intricate, but at stake is the right to call your opponent a bonehead, so it gets intense.