"Naturalistic Reincarnation"

[A Monkey Shaved]

Naturalistic reincarnation?

How does that work.

Here is a paper on it http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm by Thomas W Clark

[GenericBox]

That paper was filled with inaccurate and incorrect assumptions. Too many to list.

Furthermore, what was the point? And what does it have to do with naturalistic reincarnation?

It was merely paragraph on paragraph of "unconscious states are the state of being unconscious - hence you don't experience them."

Furthermore, it then tries to conclude that transformative death (ie, becoming a "new person" due to some alteration of consciousness) - is the same in principle as the birth of another consciousness in a galaxy far, far away.

It continues to call consciousness, and subjectivity things, as in actual entities - that your consciousness is an entity within you - instead of being the result of the functions of your biology.

It completely ravages the medical and dictionary definition of consciousness, and is pages of nonsensical, pointless drivel.

Its basically a massive roundabout way to say when you die you die, and you won't be aware.

So again, naturalistic reincarnation? How does that work?

Naturalistic being of nature and reincarnation being "to be made flesh again".

[atheist_angel]

What is the 'too long; didn't read' version?

Are we talking about a euphemism for recycled matter?
Or a euphemism for recycled 'consciousness'?

Please explain...

-Angel

[A Monkey Shaved]

Ever since I was a kid I was perplexed as my slender chances of being born in this world

The more I studied into it, the more improbable I felt I was to the point of being impossible. First it was the improbable odds of my father fluking on the right woman for my mother. My father kept telling how slender the odds against being born, then there was something again in the mix which not even my father took into consideration. There had to be one particular sperm competing with 300 million sperm and came more to a conclusion that I was not just born out of improbable odds but impossible odds. It was as though my very existence in this world was a paradox.

Then I gave it more serious thought as I was filling out a few lottery tickets and starting thinking, what if there is more than one way of been born like there is more than just I cover myself by filling out more than one ticket? Usually at least ten or twenty to boost my odds. I did work out that just the fact my father had ejaculated 300 millions sperm and only counting on one of them to fertilize my mother’s egg put my existence at far more slender odds than winning the lottery with just one ticket with odds of just a mere 30 million to one.

I know it would be highly uneconomical but I could win every week if I bought 40 million tickets and used every combination. I do know nature can be extremely uneconomical when it comes to building and earth like planets for example so I see no reason why it shouldn’t so economically incompetent in creating me. Then I thought that is why I exist in spite of the improbable odds, it is not because nature succeeds to fluke myself into existence but because nature keeps blindly failing and keeps on failing until I do exist.

So is was not just one shot at it and that’s it but natures stuff up after stuff up from miscarriages, abortions, and fertilization failures until you exist and that is why it is possible for you to read this. You can't remember the billions of times nature stuffed it up, only this one particular occasion it got it right. So it I may not be such a mathematical miracle after all and I no longer look on the world like there are trillions of so called “failed individuals” which were through nature just making it exponentially more likely to not exist than exist. Well what does it mean to not exist, well nothing really at least nothing I can be aware of, because 13.7 billion years of time elapsed between the origin of the observable universe and my birth I was not aware of one nanosecond of it. It was only through some little quirk of nature that any duration of time meant anything to me.

So I look on consciousness as a far more necessary component that I ever thought because sure time can exist in the universe without consciousness. Well we do know the universe is an object of great age as distant galaxies from distant galaxies tell us. But without any observer to experience its duration it might as well not exist. A universe without consciousness would of course be devoid of and intelligent being within it to observe it and study of physical properties. Sure there will be the usual ensemble of galaxies and stars with rocky planets orbiting them but without consciousness they just all fade to oblivion as if they never existed.

The there is the issue of what happens when I die? Well with consciousness being such an necessary for any perception of time you are back to square one and just simply totally forget you were ever born in the first place like that era of time between the Big Bang and your birth you were totally oblivious to. It is only natural you just become someone else and that someone else could be in the past and not the future because there is absolutely nothing I know of in nature which could possibly inform you that you have already lived a life. It is in effect a form of reincarnation called naturalistic reincarnation without any possibility of remembering past lives.

There is something in nature which I look on with intense interest and that is phase transitions. One particular well documented example of a phase transition is when water freezes. I just walk past the puddles on a cold frosty morning and I have walked passed plenty of them on cold frosty mornings as I was a kid on the way to school with my hands well wedged down into my pockets. I observe the unfrozen puddles as being mirror flat reflecting the sky perfectly and the frozen ones with complex crisscross patterns of ice lattices.

