Immortality of Consciousness – Reincarnation

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well, I can understand where you are getting the "impersonal" thing but it's actually the opposite. Everything is one.

We all come from the same place, and go back to that place. In fact, we are a piece OF that place right now. We're just shards of infinity sticking out into the 3-D world, observing our self from different perspectives (what we think of as individuality).

Yes, this is how I understand things also. Read my little squib there at the bottom of my post. My quest is understanding free will within the context we both understand to be, this Oneness. Is free will only an illusion of this illusion we call the physical world or is it indeed an elemental aspect of reality. And if so, to what degree does it extend up and down the spectrum of Oneness's potential.?

To put it another way, is Oneness singular or multifacited. I think multifacited and that it may be that free will is what allows the multifacitedness.

a reply to: mryang

Humans ought to understand that Science has limited abilities to prove many - even ordninary - topics.

Prove the existence of love - If you ever loved anything - prove it.
Prove the existence of happiness - Or better yet - measure it scientifically equal
Prove the existence of dreaming - Yet we know this does not need any proof but in the world of science dreams are just a big fat lie.

And I could go on. Forever. Prove it.

First of all I think you should first calm down, too much stress is not healthy Secondly, I don`t feel the urge to prove anything to anyone and if I do it is to myself. As for your inquiries, read below...

1. Love

Researchers have found that an in-love brain looks very different from one experiencing mere lust, and it's also unlike a brain of someone in a long-term, committed relationship. Studies led by Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University and one of the leading experts on the biological basis of love, have revealed that the brain's "in love" phase is a unique and well-defined period of time, and there are 13 telltale signs that you're in it.

source

2. Dreams

Yet, new research published in the Journal of Neuroscience provides compelling insights into the mechanisms that underlie dreaming and the strong relationship our dreams have with our memories. Cristina Marzano and her colleagues at the University of Rome have succeeded, for the first time, in explaining how humans remember their dreams. The scientists predicted the likelihood of successful dream recall based on a signature pattern of brain waves. In order to do this, the Italian research team invited 65 students to spend two consecutive nights in their research laboratory.

During the first night, the students were left to sleep, allowing them to get used to the sound-proofed and temperature-controlled rooms. During the second night the researchers measured the student’s brain waves while they slept. Our brain experiences four types of electrical brain waves: “delta,” “theta,” “alpha,” and “beta.” Each represents a different speed of oscillating electrical voltages and together they form the electroencephalography (EEG). The Italian research team used this technology to measure the participant’s brain waves during various sleep-stages. (There are five stages of sleep; most dreaming and our most intense dreams occur during the REM stage.) The students were woken at various times and asked to fill out a diary detailing whether or not they dreamt, how often they dreamt and whether they could remember the content of their dreams.

While previous studies have already indicated that people are more likely to remember their dreams when woken directly after REM sleep, the current study explains why. Those participants who exhibited more low frequency theta waves in the frontal lobes were also more likely to remember their dreams.

This finding is interesting because the increased frontal theta activity the researchers observed looks just like the successful encoding and retrieval of autobiographical memories seen while we are awake. That is, it is the same electrical oscillations in the frontal cortex that make the recollection of episodic memories (e.g., things that happened to you) possible. Thus, these findings suggest that the neurophysiological mechanisms that we employ while dreaming (and recalling dreams) are the same as when we construct and retrieve memories while we are awake.

source

As you can see, at least it explains what is happening with our physical bodies while in this state so I consider it to be more fruitful than a testimony from someone like yourself. I agree that science at present cannot explain everything but in the future...who knows. When our understanding evolves and our instruments get better, then we might be in for some fascinating discoveries.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Oneness would solve many of the logistical issues with understanding these propositions. Fits with the law of conservation of energy too. With that said, I'm not sure I'm quite informed enough to subscribe to that system of belief yet.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Hiya. Read your thread this morning.
Kudos to you for reviving the idea here on ATS - been a couple of years since we had a really good one; and I was delighted to see Chris Carter's book at the top of your list. Have you read his other two?

They're great. I've read so many volumes about reincarnation!!!

Nice thread - excellent sources!! S/F

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Unfortunately that is all I remember. I have no recollection of a previous life. I did question this experience in my young adult life. I came to the conclusion that I would not have been able to conceptualise something so profound at such a young age. The memory remains as vivid today as it was when I was a young child.

Michael Levin (Director of the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University) who reviewed Bill Tuckers first book said it was excellent research as current scientific research models have no way to prove or debunk his findings.

