If souls have bodies and their bodies have parts and cannot be a part of ourselves, what are they, how and why do they exist, and what are their connections to us? Using your definition, they sound like Angels or aliens.
— Thanatos Sand

Do you understand the notion of looking at things, and trying to figure out why a certain type of thing behaves the way it does, and coming to the conclusion that there is something underlying that thing which is not immediately evident to your senses, but must be there in order to account for how that thing behaves? We can give that underlying thing a name, an identity, while knowing very little about it, just that it must be there in order to account for the way that the things are behaving. Take gravity for example.

Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists, so you have to establish or at least substantially establish that it does before accounting for how it behaves? Do you understand trying to ascertain how it must behave before doing so is particularly illogical? Do you also understand Gravity is something that can be shown to exist in the natural world while souls are not? Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?

Discarding essences, the self can be thought of as like a rope in which no strand runs the full length, and yet the rope is treated as a whole.

But even then, what exactly are the strands that go from one life to another? — Banno

What are the strands that go from one hour to another? Memories?

Memories? — Mongrel

.... light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories...
of the way
we were...
-Wittgenstein

(Y)

Is there something to memories other than language use? The dreaded continental Wittgenstein: language is mechanistic, thoroughly conventional, and it speaks us.. not the other way around.

Actually, i was joking... it is not a quote from Witt. Humming the words might reveal the author.
Unless you were joking back, and got me! :D

I recognize the song. Your post opened some mental doors for me. :)

Is there something to memories other than language use? The dreaded continental Wittgenstein: language is mechanistic, thoroughly conventional, and it speaks us.. not the other way around. — Mongrel

Memory is there essence of who we are as we persist through duration. One only has to discard the notion that somehow memory is locked in the brain (we know of body memory) and one can begin to understand how it may persist beyond the physical body.

The nature of memory is the basis of Bergson's writings. He was well educated in many fields including mathematics, biology, childhood education, and of course philosophy.

and one can begin to understand how it may persist beyond the physical body. — Rich

I think it already exists beyond the physical body. Part of my memory is in my cell phone.

(Y) yep, Barbara will do that to ya! X-)

I don't believe so unless one is considering quantum entanglement.

What I am suggesting is that the basic essence of being human is dispersed beyond the brain. Most artists and sports figures recognize this as it is the basis of learning their activities. We recognize it by virtue of what we call natural instincts and innate talents and traits. More recently, scientist have begun to discover it in experiments. Bergson wrote about it in his early 20th writings which were a harbinger for quantum theory and holographic science. He did it via observation and intuition which should be the basis of philosophy.

I think of Robert Redford when I hear that song.. for some strange reason :)

What I am suggesting is that the basic essence of being human is dispersed beyond the brain. — Rich

Yep. Chalmers had an angle on that as well.. extended mind..

"What you are is what you get." — Michael Ossipoff


Ok, but do you think reincarnation is true? Does reincarnation require an indestructible soul? — TheMadFool

"

"What you are is what you get." — Michael Ossipoff


Ok, but do you think reincarnation is true? Does reincarnation require an indestructible soul? — TheMadFool

Reincarnation needn't require an indestructible soul, or a parallel universe of souls.

Though reincarnation isn't part of, or necessary to,. Skepticism: Reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, or so it seems to me.

Is reincarnation true? I admit that none of us can give personal testimonial to it, but because Skepticism is similar enough to Vedanta to be called a version of Vedanta, that gives me some confidence that the ancient Vedanta writers might very well have been right about other things, like reincarnation. They had some consensus that reincarnation happens as an appearance. They often spoke of life as an appearance.

As as been mentioned here by others, Buddhists have a similar consensus about an appearance of reincarnation.

For the above reasons, I'd say that reincarnation is probably true.

People taking the opposite position tend to sound very sure, but maybe they're overconfident about what can be known for sure.

Michael Ossipoff

My most recent post here was very brief, because that was all there was time for, right then.
.
Of course some things that I said in it call for a bit of explanation or some justification.
.
A website by a modern Buddhist or a Vedantist outlined his beliefs, including a statement that there’s no metaphysical mechanism for reincarnation. Sure, certainly not in Physicalism.
.
I’ve said that you’re the body, and nothing more. So it sounds as I contradicted myself, when I said that it seems to me that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.
.
In my first post to this topic, I said that it’s a matter of asking oneself, “What is the origin, cause or reason for this life? Does that origin, cause or reason obtain afterwards?”
.
In the framework of Skepticism, as I proposed it, that question seems to have an affirmative answer.
.
It’s well to remember that, in this topic, we’re really talking about terra incognita.
.
Michael Ossipoff

The idea that a person "has a soul", is what I argued against, as a misrepresentation, — Metaphysician Undercover

To me it seems more sensible to think of the soul as 'having a body'; the soul is not "had", rather it is the having, so to speak.

Amongst other things.

Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists — Thanatos Sand

What would 'evidence' consist of? As mentioned previously, there is a large amount of documentation comprising interviews with children who claim to remember previous lives. Why would that not constitute evidence, at least of continuity between one life and another? And another field is NDE research which likewise has a considerable body of documentation.

But I think it's also important to understand that such questions, insofar as they're concerned with metaphysical problems, are out of scope for the natural sciences as currently conceived, so it's problematical trying to hold statements to them to the standards of natural science.

What are the strands that go from one hour to another? Memories? — Mongrel

One general answer might be derived from theories of morphic resonance, which states that 'nature has memories', If memories can be stored and transmitted by means other than being encoded in brains, then it would explain a lot of things.

