How accurate is my inferential proof of Reincarnation?

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

06 Feb 2016, 10:12 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

My friend, who just finished his Ph.D in a particle physics and is an ardent Presbyterian, believes that microtuboles in the brain's neurons which operates in a quantum manner, are proof that a remote soul exists and is seperate from the human body. In essence, quantum non-locality sustains our ultimate consciousness.

AFAIK that's Stuart Hameroff's research. It tells us there's something at that level animating us. What it doesn't tell us is anything about the nature of it is what's behind us aside from implying that the us in the body is a hologram of itself. It also tells us nothing about what kinds of processes or narratives ensue after death, the cultural qualities of the beings that we are actually are behind the projector rather than the social beings that we are in body, or - if life is eternal - why we play this kind of game with ourselves in feigning ignorance and separation and what our objectives are in doing so.

I have never said I share that point of view.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

06 Feb 2016, 11:17 pm

Deltaville wrote:

I have never said I share that point of view.

That still doesn't change or address anything I've said so far.

Fnord wrote:

Any inferential conclusion based on unsupportable assumptions is invalid.

Fnord concisely described the what. In my first post and in the one you just quoted I described the why.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

08 Feb 2016, 1:42 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

I have never said I share that point of view.

That still doesn't change or address anything I've said so far.

Fnord wrote:

Any inferential conclusion based on unsupportable assumptions is invalid.

Fnord concisely described the what. In my first post and in the one you just quoted I described the why.

I honestly think that even a prima facie look at this notion is correct in at least a minimal manner. It is a fact that nothing in inherently biased towards something, because if we were to discount the existence of God completely, it would utterly eliminate any solution to the ultimate origin of matter. Or really anything.

And if the research that this article presents turns out to be ultimately conclusive and supported by empirical evidence, then by its very definition, the presumed reality of eternal nothingness or oblivion has been nullified, as nothing has been proven to be a merely transient state.

Even I, a physicist, find this kind of inferences promising.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

08 Feb 2016, 2:25 pm

Still too many assumptions.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Feb 2016, 6:30 pm

Deltaville wrote:

I'm not sure we've even established the minimum amount of communication needed to be conversing in the same ballpark and by now I'm starting to have my doubts that it'll happen at all.

To phrase it in one sentence, in case I was too floral earlier: Your theory does not equal reincarnation.

Your theory is one step - 'reincarnation' is at least a dozen steps after that step. It looks like you're claiming that your theory jumps all of these steps. That's the part I have a problem with.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

yelekam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 591

09 Feb 2016, 10:12 pm

Fnord wrote:

Any inferential conclusion based on unsupportable assumptions is invalid.

In logic, the validity of an argument is not based on the truth value or probability of the premises. The validity of an argument is based on whether the premises, supposing they were valid, infer the conclusion. The truth value or probability of argument is involved when looking for soundness or cogency.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Feb 2016, 1:01 am

how can one explain the case of Pam Reynolds without acknowledgment of eternal life?

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

10 Feb 2016, 7:20 am

auntblabby wrote:

how can one explain the case of Pam Reynolds without acknowledgment of eternal life?

Fabrication. Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This delay provided ample opportunity for her to elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. Again, there is no way to verify that the "memories" occurred during the time of no brain activity, since memories are not time-stamped.

How about Alex Malarkey, "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven"? Almost five years after the book was published and more than a million copies were sold, Alex forcefully disavowed the book in an open letter to Christian bookstores and described his near-death experience as a fabrication. As a result, Tyndale House removed the book from print, and Christian bookstores removed it from their shelves.

Fabrication. Only this, and nothing more.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

10 Feb 2016, 8:30 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

I almost forgot that I negated reincarnation. :oops:

The kind of audacity to claim that this is proof of reincarnation would indeed be far fetched, but I think it may be sufficient to give grounds that consciousness does not permanently cease upon passing. It may transfer to other forms, not necessarily to facilitate reincarnation.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Last edited by Deltaville on 10 Feb 2016, 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

10 Feb 2016, 8:39 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

If reincarnation is in fact that kind of claim that I am making then it possible to decompose this hypothesis into two steps rather than twelve. The first step is the potential theory that conciousness can not cease, at least in a permanent manner, which is evident by the theory of matters formation and the inherent instability of nothingness.