Levin said that when you fish with a net with a certain size of holes, you will never catch any fish smaller than those holes. What you find is limited by how you are searching for it. Current methods and concepts have no way of dealing with this data.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Hiya. Read your thread this morning.
Kudos to you for reviving the idea here on ATS - been a couple of years since we had a really good one; and I was delighted to see Chris Carter's book at the top of your list. Have you read his other two?

They're great. I've read so many volumes about reincarnation!!!

Nice thread - excellent sources!! S/F

Thank you for the kind words! I am glad you found the post enjoyable. I have not yet read Chris Carter's other books, but they are definitely at the top of my list. I will have to touch base with you when I have a chance to explore that material.

originally posted by: Morrad
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Levin said that when you fish with a net with a certain size of holes, you will never catch any fish smaller than those holes. What you find is limited by how you are searching for it. Current methods and concepts have no way of dealing with this data.

What a profound and intriguing quote.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Please do!!!! They are fascinating....and very pertinent.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Please do!!!! They are fascinating....and very pertinent.

So much to read so little time!

Thanks for such an extensive topic on such an interesting subject.

I think that first we should clear two things:
- what is consciousness
- what is ego

Than we can go further and talk about is reincarnation or incarnation happening? There is a slight difference.

In my current opinion I think that incarnation is happening. Ego gets lost between the pause of life and death...between incarnations of the eternal spirit - our true essence. Our spirit is trying to learn different things, this is karma principle. So karma is not a biatch but a natural force or a river of various forces like thoughts, emotions, intent,...running throughout the entire universe and all creation. Even gods cannot escape karma and must die. Everything which is born must die!

So who or what is our true Self?
what are ego and consciousness in relation to it?

tough questions and I think we should ponder about them a lot more than we do in general in our society. But without spiritual or religious attachments just an objective view of consciousness and its real nature.

In my opinion, if we assume something is behind our body and mind.

originally posted by: UniFinity


tough questions and I think we should ponder about them a lot more than we do in general in our society. But without spiritual or religious attachments just an objective view of consciousness and its real nature.

This is very true. For much of time, these questions stood at the forefront of human inquiry. Now they are afterthoughts that are ridiculed when discussed in the mainstream. Shame.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
This is very true. For much of time, these questions stood at the forefront of human inquiry. Now they are afterthoughts that are ridiculed when discussed in the mainstream. Shame.

Because now we know better, or we should.

There are no minds or consciousnesses without squishy brains, and we see the effects that damage to those squishy brains has on a consciousness.

If we add to this that we have no reason to suspect that there's nothing but the physical world, no evidence whatsoever, we can then start to grow out of such nonsense.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
This is very true. For much of time, these questions stood at the forefront of human inquiry. Now they are afterthoughts that are ridiculed when discussed in the mainstream. Shame.

Because now we know better, or we should.

There are no minds or consciousnesses without squishy brains, and we see the effects that damage to those squishy brains has on a consciousness.

If we add to this that we have no reason to suspect that there's nothing but the physical world, no evidence whatsoever, we can then start to grow out of such nonsense.

Well, I respectfully disagree. People previously believed the world is flat (unfortunately some still do) and that the earth is the center of the universe. Developments in science and understanding led us to different conclusions. Why is that not also the case here? A lack of evidence does not mean a lack of existence.

Also, I cited a ton of evidence. You're just choosing what you believe, as opposed to what is possible and supported empirically.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

Well, I respectfully disagree. People previously believed the world is flat (unfortunately some still do) and that the earth is the center of the universe. Developments in science and understanding led us to different conclusions.

No science and understanding has led us to singular understandings on both of those issues....

Why is that not also the case here? A lack of evidence does not mean a lack of existence.

No but it strongly suggests a lack of existence, leaving the likelihood of such claims alongside the claims for leprechauns and space monkeys.

Also, I cited a ton of evidence. You're just choosing what you believe, as opposed to what is possible and supported empirically.

You posted anecdotal hearsay that cannot be verified or confirmed as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Until those making these claims can produce anything other than tales and stories, there's no reason a rational person would consider them to be true.

a reply to: Prezbo369

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence you're willing to accept."

You're also loading the term "rational" to mean "what you're willing to accept."

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: Prezbo369

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence you're willing to accept."

Wrong, such evidence wouldn't be enough in a court of law, people lie and people make things up all the time in the hope of being treated as someone special. There are alien abductees that we could both talk to tonight, whole families, and we still would have very poor reasons to believe them.

Do you accept every claim made? Or just the ones made in this thread for the things you want to be true?

Are you sure you're not choosing what to believe on such flimsy evidence?

You're also loading the term "rational" to mean "what you're willing to accept."