What would 'evidence' consist of? As mentioned previously, there is a large amount of documentation comprising interviews with children who claim to remember previous lives. Why would that not constitute evidence, at least of continuity between one life and another? And another field is NDE research which likewise has a considerable body of documentation.

If you have to ask what "evidence" consists of, you need to go back and look up the word. And if you think people saying they have had past lives is evidence they have, you really need to do so. Some people say they've talked to God or Satan; some say they are God; you must believe them as well.

But I think it's also important to understand that such questions, insofar as they're concerned with metaphysical problems, are out of scope for the natural sciences as currently conceived, so it's problematical trying to hold statements to them to the standards of natural science.

No, it's not problematic to hold metaphysical statements of fact to standards of natural science if they are claiming to be as true as truth statements within natural science. In that case, it's imperative we hold those claims to such standards.

And if you think people saying they have had past lives is evidence they have, you really need to do so. — Thanatos Sand

Have you read anything about this research? Of are you saying that, purely because you know it's impossible that such research could reveal anything, because you class it with 'talking to God and Satan'. In other words, are you expressing an informed opinion, or simple prejudice?

Have you read anything about this research? Of are you saying that, purely because you know it's impossible that such research could reveal anything, because you class it with 'talking to God and Satan'. In other words, are you expressing an informed opinion, or simple prejudice?

I class it with "talking to God and talking to Satan" because it is like talking to God or Satan. It is something no physical evidence bears out and the realities of the world show to be extremely likely as untrue. One no more has to read the "research" on claims of past lives as one has to read the research on people claiming to talk to God or claiming to be God to know any of those claims are extremely unlikely to be true.

And using your faulty logic, your not believing people talk to God, talk to Satan, or are God are Satan is "prejudice." That's cute

. It is something no physical evidence bears out and the realities of the world show to be extremely likely as untrue. One no more has to read the "research" on claims of past lives as one has to read the research on people claiming to talk to God or claiming to be God to know any of those claims are extremely unlikely to be true. — Thanatos Sand

Right, so you don't know anything about it. So long as that's clear.

Nope, I don't have to know the research to know it's not true. That's clear.

You don't know anything about the research on people claiming to be God or Satan. So, using your flawed logic, you must believe those people's claims are true. Cute.

You don't know anything about the research on people claiming to be God or Satan — Thanatos Sand

Research on 'children who claim to remember a previous life', is a different topic to 'people who claim to talk to God or Satan'. This is because such claims can be cross-checked against other sources, so as to ascertain whether there was a such a person, who lived and died in the circumstances the child alleges. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is considerable documentation of such cases; anyone may dispute it, but dismissing it out of hand is something else.

Research on 'children who claim to remember a previous life', is a different topic to 'people who claim to talk to God or Satan'. This is because such claims can be cross-checked against other sources, so as to ascertain whether there was a such a person, who lived and died in the circumstances the child alleges. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is considerable documentation of such cases; anyone may dispute it, but dismissing it out of hand is something else.

They may be different topics but they are equally ridiculous, unprovable claims. And different claims of talking to God or Satan can be unscientifically "cross-checked" just like claims of past lives. In each cases all you have are: insupportable claims.

And there has been "considerable documentation" of claims of talking to God or Satan just as there have been claims of past lives. Never have those past lives been proven. So it is as supportable and logical to dismiss claims of past lives out of hand as it is to dismiss claims of talking to God or Satan out of hand...as you do, quite hypocritically.

By the way, there is "considerable documentation" of chupacabras and aliens impregnating women, too. You must believe in those as well.

By the way, there is "considerable documentation" of chupacabras and aliens impregnating women — Thanatos Sand

Got any references?

When you show me actual scientific documentation of past lives...:)

And thanks for showing you couldn't address what I wrote here:

They may be different topics but they are equally ridiculous, unprovable claims. And different claims of talking to God or Satan can be unscientifically "cross-checked" just like claims of past lives. In each cases all you have are: insupportable claims.

And there has been "considerable documentation" of claims of talking to God or Satan just as there have been claims of past lives. Never have those past lives been proven. So it is as supportable and logical to dismiss claims of past lives out of hand as it is to dismiss claims of talking to God or Satan out of hand...as you do, quite hypocritically.

When you show me actual scientific documentation of past lives...:) — Thanatos Sand

The article I referred to earlier was a blog post in Scientific American.

There are quite a few books by Stevenson on Amazon - but no need to bother reading them, you already know what's in them, right?

In any case, for the interested reader, the point about these particular cases, is that there is 'empirical evidence', namely, children who tell these stories. This is not possible in cases of other after-life experience, except for Near Death experience studies.

The article I referred to earlier was a blog post in Scientific American.

I'm sorry, a "blog post" in Scientific American isnt' scientific documentation of anything. Try again.

There are quite a few books by Stevenson on Amazon - but no need to bother reading them, you already know what's in them, right?

Again, a few books by a guy named Stevenson isn't scientific documentation of anything. There are books on the Chupacabra, bigfoot, and alien abductions. But no need reading them, you already know what's in them, right?...:)

In any case, for the interested reader, the point about these particular cases, is that there is 'empirical evidence', namely, children who tell these stories.

There are people who tell stories about talking to God and being abducted by aliens, too. Those don't constitute scientific or sufficient evidence either. If you think they do, you're in trouble.

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

Michael Ossipoff

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

If reincarnation doesn't require souls, the person arguing for its existence needs to assert what it does require. And reincarnation is very inconsistent with skepticism, which may not assume anything but doesn't accept unsupported claims. And claims of reincarnation are all unsupported.