I just can't come at this "properties" stuff, Meta.

Care to share Lacan?

They tend to be benevolent and happy when it suits them; but on other occasions they can be quite nasty — Banno

Maybe that is because they are remembering a very painful experience they once had... 300 years ago.

The doctrinal Buddhist answer (although some of what follows is contested) revolves around a concept with the distinctly Woodstock-sounding name of the 'citta-santāna', meaning something like 'continuity of consciousness' or 'mind-stream'.

However recall that in Buddhist philosophy, beings comprise a succession of moments of experience, called (confusingly) 'dharmas' (they're 'moments of experience' as distinct from an unchanging essence, self or soul.) So dharmas are held to arise and cease in quick succession, giving the illusion of continuity in a manner similar to the frames of a moving picture (i.e. like a movie, but with real blood.)

However, the difficulty posed by the question of how such 'mind-streams' can manifest across time, inspired the introduction of a (contested) concept called the ālaya-vijñāna. Actually the first term is the same as in 'Himalaya' - it means 'abode'. Vijñāna is commonly translated as 'mind', so the ālaya-vijñāna is 'abode of mind' - something like Jung's 'collective unconscious'. There's a scholar called William Waldron whose books on the topic are considered definitive, e.g. his The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-vijñana in the context of Indian Buddhist Thought.

There is an elaborate theory built around this idea by the Yogacara school of Buddhism, which is influential to this day in Tibetan and East Asian Buddhism.

I just can't come at this "properties" stuff, Meta. — Banno

That's simply because you refuse to try (denial). You should try though, if you are truly interested in issues like this, because it is very important ontologically, to distinguish between the thing being referred to, and the properties which that thing is said to have.

If you mix these two up, as you've demonstrated with your misunderstanding of reincarnation, and refer to the property as if it were the thing, then you and the reincarnationist are referring to different things. There will be no understanding until you first recognize the thing being referred to.

What sort of thing is a soul? — Banno

Ok, here is my idea of a soul that I got from new agey books. A soul is a special kind of conscious body that exists and evolves in spacetime, and in its life, movement, actions and perceptions it uses various outfits, devices and vehicles, as we would use clothes (for protection, special function or for fun), sensory aids (to enable or enhance our perception in special kinds of environment), tools, or means of transport such as cars, ships or submarines. The physical body with its sensory and nervous system is one of such outfits, devices or vehicles, that is suitable for the soul's life in a physical environment. When the physical body stops functioning, the soul returns to the world it came from and may return to the physical world in a new physical body (reincarnation). In the physical body the soul typically forgets about its existence prior to its physical birth but its memories may be renewed after it exits the physical body, during hypnosis or during a spiritual "awakening". The reasons for the amnesia in the physical body are not clear to me, but the physical body obviously has a significant impact on the soul's function. Some authors claim that the amnesia is the result of a spiritual weakness, flaw or "fall", a disability that prevents the soul from retaining conscious connection with the world it came from.

Do you think reincarnation and eternal re-occurrence are different? Perhaps reincarnation suggests a history and eternal re-occurrence does not.

Also more mundanely :

On August 3, 2007, China's State Administration for Religious Affairs issued a decree that all the reincarnations of tulkus of Tibetan Buddhism must get government approval, otherwise they are "illegal or invalid". The decree states, "It is an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas. The selection of reincarnates must preserve national unity and solidarity of all ethnic groups and the selection process cannot be influenced by any group or individual from outside the country." It also requires that temples which apply for reincarnation of a living Buddha must be "legally-registered venues for Tibetan Buddhism activities and are capable of fostering and offering proper means of support for the living Buddha."

wikipedia

A soul is a special kind of conscious body that exists and evolves in spacetime, and in its life, movement, actions and perceptions it uses various outfits, devices and vehicles, as we would use clothes (for protection, special function or for fun), sensory aids (to enable or enhance our perception in special kinds of environment), tools, or means of transport such as cars, ships or submarines. — litewave

The soul is explicitly "not a body", therefore it cannot be a "special kind" of body. Since it is not a body, it is highly unlikely that it exists in space-time, because space-time is a concept which was developed to account for the motion of bodies.

Wallace seemed to be saying something along these lines at the Seminar mentioned in the OP; individual consciousness as a growth or protrusion from a background or field. Lots of questions there, too.

I can go with the rejection of an unchanging essence you describe in talking about Dharma. SO the question for reincarnation remains. What is it that is common to two people, such that one can be said to be the reincarnation of the other?

I think you have shown that this is not an issue for Buddhism. Thanks.

The soul is explicitly "not a body", therefore it cannot be a "special kind" of body. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you disagree with the word "body" then just use the word "object" or "thing".

Since it is not a body, it is highly unlikely that it exists in space-time, because space-time is a concept which was developed to account for the motion of bodies. — Metaphysician Undercover

In new agey conceptions the soul acts, moves and evolves, so it exists in spacetime.

It's a bit poor to accuse me of not trying, after all the time we have spent chatting.

I've gone to pains to show you how the notion of properties is fraught; perhaps it is you who lacks effort.

So... there would be no thing as ghosts and apparitions? (Not that there is any incontrovertible evidence for them. If they exist, they are slippery little buggers... by nature I guess.)

If you disagree with the word "body" then just use the word "object" or "thing". — litewave

Sure, but do you distinguish between material things like bodies, and immaterial things like souls?

In new agey conceptions the soul acts, moves and evolves, so it exists in spacetime. — litewave

Action is not confined to "in spacetime". That's why the concept of "a field" will not tell the physicist where a particle is.

I've gone to pains to show you how the notion of properties is fraught; perhaps it is you who lacks effort. — Banno

Right, your "pains" amounts "ahhh, I can't relate to this!": followed by the refusal for further engagement.