There's nothing rational in accepting testimonial claims for extraordinary events, neither is it logical, reasoned, sensible, cogent, coherent or intelligent.

a reply to: Prezbo369

This is not the court of law. For the record, hearsay is still evidence, it is just inadmissible evidence in a court. Dr. Ian's reports are not hearsay, either, btw.

I am able to use my critical thinking skills and judgment to evaluate the evidence and reach my own conclusion (my opinion) based on what I think is credible or not. Back to your court analogy, a judge makes credibility assessments of witnesses as part of a trial.

There is no definitive proof one way or the other what happens when you die.

Just because you disagree, does not mean a rational person could not agree.

Finally, have you done the experiments on the brain, etc. that you pointed to earlier or are you just believing what you read? My point is not to discredit those studies, but to call out how silly your argument is.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: Prezbo369

This is not the court of law.

Do you have lower standards of evidence than a court of law? or just for extraordinary claims you obviously want to be true?

For the record, hearsay is still evidence, it is just inadmissible evidence in a court.

It's a very poor standard of evidence, especially for the extraordinary claims in this thread.

Dr. Ian's reports are not hearsay, either, btw.

It's information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, it's the very definition of hearsay.

I am able to use my critical thinking skills and judgment to evaluate the evidence and reach my own conclusion (my opinion) based on what I think is credible or not.

If you takes these claims to be true based on nothing but anecdotal tales and hearsay, then your critical thinking skills are very poor.

Back to your court analogy, a judge makes credibility assessments of witnesses as part of a trial.

As do we all, however if a witness was to make an extraordinary claim similar to the ones made in this thread, do you think it would convince a judge? (not including that Scalia POS)

There is no definitive proof one way or the other what happens when you die.

Just because you disagree, does not mean a rational person could not agree.

We have no reason to suspect a mind can exist without a brain.

Finally, have you done the experiments on the brain, etc. that you pointed to earlier or are you just believing what you read? My point is not to discredit those studies, but to call out how silly your argument is.

No experiments....just the recording of traffic accident victims and the effects head injuries can have.

Silly is quoting a man that says such things as:

Nearly everyone outside the range of orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Science—the last being a secular religion for many persons—believes in reincarnation.

...and then presenting him as an authority......

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: Prezbo369

This is not the court of law.

Just because you disagree, does not mean a rational person could not agree.

Totally agree with you. I wish a Moderator would put a sticky to remind people that this forum requires that we to take on board weird and outlandish concepts, even if we do not believe in it. Taking on board simply means that we keep it as a possibility given that we cannot prove otherwise. I am tired of all the "presenting of evidence" that the skeptics and scientifically-minded indulge in.

All great inventions and insights came from thinking out of the box; sometimes relying on rumours , speculation and hearsay or thinking in opposite direction to estabkished concepts.

I also note that the number of posts and new threads on the Philosophy & Metaphysics forum is falling to almost nothing. It is no wonder. Whenever someone posts a thread that asks the we stretch our mind, an army of skeptics and laboratory-obsessed individuals respond and kill the thread.

Perhaps, this belongs to the Rant forum but ,hey, surely something is required to revive the forum.

a reply to: Prezbo369

I am on a tablet so I cannot respond to your points on a quote-by-quote basis like you did. I will try and respond to them in order, however.

1. Yes. I am a person, not a judicial system designed to hand out punishments to people. Obviously the latter requires a different standard due to the consequences of judgment. My belief system does not need to subscribe to the legal system. I can give weight and value to whatever I want. Maybe I'm not quite as closed-minded as you.

2. You're missing my point, which was merely that it is evidence that can be given weight (regardless of the amount of weight you think it should be given).

3. As a legal trained person, you do not know what hearsay is. What someone else says is hearsay regardless of substantiation if you are repeating the words they say. Point being, in court, you should have the speaker as a witness so the judge and jury can evaluate credibility. What people said may be hearsay, but the doctor's reports of his observations are not.

4. Resorting to childish attacks are beneath you. You disagree with me. It is not a reflection on my critical thinking skills.

5. This is not court. I do not need to convince a judge or jury. This is a theory. Since when are scientific or other discoveries or theories subject to the legal system and convincing a judge? Ludicrous.

6. "Suspect"? Is that your new standard? If so, we have plenty of reason to suspect that. My OP can be Exhibit A.

7. There is no true understanding of consciousness and the brain. We can poke and prod and see how that impacts the brain. If the brain is the device by which our consciousness communicates, obviously injuries would impact its functionality. If I smash my radio, it may not work as well and disrupt the communications.

8. You made a blanket statement with no rebuttal as to what is incorrect about his quote. I'm surprised, considering your unrelenting desire for mainstream facts (as you choose them) to substantiate anything.