If 'Reincarnation' exists, then.....?

reply to post by MamaJ


"we are all learning..."

Ain't it the truth!

No matter how much I know, no matter how much I learn, the only thing I know for absolute sure is that, compared to what there is to know and learn, I don't know much. Even if I knew more than everyone else combined (not bloody likely), I still wouldn't know much.

The universe is a vastly complex thing and each understanding we come to merely shows us our prior ignorance, and warns us that our new understanding probably has holes in it, too.

But I will say that after a life of contemplation and research, the model of reincarnation I've offered is the only one that makes sense to me and corresponds to the realities I've experienced.

Edit to add:

Reading minds isn't all that difficult if you know the mind you're reading. Some minds are pretty simple with few pages.

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
A perhaps relatively simple question that certainly can't be answered in a simple way.

If reincarnation/s exist then why doe we not remember previous lives or beings?

Something I have been pondering for a while and was wondering what others thoughts on the subject may be?


MR

When you remember the past, you can not pick and chose what you want to remember. Really if you are here then there are a great many things in all your past life's you would not want to remember, and if you did. It would be like a mountain dropped on your head, for you can not invite the good in, without the bad. The spirit of that gravity would crush you with its scope.

The truth is everybody can remember there past life's in this world or any world thereafter or hereafter, and even in other universes if you are unlucky enough, but not many can survive fully knowing and experiencing it. And so we get bits and pieces here and there, and things we by instinct are attracted to, and things that by instinct we shy away from.

Because for every love that you have had in all you your past life's, there are more then an equally number of things that you wished you could have never seen, or heard about ever again. Really if people remembered all there lifetimes fully it would crush them and depress them to the point of death... literally. Why you ask...Ignorance is bliss, and life's pains and regrets are many. Don't ask if you really don't want to know.

Really the way we are right now is the way it came about because all the things we were carried around fell away, or we forgot about them as we become aware of this world and existence, we move on from past worlds, into new worlds, sometimes even when were in the same ol world. Really it's all in the mind, it all just depends on what your mind is able to project and grasp.

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
A perhaps relatively simple question that certainly can't be answered in a simple way.

If reincarnation/s exist then why doe we not remember previous lives or beings?

Something I have been pondering for a while and was wondering what others thoughts on the subject may be?


MR

Many people do.

Some remember faultingly.

Some have flashes of deja vu.

Some have no memory.

Some of all of these categories, reason/logic/intellect thier way past the possibility that they are remembering anything.

Some will tell you, when the body dies -that's its!

Some will tell you, based on this assumption, that there is no after/beforelife.

Your memories of an event in this life, or any other, is to an extent dependant on your willingness to learn from a past event (consciously or unconsciously)...

There are many events in this 'conscious' life, that you do not remember...does this mean they did not happen?...or that they are less important than ones, you do remember? What would be the use of remembering anything, in any situation? Why not just spontaneously react to situations as if they never happened before in a similar way? (and if you don't remember this, how would know it was similar?) What would be the use of remembering that sticking your fingers in a power socket was dangerous? The faulted concept that life is a series of spontaneous occurences is based on pure ignorance, or denial (which, by definition, is self-blindness).

You do not remember, and you do remember!

When you do remember...some will explain it away as per the points above...
Some will reach a crisis point, where, the memory can be placed (as in this conscious life)...
When you do not remember, you have not reached this tipping point...not the scientific theories, not the sceptics, not the 'experts'...YOU.

Akushla

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

On point 1. The definition you offer is the same as what I presented.

Point 2: you replied:

This doesn't address the notion under consideration, since the concept of Reincarnation doesn't involve conservation of information. It involves the reassignment of dynamic information from one generating source that's failed to a new and unrelated generating source, without any regard for the survival imperative expression "inimitable Identity" which in all other instances of physical existence is a primordial requirement. Conservation by the contextual environment has not been demonstrated to be so crucial as to justify an extreme violation of any other existential staple, so why would unique and isolative Identity be treated as an exception? The logic simply doesn't work out.

How can you discuss reincarnation without involving the conservation of information? The information under discussion is the personality, the soul, if you will. Without conserving that uniquely individual information, the discussion is moot. If you think about it, all information can be described as structured patterns of energy, just as the information we are currently transferring back and forth on this forum is. The ideas we type are not physical: they exist as patterns of energy that are transmitted in a variety of ways, both wired and wireless. I've honestly tried to make sense of your "primordial requirement" and "existential staple", but so far as I can discern they are merely big words you know and don't have much meaning within the context of the discussion.Perhaps you would care to define them and clarify what you mean by them?