I honestly have to say that I probably concede with you that claiming reincarnation has been proven by his mode of thinking is indeed, building a house out of a deck of cards. I think that I may have pointed out that conciousness may not necessarily undergo a permanent dissolution with my death, but the second step, reincarnation is *much* more uncertain indeed. I guess I agree with you on the second step.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

TentofMot
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Jan 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 131

10 Feb 2016, 9:13 am

I think I may have been a bowl of yogurt in a previous life. I should have taken a selfie to prove it.

:wink:

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

10 Feb 2016, 10:59 am

The presumption being that my 'me-ness', my awareness of myself and the world and my past and present and possible future - that this is a thing which could somehow end up in another human body? That my 'me-ness', my 'I', would live again?

Wouldn't this mean my 'me-ness' is a singular, particular, indivisible, endurable thing? I'm not sure if any of those bear out.

I suppose if these things were so, it could happen by freak occurance (though if consciousness arises within humans, it would be more like a split personality). Unless one is positing it as the way of existence.

I also don't understand the appeal of reincarnation where nothing is remembered. It seems a bit like if someone offered to physically and psycholigically traumatise me so that I lose my memories and become a different person and can start 'anew' - that is, not very appealing, and not much in the way of reassurance against finitude.

_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.

Nine7752
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 3 Dec 2015
Age: 63
Posts: 269
Location: North of Nowhere

10 Feb 2016, 11:30 am

Deltaville wrote:

The theory in the first step jumps from the persistence of physical matter and energy to the persistence of consciousness. It assumes that consciousness behaves like physical matter/energy. If it's just electrical patterns in your currently active brain, then when the power turns off in your brain, then I can't see why the patterns would persist. They turn off. Your brain's matter and energy (heat) go somewhere, but that's not the same.

I don't even know what consciousness is, deep question, but your assumption that consciousness is some physical thing underlies your tenuous connection to physics here.

_________________
I swallowed a bug.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Feb 2016, 7:16 am

Deltaville wrote:

I think that I may have pointed out that conciousness may not necessarily undergo a permanent dissolution with my death, but the second step, reincarnation is *much* more uncertain indeed. I guess I agree with you on the second step.

I think that's where working with forms of internal empiricism is important. We might, by some off chance, be thrown a rope that we can follow up into that territory by outward/objective science but from the jam we're presently in with tons of theories now on the universe and QM that fit the evidence equally well or equally badly - I have my doubts that we'll have that luck any time soon.

I think the best philosophic suggestion for reincarnation is that things generally don't fundamentally get created or destroyed, rather nature recycles. Similarly planned forward evolution of consciousness could be likened to greater complexity as the general heat of the universe steps down.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Feb 2016, 7:22 am

Nine7752 wrote:

I don't even know what consciousness is, deep question, but your assumption that consciousness is some physical thing underlies your tenuous connection to physics here.

My own side-track on this point is that there are a lot of bizarre things we notice about the universe not only holding information but having preferences toward certain kinds of principles in line with things as strange as the Fibonacci series, phi, e, etc. etc.. If we find ourselves at some given point needing to consider whether there's a conservation of information in the universe we'd have at least part of our answer.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

11 Feb 2016, 7:30 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Nine7752 wrote:

I don't even know what consciousness is, deep question, but your assumption that consciousness is some physical thing underlies your tenuous connection to physics here.

@techstep,

Out of curiosity what is your personal beliefs on the notion of whether God exists, or not?

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

How accurate is my inferential proof of Reincarnation? Post Reply New Topic

How accurate is my inferential proof of Reincarnation?