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? — Sam26

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person.

how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible. — Sam26

What is it that you do not think is possible?

Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, — Sam26

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body.

Instead of "all the questions" just one crucial one: if you eliminate the body how does whatever is left perceive the world?

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. — Sam26

And yet when you are hungry it is the food you ingest, the food you take into your body, that satisfies your hunger. If you hit your hand with a hammer is it merely coincidence that your hand is damaged while you hurt?

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. — Wayfarer

The Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu also makes a case for rebirth here: The Truth of Rebirth: And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice.

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 gets intricate, but at stake is the right to call your opponent a bonehead, so it gets intense. — frank

What I don't get is this:

Why is it that scientifically inclined people wouldn't even dream of talking about terms like "gravity", "force", "mass" without reference to some established theory in the field of physics, nor would they talk about "molecules" or "atomic bonds" without reference to some established theory in the field of chemistry, etc., but they want to forgo this notion of the embeddednes of terms into some theoretical framework when it comes to "reincarnation" and "rebirth" (and many other religious/spiritual terms)? Why is that?

Is it that they feel that terms that denote something "close to home", terms that are ostensibly about "what a person really is" and "the meaning of life" should be treated differently than terms like "gravity" or "molecule"?

Why is that? — baker

Some people are creative by nature, like Newton, who talked about gravity when, far from being established, it was accused of woo-ness.

He abandoned the world to his basement where he did weird experiments and dissected the bible looking for signs of the end of the world.

He was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. I imagine the reason he paid no attention to his viscious detractors was a kind of innate arrogance.

This is why trying to shame creative people won't work. They really don't care what you think.

As for the shamers, who knows why they act as they do? Who cares?

This is why trying to shame creative people won't work. They really don't care what you think. — frank

Being creative, or just being Humpty-Dumpty-when-I-use-a-word-it-means-exactly-what-I-choose-it-to-mean?

or just being Humpty-Dumpty-when-I-use-a-word-it-means-exactly-what-I-choose-it-to-mean? — baker

That's exactly what Newton did with the word "gravity".

Mkay, but then who's to blame if such a creative person doesn't have intelligible communications with others?

Mkay, but then who's to blame if such a creative person doesn't have intelligible communications with others? — baker

I don't know.

If people are going to make up their own meanings of terms, how can they then hope to communicate?

If people are going to make up their own meanings of terms, how can they then hope to communicate? — baker

Most living languages are constantly evolving. It's creativity.

I don't see how you get more compelling testimonial evidence, it's overwhelming. Do I need to know the mechanism for OBEs in order to know if NDEs are veridical? Do I need to know the mechanism of any experience to know if the experience is real or genuine? Of course not. We have firsthand experiences all the time without knowing the mechanisms involved.
— Sam26

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

I sympathize with the skeptics, though. The available accounts of the recollections of past lives are, at best, confusing, opening up more questions, and at worst, trifles. So someone recalls, say, that in a past life, they drowned in a river where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. This is an actual event that can potentially be corroborated with empirical evidence. But so what? Does that prove there is a soul, an unchanging substance that gets reincarnated? Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant?

Most living languages are constantly evolving. It's creativity. — frank

What does this have to do with good communication and communicating intelligibly?

Does it prove that religion X is the right one? Yes, people sometimes drown, and sometimes, they drown in rivers where there are trees in groups of three on the banks. How is any of this metaphysically relevant or has metaphysically relevant implications? How is it ethically relevant? — baker

Well, Platonism is a philosophy more than a religion. It is true that in those days philosophy and religion were closely interlinked but that isn't my fault.

Plus Plato clearly uses reincarnation (the Story of Er) as a parable illustrating his belief that souls are rewarded in the afterlife according to their deeds on earth. So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. But I can understand if Marxists don't understand.

So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus

Of course, I'm not disputing that. (This is why, in terms of theory of morality, I linked to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth: And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice).

But it is quite a stretch to conclude that because some kid in Australia remembered something from a past life, this means that I have/am a soul that gets reincarnated or that religion X is the right one.

But I can understand if Marxists don't understand. — Apollodorus

*sigh*

But it is quite a stretch to conclude that because some kid in Australia remembered something from a past life, this means that I have/am a soul that gets reincarnated or that religion X is the right one. — baker

Nobody is disputing that. As I said before, I was talking about reliable accounts, e.g. family, friends, trustworthy persons who're simply relating very vivid experiences without even mentioning religious beliefs or trying to sell you anything. In other words, people who are extremely unlikely to be telling you lies. It isn't "proof" but it makes it credible.

Plus Plato clearly uses reincarnation (the Story of Er) as a parable illustrating his belief that souls are rewarded in the afterlife according to their deeds on earth. So, it is very relevant in terms of ethics, actually. — Apollodorus

From the Visuddhimagga, linked to earlier:

15. There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other
sectarians, ordinary disciples, great disciples, chief disciples, Paccekabuddhas,
and Buddhas.
/.../
17. Again, other sectarians only recollect the succession of aggregates; they
are unable to recollect according [only] to death and rebirth-linking, letting go
of the succession of aggregates. They are like the blind in that they are unable to
descend upon any place they choose; they go as the blind do without letting go
of their sticks. So they recollect without letting go of the succession of aggregates.
Ordinary disciples both recollect by means of the succession of aggregates and
trace by means of death and rebirth-linking. Likewise, the eighty great disciples.
But the chief disciples have nothing to do with the succession of aggregates.
When they see the death of one person, they see the rebirth-linking, and again
when they see the death of another, they see the rebirth-linking. So they go by
tracing through death and rebirth-thinking. Likewise, Paccekabuddhas.
18. Buddhas, however, have nothing to do either with succession of aggregates
or with tracing through death and rebirth-linking; for whatever instance they
choose in many millions of eons, or more or less, is evident to them.
/.../
19. Among these beings with recollection of past lives, the sectarians’ vision
of past lives seems like the light of a glow-worm, that of ordinary disciples like
the light of a candle, that of the great disciples like the light of a torch, that of the
chief disciples like the light of the morning star, that of Paccekabuddhas like the
light of the moon, and that of Buddhas like the glorious autumn sun’s disk with
its thousand rays.
20. Other sectarians see past lives as blind men go [tapping] with the point of
a stick. Ordinary disciples do so as men who go on a log bridge. The great
disciples do so as men who go on a foot bridge. The chief disciples do so as men
who go on a cart bridge. Paccekabuddhas do so as men who go on a main footpath.
And Buddhas do so as men who go on a high road for carts.

So according to this doctrine, there are differences between the ways different categories of people recollect past lives and what sense they can make of them.

These differences also potentially explain how come people at large are not convinced by accounts of recollections of past lives when these accounts come from what the text above calls "other
sectarians". Because those recollections are low in quality, low in relevance, in comparison to what other quality is potentially available.

I wonder how Stevenson and other researches who study the recollection of past lives account for that.



And this:

21. In this connection it is the disciples’ recollection of past lives that is intended.

My intuition was on the right track when I questioned about the spontaneous recollection of past lives.

In other words, people who are extremely unlikely to be telling you lies. It isn't "proof" but it makes it credible. — Apollodorus

Sure, but what on earth can I do with that??

Probably nothing, considering that you've made up your mind that souls don't exist. I was talking about myself though. — baker

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

AH. The head-in-the-sand response.

What is it that is reincarnated?

If it is the soul, then what is the soul? The answers so far amount to the circularity of "that which is reincarnated"...

If it is the self, then it is a different self to the one we talk about regularly, and requires some exposition.

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body. — Fooloso4

This.

What does this have to do with good communication and communicating intelligibly? — baker

Who cares?

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. — Sam26

Cheers. It pleases me that you agree.

Yes, I agree with what you say about the notion that mind is biological. It's not so much an assumption as a conclusion form the evidence. I know that my mind is integral to body; this is the foremost point against dualism: my mind controls my hand; but further what I do to my body influences my mind - from perception to drug use to brain damage, we know that the physical world changes mind.

But I agree that we do not know how this causal link occurs, and that there is room for speculation.

atheists, materialists and communists — Apollodorus

Mind your language - who you callin' a materialist?

who you callin' a materialist? — Banno

The materialists of course. Are you feeling guilty or are you just upset?

Plus, you still haven't told us who you believe it is that is reincarnated.

You've got me confused with someone else, frank. I'm a non-reductive physicalist and have defended the position elsewhere on this site. As for Chalmers :lol: ... I'm also an eliminativist-functionalist (vide Metzinger). I haven't "ruled out" reincarnation because none of its advocates have yet answered in precise, factual terms the basic question: what gets reincarnated? Can't rule in or out a vague indefinite.

Whatever, man. :roll:

:grin:

I'm not saying that mind or consciousness is necessarily biological, I'm saying that continuity must be preserved, biological or otherwise. It's the "otherwise" that we disagree about.

. I'm a non-reductive physicalist — 180 Proof

... I'm also an eliminativist — 180 Proof

Is this a contradiction?

Are you feeling guilty or are you just upset? — Apollodorus

I think Apollodorus is about 14 years old.

I think Apollodorus is about 14 years old — frank

You must have done a lot of thinking to come up with that. Don't overexert yourself.