It seems to me that what you are trying to say is that a body is required for consciousness to exist, and that without a body there can be no consciousness. Is that the correct interpretation?

If so, then I submit that you are blinded by physicality. The body, all bodies, are merely (a big "merely",lol, but nonetheless...) a support system for the core consciousness. It protects and extends the capacity of the energy pattern that is the individual, but it is no more the individual itself than the DVD is the movie that is on it.

Point 3: How else can consciousness be properly described? In point of fact everything we know point us to this conclusion. Every individual is unique, every individual consciousness is a form of energy we can measure and record with fMRIs and other energy-sensitive devices, when that energy isn't present, we call the body dead. Each consciousness shows structure, housed in a self-sustaining body. Therefore, ipso facto, my definition stands as a concise and elegant description of reality.

Point 4: I'm describing the reality of the world we live in. You are being constantly bombarded with manifold streams, waves, particles, what have you, of energy from a variety of sources: solar radiation will give you sunburn if you expose yourself too long; radio waves can fry you if you are too close and they too strong, microwaves, radar...this list is long, and the energy environment is flooded with many forms of energy you don't see, but that effect everything.

Point 5: The physical body provides, among many other things, protection from those energy fluxes. It isn't complete protection, and has definite limits, but seems to do a fair job overall. Please present the proof you speak of. There is a correspondence between the complexity of a nervous system and the amount of information processing capacity the organism has, so likening it to the amount of RAM available isn't too much of a stretch.

Nicely said, Apacheman!

Ribbit

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Point 7: Of course natural forces degrade the integrity of stored information. If you don't believe so, then run an industrial-grade electromagnet next to your computer for an hour or two, then try to boot up. Why would we need Faraday cages to protect our electronics from EMPs if natural forces didn't degrade stored information? Natural forces can degrade information in several ways, in both physical and direct energy regimes. I believe that one of the reasons that no one has ever used nukes since WWII is that souls died there, not just bodies. The energies involved were so enormous that they tore apart the core spirits, and those people died a true death, a spirit death, and on some level everyone felt it: a true "disturbance in the force", if you will. Some few extremely strong and extremely lucky may have survived, but much reduced, and must rebuild themselves over many, many lifetimes: they will never be the same person they once were.

What if the Soul isn't physicaly within the body?

What if your Soul is attached to your body, via Sub-dimensional Telekinesis?

Kill the body and the Soul isn't harmed, no matter how you kill the body.

No Soul has ever been harmed in the making of these Matrices.

Ribbit

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
A perhaps relatively simple question that certainly can't be answered in a simple way.

If reincarnation/s exist then why doe we not remember previous lives or beings?

Something I have been pondering for a while and was wondering what others thoughts on the subject may be?


MR

Maybe they wipe your memory, but I don't like. the idea. Coming back to suffer allover again no thanks

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Point 7: Of course natural forces degrade the integrity of stored information. If you don't believe so, then run an industrial-grade electromagnet next to your computer for an hour or two, then try to boot up. Why would we need Faraday cages to protect our electronics from EMPs if natural forces didn't degrade stored information? Natural forces can degrade information in several ways, in both physical and direct energy regimes. I believe that one of the reasons that no one has ever used nukes since WWII is that souls died there, not just bodies. The energies involved were so enormous that they tore apart the core spirits, and those people died a true death, a spirit death, and on some level everyone felt it: a true "disturbance in the force", if you will. Some few extremely strong and extremely lucky may have survived, but much reduced, and must rebuild themselves over many, many lifetimes: they will never be the same person they once were.

What if the Soul isn't physicaly within the body?

What if your Soul is attached to your body, via Sub-dimensional Telekinesis?

Kill the body and the Soul isn't harmed, no matter how you kill the body.

No Soul has ever been harmed in the making of these Matrices.

Ribbit

You mean matrix

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Point 7: Of course natural forces degrade the integrity of stored information. If you don't believe so, then run an industrial-grade electromagnet next to your computer for an hour or two, then try to boot up. Why would we need Faraday cages to protect our electronics from EMPs if natural forces didn't degrade stored information? Natural forces can degrade information in several ways, in both physical and direct energy regimes. I believe that one of the reasons that no one has ever used nukes since WWII is that souls died there, not just bodies. The energies involved were so enormous that they tore apart the core spirits, and those people died a true death, a spirit death, and on some level everyone felt it: a true "disturbance in the force", if you will. Some few extremely strong and extremely lucky may have survived, but much reduced, and must rebuild themselves over many, many lifetimes: they will never be the same person they once were.

What if the Soul isn't physicaly within the body?

What if your Soul is attached to your body, via Sub-dimensional Telekinesis?