Did I say that?

Sure, but do you distinguish between material things like bodies, and immaterial things like souls? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I distinguished between the soul and the physical (=material) body.

Action is not confined to "in spacetime". That's why the concept of "a field" will not tell the physicist where a particle is. — Metaphysician Undercover

The notion of action presupposes time, and also some kind of space in which the action or change is defined. I don't understand how your sentence about field and particle is related to this.

Did I say that? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, of course not! That's why I offered the question. You have the right to remain ghostly silent! X-)

Here's an example of why it is important, in this type of discussion, to distinguish between the thing referred to, and the attributes, or properties which the thing is said to have.

Suppose I say "let's talk about the blue sky". You say "yes, I see the blue". I say, "no, I'm talking about the sky, not the blue, look at the sky". Unless you get to the point of accepting that there is something there, being referred to as "the sky", which is blue, you will never proceed toward an understanding of why the blue appears there.

In new agey conceptions the soul acts, moves and evolves, so it exists in spacetime. — litewave

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

So... there would be no thing as ghosts and apparitions? — 0 thru 9

Given my model of memory bring imprinted holographically into the fabric of the quantum potential, it may be possible under certain circumstances for some people to view them in forms other than physical body forms. I believe that if such persistent memories do exist, the brain for the most part filters them out with appropriate reconstructive waves. But this is just an idea that I thought of in response to your question.

The notion of action presupposes time, and also some kind of space in which the action or change is defined. — litewave

I might go along with this. But before you were talking about one thing, "spacetime", and now you are talking about two distinct things, time and space, so you have changed the subject, divided it into two distinct subjects.

I don't understand how your sentence about field and particle is related to this. — litewave

A field is a concept based in spacetime. The fact that the position of the particle cannot be determined through the use of the field indicates that there is activity outside of the field (not covered by the field), and quite likely outside of spacetime.

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be. And evolving characteristics of different species, which Punctuated Equilibrium shows to not be primarily progressive, are not indicative of a cosmic "memory" making up the fabric of the universe.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting thought. I hadn't considered ghosts as a type of hologram, if that is what you meant. That would seem within the realm of researchable possibility, not that I understand quantum matter and such. (Y)

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. — Thanatos Sand

There is nothing as far as I can tell that is supernatural about memory, life, or quantum fields. I am using them as fundamental constructs. [

quote="Thanatos Sand;87291"]The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be.[/quote]

All that physics tells us is that we are composed of quanta. My interpretation of quanta is that it is evolving memory/intelligence (and habits) as a process. It is not a novel idea but it does place mind at the fundamental substrate.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet. — Thanatos Sand

There is nothing here that transcends any observations that are made. It is merely a model for explanatory purposes. Nothing new or supernatural is claimed. Everything is as is.

Exactly. What I am attempting to do is to present some new paradigms for exploration and research that cross several disciplines. I would like to see the creative energy of young philosophers released in new directions and observe what is discovered.

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. — Thanatos Sand
There is nothing as far as I can tell that is supernatural about memory, life, or quantum fields. I am using them as fundamental constructs. [ — Rich

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not.

The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be. — Thanatos Sand

All that physics tells us is that we are composed of quanta. My interpretation of quanta is that it is evolving memory/intelligence (and habits) as a process. It is not a novel idea but it does place mind at the fundamental substrate.

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big. And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet.
— Thanatos Sand

There is nothing here that transcends any observations that are made. It is merely a model for explanatory purposes. Nothing new or supernatural is claimed. Everything is as is.

Actually, all of your theories here transcends physical observations since none of them are prove by or even supported by the rules of physics and accurate observations made by physics. Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural.

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not. — Thanatos Sand

They are no more and no less physical than they already are. I am only referring to memory and quantum fields as being real. How you wish to characterize them is up to you. I view reality as a continuum of the insubstantial to the substantial.

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big. — Thanatos Sand

There are no rules. There are concepts an descriptions of these concepts that are constantly evolving in small and large ways.

And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality. — Thanatos Sand

No more and no less sci-fi than any interpretation of Relativity or Quantum. I am referring to real phenomenon (memory, life, intelligence, evolution) but giving it a different substrate than what one is user to. For example, the brain doesn't house memory, the brain reveals memory just as a TV doesn't house TV programs it only reveals them. My paradigm is actually very straightforward and realistic.

Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural. — Thanatos Sand

Not at all. It simply makes memory persistent and we have plenty of evidence of this in innate and inherited traits as well as habitual movements.

There is nothing new here. It is an explanatory model that can create new opportunities for research and conceptual development. As I showed in another thread, there is already scientific evidence for a holographic universe.

I might go along with this. But before you were talking about one thing, "spacetime", and now you are talking about two distinct things, time and space, so you have changed the subject, divided it into two distinct subjects. — Metaphysician Undercover

Spacetime is a thing made up of space and time. The action happens in both space and time, so it happens in spacetime.

A field is a concept based in spacetime. The fact that the position of the particle cannot be determined through the use of the field indicates that there is activity outside of the field (not covered by the field), and quite likely outside of spacetime. — Metaphysician Undercover

The field interacts with a measuring apparatus and that's how the position of the particle is determined. Activity outside of spacetime doesn't make sense to me.

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not.
— Thanatos Sand

They are no more and no less physical than they already are. I am only referring to memory and quantum fields as being real. How you wish to characterize them is up to you. I view reality as a continuum of the insubstantial to the substantial.

No, you literally said "memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe." So, you did far more than referring to memory and quantum fields as "being real." And so the one already characterizing them was you, yourself:

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big.
— Thanatos Sand

There are no rules. There are concepts an descriptions of these concepts that are constantly evolving in small and large ways.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics.