A Case for Reincarnation

[Jo498]

So you can prove you're not just a brain in vat in a mad scientist's laboratory?

That's not real idealism if the brain in the vat and the main scientist are real, that is not "mind-like".
(And there are certain arguments against the consistency of the brain-in-the-vat-scenario, although they probably will not move every skeptic).

In hard-core idealism, *everything* is at the bottom a mind or a (possible) content of a mind. "matter" is just possible sense data or something other minds can experience. To make all those experiences without anything material "behind" them coherent and intersubjective (if there are more than one mind) one needs some pre-established harmony between those data or a master mind, God, making sure that all those experiences fit together. Something like the latter was Bishop Berkeleys position.

I think if reincarnation is plausible or not is quite independent from idealism. More traditionally understood, it seems to me that reincarnation is closer to mind-body-dualism. There have to be consciousnesses or minds or souls that are independently identifiable and individuable from their bodies. (As souls are often thought non-spatiotemporal this identification may not be a trivial problem.)
And they can change their bodies (usually after death) and retain some memories of their former embodiment(s).

[drogulus]

So you can prove you're not just a brain in vat in a mad scientist's laboratory?

     Why would I need to? The vat brain has the burden of proof that it's me, an uphill battle against the consensus view of the Constituent Assembly of consciousness that I'm, you know, this.

More traditionally understood, it seems to me that reincarnation is closer to mind-body-dualism.

     That's right. My remarks addressed plausible causes of feelings and thoughts giving rise to a reincarnation explanation. If the doggie down the street says kill kill kill to you, no credible theory is incomplete because it features no kill kill kill doggie.

[Trazom H Cab]

There's a difference between a dream based on discoverable, stable rules (the reality dream) and others not so constrained, so there is waking up (observing the difference). As for other means beyond always returning to the same rule based stability (you can't not go home again) there doesn't need to be for us to conclude that is reality.

Sounds like a good summation for reincarnation.

[drogulus]

Sounds like a good summation for reincarnation.

I thought we were talking about what might give rise to fairly common bugs in the reality simulation like deja vu, reincarnation, so on. Of course, reincarnation is idiotic dualistic claptrap. I thought my position was clear that a kill kill kill doggie was not the problem David Berkowitz had.

[Trazom H Cab]

That's not real idealism if the brain in the vat and the main scientist are real, that is not "mind-like".
(And there are certain arguments against the consistency of the brain-in-the-vat-scenario, although they probably will not move every skeptic).

The brain-in-the-vat is just a game.  You're not supposed to take it too seriously.  It stretches reality to absurd limits simply to demonstrate that even in such a state we still can't prove or disprove what reality is.

In hard-core idealism, *everything* is at the bottom a mind or a (possible) content of a mind. "matter" is just possible sense data or something other minds can experience. To make all those experiences without anything material "behind" them coherent and intersubjective (if there are more than one mind) one needs some pre-established harmony between those data or a master mind, God, making sure that all those experiences fit together. Something like the latter was Bishop Berkeleys position.

Matter is externalized consciousness.  We're not mind and body.  Both are the same thing.  One is a reflection of the other--one internal and one external.  One isn't an illusion but rather the illusion is the idea that both are separate or dual.  What we view as normal reality is really a complex conglomeration of these erroneous ideas or assumptions because they appear that way to our imperfect senses and to our imperfect reasoning.  The universe itself IS consciousness but it is undifferentiated--a fusion of perceiver and perceived--and so is sort of dormant, no action can take place.  So it "dreams" as its only avenue of being active.  We are bit players in this great dream-drama.  We come out onstage and act out our current character and then we bow out, leave and change into a new costume and appear as a new character.  Nothing is created anew.  The universe has no need for that as it is self-contained.  It simple recycles as an attempt to know itself.  Just as a human being passes through earlier stages of evolution from zygote to baby, our life from naive baby to wise old sage is the blueprint or encapsulation of the total evolution of our existence(s).

I think if reincarnation is plausible or not is quite independent from idealism. More traditionally understood, it seems to me that reincarnation is closer to mind-body-dualism. There have to be consciousnesses or minds or souls that are independently identifiable and individuable from their bodies. (As souls are often thought non-spatiotemporal this identification may not be a trivial problem.)
And they can change their bodies (usually after death) and retain some memories of their former embodiment(s).

We are each a consciousness that, upon externalization, "projects" itself as a new body into "reality."  Sometimes that consciousness carries some baggage from another period for reasons unknown to me.  That certainly seems to be the case for me.  But then again, maybe it just appears that way to my imperfect senses and reasoning.