Kill the body and the Soul isn't harmed, no matter how you kill the body.

No Soul has ever been harmed in the making of these Matrices.

Ribbit

You mean matrix

Originally posted by King33

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
A perhaps relatively simple question that certainly can't be answered in a simple way.

If reincarnation/s exist then why doe we not remember previous lives or beings?

Something I have been pondering for a while and was wondering what others thoughts on the subject may be?


MR

Maybe they wipe your memory, but I don't like. the idea. Coming back to suffer allover again no thanks

Suffering is in the mind, so is it real?

While you may think physical suffering is real, it too is only in the mind because any and all pain you suffer, is felt by the nerves feeding the information to your mind and then your mind tells you you are suffering pain.

Without the mind telling you you are suffering, there is no suffering so then, is the suffering real?

To you it is, because your mind tells you so, but in actuality, the suffering is a figment of your imagination (mind), thus, kNot real.

Ribbit

Originally posted by King33

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Point 7: Of course natural forces degrade the integrity of stored information. If you don't believe so, then run an industrial-grade electromagnet next to your computer for an hour or two, then try to boot up. Why would we need Faraday cages to protect our electronics from EMPs if natural forces didn't degrade stored information? Natural forces can degrade information in several ways, in both physical and direct energy regimes. I believe that one of the reasons that no one has ever used nukes since WWII is that souls died there, not just bodies. The energies involved were so enormous that they tore apart the core spirits, and those people died a true death, a spirit death, and on some level everyone felt it: a true "disturbance in the force", if you will. Some few extremely strong and extremely lucky may have survived, but much reduced, and must rebuild themselves over many, many lifetimes: they will never be the same person they once were.

What if the Soul isn't physicaly within the body?

What if your Soul is attached to your body, via Sub-dimensional Telekinesis?

Kill the body and the Soul isn't harmed, no matter how you kill the body.

No Soul has ever been harmed in the making of these Matrices.

Ribbit

You mean matrix

Matrix = Singular
Matrices = Plurality of Matrix

Dew you really think this is the only Matrix WE have devised?

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


Unfortunately, energy is physical, in the sense that it is composed of physically observable things like electrons, and interacts with the more grossly (in this context, read larger) physical world.

I'd be happy to hold out for a "sub-dimensional" whatever, but the physics doesn't seem to be there to justify it.

String theory allows for some 13 dimensions, last I checked, so there may be an out there, but I'd need to see the math.

Sadly, I do believe there is such a thing as true soul death, but on the other hand, I believe it is a rare occurrence.

I will find it interesting to see what happens when the first person dies in space, in the shadow of the solar wind. If my theory of reincarnation is correct, it implies that the soul might not lose consciousness or memories in such a case.

It opens the way to the thought that being in a body on a planet might just be a larval or nymph state for the soul, and true adulthood is only attainable when a species learns to be deep-space travellers.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by NorEaster

 

On point 1. The definition you offer is the same as what I presented.

Point 2: you replied That is remarkable may god bless you always you have made my day

This doesn't address the notion under consideration, since the concept of Reincarnation doesn't involve conservation of information. It involves the reassignment of dynamic information from one generating source that's failed to a new and unrelated generating source, without any regard for the survival imperative expression "inimitable Identity" which in all other instances of physical existence is a primordial requirement. Conservation by the contextual environment has not been demonstrated to be so crucial as to justify an extreme violation of any other existential staple, so why would unique and isolative Identity be treated as an exception? The logic simply doesn't work out.

How can you discuss reincarnation without involving the conservation of information? The information under discussion is the personality, the soul, if you will. Without conserving that uniquely individual information, the discussion is moot. If you think about it, all information can be described as structured patterns of energy, just as the information we are currently transferring back and forth on this forum is. The ideas we type are not physical: they exist as patterns of energy that are transmitted in a variety of ways, both wired and wireless. I've honestly tried to make sense of your "primordial requirement" and "existential staple", but so far as I can discern they are merely big words you know and don't have much meaning within the context of the discussion.Perhaps you would care to define them and clarify what you mean by them?

It seems to me that what you are trying to say is that a body is required for consciousness to exist, and that without a body there can be no consciousness. Is that the correct interpretation?

If so, then I submit that you are blinded by physicality. The body, all bodies, are merely (a big "merely",lol, but nonetheless...) a support system for the core consciousness. It protects and extends the capacity of the energy pattern that is the individual, but it is no more the individual itself than the DVD is the movie that is on it.

Point 3: How else can consciousness be properly described? In point of fact everything we know point us to this conclusion. Every individual is unique, every individual consciousness is a form of energy we can measure and record with fMRIs and other energy-sensitive devices, when that energy isn't present, we call the body dead. Each consciousness shows structure, housed in a self-sustaining body. Therefore, ipso facto, my definition stands as a concise and elegant description of reality.

Point 4: I'm describing the reality of the world we live in. You are being constantly bombarded with manifold streams, waves, particles, what have you, of energy from a variety of sources: solar radiation will give you sunburn if you expose yourself too long; radio waves can fry you if you are too close and they too strong, microwaves, radar...this list is long, and the energy environment is flooded with many forms of energy you don't see, but that effect everything.

Point 5: The physical body provides, among many other things, protection from those energy fluxes. It isn't complete protection, and has definite limits, but seems to do a fair job overall. Please present the proof you speak of. There is a correspondence between the complexity of a nervous system and the amount of information processing capacity the organism has, so likening it to the amount of RAM available isn't too much of a stretch.

Nicely said, Apacheman!

Ribbit

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Unfortunately, energy is physical, in the sense that it is composed of physically observable things like electrons, and interacts with the more grossly (in this context, read larger) physical world.

I'd be happy to hold out for a "sub-dimensional" whatever, but the physics doesn't seem to be there to justify it.

String theory allows for some 13 dimensions, last I checked, so there may be an out there, but I'd need to see the math.

Sadly, I do believe there is such a thing as true soul death, but on the other hand, I believe it is a rare occurrence.

I will find it interesting to see what happens when the first person dies in space, in the shadow of the solar wind. If my theory of reincarnation is correct, it implies that the soul might not lose consciousness or memories in such a case.

It opens the way to the thought that being in a body on a planet might just be a larval or nymph state for the soul, and true adulthood is only attainable when a species learns to be deep-space travellers.

First mistake, you've bought into science's theory the universe is a closed system, since String Theories are all based on the 2nd Law of Themodynamics (closed system law & anti-why law of science) when the universe isn't a closed system and the Hubble has been blowing their theories out of the water. The Hubble is proving the universe has symmetry, Perfect Order & ZERO Chaos!

The reason why the universe isn't a closed system are black holes, they are open doorways between the TWO spacial dimensions (total of 3 dimensions, not 13) and all black holes lead to Source.

Where dew you think your Soul resides?

Ribbit

I think a better question would be:

If reincarnation is real, why is worlds population increasing? Wouldn't it be fairly steady? How are new energy beings created?

Mostly in my body.

I have long believed that the energy sucked up by black holes must go somewhere, rather than piling up in one spot ad infinitum. That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

However, I fail to see whether the universe is open or closed has any bearing upon the subject at hand. That could simply be my ignorance speaking, but I'm an Occam's Razor kind of thinker.

I prefer the simplest explanation that accounts for known facts.

reply to post by AngryAlien


See my explanation of reincarnation.

I've shown where "new" souls come from.

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I think a better question would be:

If reincarnation is real, why is worlds population increasing? Wouldn't it be fairly steady? How are new energy beings created?

Twin Souls are born with the birth of every galaxy.

"Soulmates are TWO Singularities creating a Duality of ONE Love." - Old Toad Proverb

The universe is much older than you can imagine and much bigger than you can see.

Ribbit

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by AngryAlien

 

See my explanation of reincarnation.

I've shown where "new" souls come from.

Your explanation isn't correct!

You don't realize that galaxies are born and that the universe is more than a quintillion times larger than you can see, because you cannot see past our galaxy's light bubble that was formed when our galaxy was born 13 or so billion years ago.

What does the Expanding Universe Theory say the speed of the universe is expanding at?

The Speed of Light! What if that boundary is Light? What speed would it be traveling AWAY from our galaxy?

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


Umm, I'm well aware of the size of the universe, as well as a myriad of theories concerning its origins, development, and future.

What I have outlined is what the facts so far known and observed lead us to, without invoking any mysticism. Where is the proof of your "twin souls"? That just sounds like unvarnished and unsupported mysticism to me. What can you offer to lend credence to it?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Umm, I'm well aware of the size of the universe, as well as a myriad of theories concerning its origins, development, and future.

What I have outlined is what the facts so far known and observed lead us to, without invoking any mysticism. Where is the proof of your "twin souls"? That just sounds like unvarnished and unsupported mysticism to me. What can you offer to lend credence to it?

The birth of galaxies, with how they are born, and how things are here.

We have been given everything We need to figure out the truth of this thing called Life, all peeps have to dew is open their eYe to see it.

Dew you really think God/Source created Adam and then went . . . Oops! I forgot to give Adam a mate and then created Eve?

Ribbit