I was thinking much later in my life the personal self could just as easily emerge via the same principle. As soon as brain matter reaches the critical level of complexity consciousness became possible but only just. Just as a single unified principle at first we are all coconscious in a collective consciousness state with all neurological material at the critical phase but the slightest perceptible time gap would perpetuate a phase transition as you randomly become just one of the billions of other possible intelligent individuals which possesses a potentially intelligent brain. You will find yourself locking in to the timeline of the intelligent individual and you would have subjectively discarded the rest until your death. Then when you die you are not totally obliterated but you regress back to the minimal level of consciousness that was about to go through the phase transition.

It is a level of consciousness which of preserved with genetic information. Genetic information which encodes the structure of brains in a generic sense. That is the principle you are at one for just barely perceptible amount of time you randomly switch to a new brain. It is this principle which in my opinion has a very plausible solution to why I was born in the first place in spite to the seemingly impossibly slim odds.

What does this all mean for the past present and future may you ask? I believe the past present and future in the context of the universe we observe is a state of mind and not reality. We have an intuitive view that the present is the absolute seat of reality which is just as misleading in my view that any as the earth appearing to be flat to a caveman. I think in that absence of any episodic memories or personal experience all events that happened and will happen on this earth are all equally real and that the future already exists waiting for us to get there and we do not make the future as we go along. So I am of the view that your “next” subjective experience may not be in the future relative to this life at all but could be in the historical past. You could find yourself as the life of a child in Pompeii as your parents are fleeing in panic from an impending volcanic eruption of Vesuvius on the 23rd August 79 AD as they are carrying you in their arms.

All this could go on indefinitely until you personally experience the life of every being that has ever lived on this planet and probably others. So in effect there is only the one self as it weaves back and forth through time and you experience the life of everybody.

BTW I find phase transitions as a very effective way of explaining complexity in which many people use complexity as a teleoloogical argument for a God or intelligent design. Phase transitions explain away complexity naturalistically and pretty much debunks using complexity as evidence for the existence of a God

[atheist_angel]

OK. so what you are saying is that there is only "one" mind that jumps around through 'time and space'?

"One" mind that is experiencing everybody's life?

We are all only "one" mind?

And "empathy" is the 'echo' of what we once experienced as the other person?

Please clarify...

-Angel

[Seamus]

@Monkey

Yeah,I've had much the same thought,but reached some different conclusions:

I accept the reality of random chance,and do not require an explanation for its existence,nor indeed for my own.

THE question is always 'why me?',whether being born, winning the lottery or being killed by a plane falling on your house. The theist says 'god did it'.The simply superstitious will say 'luck' or 'fate'.

My position is "why not me?".I'm special and important to me and perhaps a few others who know me,but am irrelevant in the scheme of things. Like almost everyone else, I will be forgotten with the death of the last person who knew me. It will be as if I never existed.

The why of my existence doesn't matter to me at all,only the what. The only point is that right now,I do exist. I appreciate the fact and savour it.

[A Monkey Shaved]

OK. so what you are saying is that there is only "one" mind that jumps around through 'time and space'?

"One" mind that is experiencing everybody's life?

We are all only "one" mind?

And "empathy" is the 'echo' of what we once experienced as the other person?

Please clarify...

-Angel

You just see yourself as like in the center of an ego-centric universe but that is only an expression of a weak anthropic principle because it is clearly impossible for you to be aware of any state which did not permit you to exist like say if one of the other 300 million other sperm had fertilized your mother's egg at the time of conception. There are an incalculable number of more ways of not existing than existing but it is only though your states of existing you can discuss such questions. I posit if you had not existed because your parents never met then that is just another one of the incalculable number of more ways of not existing. I am of the view there is a natural tendency to be only aware of the states you can possibly exist because it is impossible to be truly aware of nothingness.

[Logic]

All sounds kinda 'soul' like to me... which would be in contradiction to your atheist beliefs.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Looks like a case of the observer determining the extent of the experiment, rather than merely affecting its outcome.

Occam's Razor says that inserting any form of reincarnation is overcomplication, and not needed for things to just work anyway.

The necessary vehicle for transfer of consciousness would be a soul in all aspects but name, anyway.

"Why not" is never "here's how".

I remain unconvinced such a phenomenon is likely to happen, let alone that it ever has.

I would argue individually created minds is an extreme over complication. Could you imagine the number of hypothetical minds that could have existed given every possible genetic combination of the human genome? If there was just one and switch back and forth through time as just an expression of a neuro-genetic phase transition it would make it far simpler and it would work.

[A Monkey Shaved]

All sounds kinda 'soul' like to me... which would be in contradiction to your atheist beliefs.

I am just arguing that the self is an emergent property of complexity which only emerged as bio-matter reached a critical level of complexity. Any less complex it would fail to be conscious. And to not violate Ockham’s Razor it is a flat constant like the freezing point of water.

Phase transitions a very good justifation of my atheist beliefs since that go a long way to explaining complexity, naturally such as the delicate structure of a snow flake.

[nari]

I posit if you had not existed because your parents never met.....
You still may not have existed at all. The second sperm on the right of the ovum may have cracked the jackpot instead of the first or third - and you would not have existed full stop. It's all chance and nothing else.
We're here because we're here, by chance and we often cease to be here by chance, or a fluke.

nari

[A Monkey Shaved]

You still may not have existed at all. The second sperm on the right of the ovum may have cracked the jackpot instead of the first or third - and you would not have existed full stop. It's all chance and nothing else.
We're here because we're here, by chance and we often cease to be here by chance, or a fluke.

nari

Lets you are in a long unconscious slumber and you are only awakened when a deck of poker cards in randomly shuffled in a certain order. The deck of cards in suffled an infinite number of times and at an average number of 8.06581752 × 10^67 times.
You are awakened only when you lucky suits turns up but all that time gaps of your overwhelming periods of unconsciousness you were totally unaware of. If those cards were shuffled an infinite number of times then you would necessarily exist as a conscious person. I am of the view the universe is just as random and probably it is most of a chaotic nature that we are not aware of it at all. Some cosmologists speculate that this universe is just one of 10^10^123 possible other failed universes which failed produce intelligent things in them to observe them. We can only speculate these things from a frame of reference where we necessarily exist even in states of statistical improbabilities.
Stating that just because you existed you will not exist again is a gamblers fallacy like when those cards turned up your lucky suit after it was shuffled 8.06581752 × 10^67 times. it will not turn up again.

[atheist_angel]

I am just arguing that the self is an emergent property of complexity which only emerged as bio-matter reached a critical level of complexity. Any less complex it would fail to be conscious. And to not violate Ockham’s Razor it is a flat constant like the freezing point of water.

Phase transitions a very good justifation of my atheist beliefs since that go a long way to explaining complexity, naturally such as the delicate structure of a snow flake.
I don't get it..?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Phase_change_-_en.svg/120px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.pngLg Pic (http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Phase_change_-_en.svg/340px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.png)
What do you mean by "Phase Transitions"?

[A Monkey Shaved]

Yeah, if your in an episode of Dr Who.

If you were born say back in the days when the Pyramids were getting built would you be aware of any difference between the time gap from the big bang of an estimated 13.7 billion years to your current life? Given that it is just a meagre time difference of 4,500 years would be less than the blink of an eye compared to 13.7 billion. I think that world you would be in at the time be Pyramids were getting built would be just as real as the world you are in now.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Like Karma, akashic records, heaven, hell, god and other concepts, your deck of cards requires a builder/maintainer.

Even the "atoms recombined" fallacy won't serve you here. A bottle smashed, and the bits remade into a bottle, is not the same bottle.

Your "phase transitions" is merely apophenia till you prove something happens with sufficient regularity to establish a pattern.

It seems you have a religion, but that it saves itself from embarrassment by having Wonderful Mysteries That We Cannot Understand®™.

I just just think we exist out of anthropic necessity because it is not possible to be aware of any state of non-existence.

[GenericBox]

You are conflating unconsciousness with non-existence.

You seem to think both are the same, but unconsciousness is the state of not being conscious - hence, unconsciousness needs consciousness to exist, if consciousness doesn't exist - like in the billions of years before (and after) you exist, then neither does unconsciousness.

You still exist while being unconscious, just because you are unaware of it - does not mean you do not exist. Your brain still functions, preserving you, albeit at the lowest form of alertness.

But unconsciousness doesn't exist if you don't (ie you cannot be unconscious before you are made (spefically your brain)).

[Fearless]

Mr Monkey... out of interest from your deck of cards analogy I decided to search the internet for a similar reference... and found many used in a similar context to yours.

Now I see you use the pyramids in your arguments. Again... many matches I can find on the net along similar lines involving the exact figures you have mentioned.

I am trying not to accuse you of internet plagiarism, but I find it hard to believe you have all those facts and figures stored in your head. If you wouldn't mind could you please provide links to the sources of your information thus respecting the originator/s.

Thank you.

[A Monkey Shaved]

I don't get it..?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Phase_change_-_en.svg/120px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.pngLg Pic (http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Phase_change_-_en.svg/340px-Phase_change_-_en.svg.png)
What do you mean by "Phase Transitions"?

I look on the brain as genetic program and initially it is cells slavishly obeying a genetically encoded instruction to migrate to their respective locations in the brain. I am of the view we are initially co-conscious with that genetic program in all young developing brains as consciousness is switched on. But that is an unstable equilibrium and out of chaotic randomness you switch to just one brain.

[two dogs]

If one examines textual narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructivism or conclude that consciousness is capable of significance. It could be said that Sontag uses the term ‘the deconstructive paradigm of reality’ to denote the futility, and thus the failure, of neodialectic class. The premise of semioticist precultural theory implies that truth serves to reinforce hierarchy.

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of textual narrative to challenge class divisions. Baudrillard uses the term ‘the deconstructive paradigm of reality’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

Thus, if textual materialism holds, we have to choose between the deconstructive paradigm of reality and submaterial libertarianism. The subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of narrative that includes consciousness as a whole.

In a sense, the main theme of the works of Tarantino is the fatal flaw, and eventually the collapse, of neosemioticist society. A number of deconstructions concerning the deconstructive paradigm of reality exist.

However, Prinn states that we have to choose between textual narrative and structural narrative. The primary theme of von Junz’s analysis of predialectic textual theory is a mythopoetical totality.

It could be said that Lacan promotes the use of textual narrative to deconstruct and analyse narrativity. The deconstructive paradigm of reality holds that the purpose of the reader is social comment, but only if art is distinct from reality; otherwise, we can assume that the law is part of the meaninglessness of language.

;)

[GenericBox]

Who, me, Mr Box?

Non conflato, bud! I promise!

Not being = (but not congruent with) not being aware.

The problem would arise when a person conflated "not-being" with the "being, but being unaware" that is unconsciousness in otherwise conscious beings.

That's beings, as opposed to not-beings, which our colleague Gilletted Gorilla seems to think are also beings in some nascent state or cosmic waiting-room.

No I meant Shaved Monkey - sorry Black. We (You and I) seem to be on the same page.

[two dogs]

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

Yes, that was the source of my post; I bookmarked the link after seeing it referred to before (by you, I expect). :)

[GenericBox]

Ra5-H9ZBS1U

Mentally Shaved posts remind me so much of this movie from MTV Video Awards. Will Ferrell is classic.

[two dogs]

Mea culpa, Mr Dogs: I leapfrogged your post while replying, and missed it.
...

No problem, Mr Black; I expected that you'd be be the first to recognise it for what it was, despite the lack of attribution.

[Logic]

The continent average floods the organ below your regulation pencil. When will an anonymous console refund phase transitions? Phase transitions renders unconscious . Phase transitions sneaks. The pupil dips any leadership. When can the struggling agenda reason without phase transitions? Unconscious ribbons a propaganda. The bed chooses phase transitions. Unconscious fusses phase transitions. Unconscious thinks near phase transitions.

A mortal masters a bargain librarian. Why can't sperm base 8.06581752? 8.06581752 walls sperm over his stumbling vinyl. How will 8.06581752 fish?

Yep. That's pretty much what I got out of it too.

[Praxis]

I reckon I'd be a bargain librarian ...

Just sayin'

[A Monkey Shaved]

If you were born in the day of the Pyramids
you
would
be
DEAD
now.


Is that clear?

Dead. Stone cold gone.

No "me" in a bottle or in spore form.

Gone.

Never to be again.

And you cannot prove otherwise.

In the eyes of somebody born in the year 6,000AD

you
would
be
DEAD
now.

As he/she would be just as oblivious to the 13.7 billion years that preceded his/her birth as you are.

[atheist_angel]

@A Monkey Shaved,
The concept of naturalistic reincarnation: Could you break it down into steps for me?

...like in outline form? I have autism and that might help me understand...

[A Monkey Shaved]

@A Monkey Shaved,
The concept of naturalistic reincarnation: Could you break it down into steps for me?

...like in outline form? I have autism and that might help me understand...

I was diagnosed with autism when I was 7 for lack of affective contact, obsessive fixations and ritualized behaviour. But if a child with a similar condition was diagnosed with it, it may be Asperger Syndrome.

I do not believe in a form of reincarnation in a dualistic sense, like for instance when someone dies they still remains an immaterial "soul" that transmigrates like a ghost only to seek out the womb of a pregnant woman.

I am also extremely skeptical of those who claim they can remember previous lives of say when the late Princess Dianna once claimed she was a nun in a previous life.

By naturalistic reincarnation I just simply mean there is a natural tendency to be in tune with a universe that is naturally fined tuned for our existence because it endows us with a sensation of time. The nature of the material that perpetuated your existence such as carbon based matter still exists after die as it did before you were born. It not believe for one minute the universe was fined tuned by a supernatural being such as a God it is just that it is only this kind of universe we can live in and discuss its fine tuned nature. It is a complete no brainer that we could possibly be in the midst of one of those poorly tuned universes which forbid the existence of any life.

So the information processes that sparked your sense of self into existence would be emulated by other brains with the old one terminated. I do think all our acquired memories are stored in our brains for our life time as the material needed to be preserved and as soon as it dies so does all your memories. But your consciousness can still be preserved in a backup genetic blue print for brains as primitive brains undergo phase transitions to be individualized.

I honestly do not care what happens to me after I die but I was extremely intrigued with how I got here in the first place to the point of being obsessive. Because as I stated earlier there was only a one in 300 million chance of my sperm fertilizing the egg that lead to me, and I did not mention the same rules apply to the existence of both my parents and my grandparents to the point my very existence was like a paradox. But if you first exist in a collective blue print in millions of brains prior to a phase transition then your chances of existing would be very much better. In fact even inevitable.

As for phase transitions in the brain, I never dreamt any scientist could find any evidence of such a things until I read this about 10 years ago http://focus.aps.org/story/v4/st30

[two dogs]

...
a universe that is naturally fined tuned for our existence
...

Have you considered the possibility that your thinking may be "arse about"? It's more probable that our existence is naturally fine tuned to the universe.

[two dogs]

...
As for phase transitions in the brain, I never dreamt any scientist could find any evidence of such a things until I read this about 10 years ago http://focus.aps.org/story/v4/st30
Despite the unfortunate analogy with "freezing" introduced by the so-called science writer, that article is obviously summarising a journal paper on the research into measurable indicators of the transition between the awake and the unconscious states of the brain.

I fail to see how it has any relevance to what you're crapping on about?

[A Monkey Shaved]

Have you considered the possibility that your thinking may be "arse about"? It's more probable that our existence is naturally fine tuned to the universe.

Yes it irks me when Christians refer to this fine tuned universe as evidence of their God's existence when we it is not possible the exist in a universe that failed to produce life. As if their God did not deem it necessary to create dead universes. It would be like stating the only possible type of planets with could exist are earthlike planets. I just think if their god exists he loves dead planets and loves dead universes even better.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Despite the unfortunate analogy with "freezing" introduced by the so-called science writer, that article is obviously summarising a journal paper on the research into measurable indicators of the transition between the awake and the unconscious states of the brain.

I fail to see how it has any relevance to what you're crapping on about?

I just think the belief that you can only live one possible life on earth and that is it is just a relic Judeo Christian indoctrination. I am of the view if it can happen naturally it can happen again, but if it cannot possibly happen naturally like say spiders spinning webs between asteroids, it will never happen.

[A Monkey Shaved]

I'm fairly well-acquainted with judeochristian myths and "indoctrinations", and would be glad if you can tell mefrom which source you think this notion springs, and why it is specifically judeochristian.

The soul is individually created then you live your life on earth then you go to heaven, hell that has been well indoctrinated into us thanks to Judeochristian theology. Some may just substitute heaven, or hell with darkness or oblivion which IMHO is much the same thing, because I know of a few people who try to clumsily resolve this by a belief they are going to be dead for a long time and they are going to be aware they are dead sooner or later given enough time. Which is paradoxical to me because once you are aware of any state you are in fact alive.

[A Monkey Shaved]

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff115/aestheticatheist/bunnypancake.jpg

Actually it's two pikelets.. sorry for any confusion

Did you stick them on with treacle or honey. Treacle is best, you can stick of a full stack.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Dear Mr Shaved Monkey,
It is with some regret that I must inform you that you will become, for at least the foreseeable future, a resident of our Fantasy Island facility.

The Welcome (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=11621&postcount=1) and the Fantasy Island FAQ (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=12361&postcount=1) will tell you more.

Basically, your claim of reincarnation has no scientific basis and appears to have no basis in any of the established religions either. This places it among the fringe beliefs referred to by the shorthand term, "woo".

As you continue to vocally espouse this belief and can show no valid basis for holding it, it is my duty as a moderator to preserve the skeptical, atheist nature of the mainstream discussions by requesting Admin to confine your posts to the Island for now.

Black

How about just the weak anthropic principle because I feel it would be totally meaningless to speculate about previous lives if you cannot remember them.

[A Monkey Shaved]

I will just concentrate on those charletons psychologists that believe in past life regression from now on if that make you happy.

[Fearless]

You don't need to renege on your beliefs... just don't expect us to play ball is all.

[A Monkey Shaved]

You don't need to renege on your beliefs... just don't expect us to play ball is all.

No they are not beliefs I definitely to not treat them as kind of dogma, they are only theories. But they are very interesting discussions at parties or over a few drinks but they are not a religion to me.

I am willing to get stuck into those creationists as they are my pet hate.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Very well I just checking to see if my signature is there because it was one I made up myself
BTW I am refraining from "I believe" because it gives people the impression that "I am claiming to know" which is a huge leap like Carl Jung stating "I do not believe in a God, I know there is a God". Belief to me is just a personal opinion with some element of doubt because I have changed my beliefs many times.

[atheist_angel]

@Monkey S: Let's say we created a person out of non-biological matter. (a conscious, sentient, human-like AI bot) And this person could think; feel; laugh; dream... and experience all the same things we humans can. (even suffering and awareness.)


How would this person fit into your theory?

[atheist_angel]

By naturalistic reincarnation I just simply mean there is a natural tendency to be in tune with a universe that is naturally fined tuned for our existence because it endows us with a sensation of time.
OK? But what if several families from another 'differently tuned' universe came here and thrived [and reproduced] for several generations?The nature of the material that perpetuated your existence such as carbon based matter still exists after die as it did before you were born. What if they weren't carbon based and that rule didn't apply to them?It not believe for one minute the universe was fined tuned by a supernatural being such as a God it is just that it is only this kind of universe we can live in and discuss its fine tuned nature. It is a complete no brainer that we could possibly be in the midst of one of those poorly tuned universes which forbid the existence of any life. Well, what if we found a way to go to one? (poorly tuned)How about just the weak anthropic principle because I feel it would be totally meaningless to speculate about previous lives if you cannot remember them. Even a weak anthropic principal ... and there are many versions ... can be a misnomer.


-Angel

[Loki]

It is a complete no brainer

This is the only bit I can understand and agree with so far Mr monkey.

Do you have any way of observing or otherwise measuring these incipient personalities? What are they made of? Where are they? If they can be observed or measured maybe we could cull all the psycopathic ones, that would be useful. Or are they all just in your head? Reminds me of the BFG catching dreams.

[Atrax Robustus]

Well,

That was six pages of bumpf that I could have done without!:(

[atheist_angel]

@Monkey S: Let's say we created a person out of non-biological matter. (a conscious, sentient, human-like AI bot) And this person could think; feel; laugh; dream... and experience all the same things we humans can. (even suffering and awareness.)


How would this person fit into your theory?OK? But what if several families from another 'differently tuned' universe came here and thrived [and reproduced] for several generations? What if they weren't carbon based and that rule didn't apply to them? Well, what if we found a way to go to one? (poorly tuned) Even a weak anthropic principal ... and there are many versions ... can be a misnomer.


-Angel
I am still (waiting) looking forward to having my questions answered by Mr Monkey...;)

I hope he doesn't forget about me.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I would argue individually created minds is an extreme over complication.
Here's your first mistake.
Minds aren't "created" any more than snowflakes are "created". Both minds and snowflakes are complex and unique but aren't designed by any outside entity to be that way.
Even if we ignore that and look at this from the razor's point of view, individual minds developing within the brain of human beings has a factual, testable basis, whereas your "one mind bouncing around time to be everyone's mind" or "shared mind" theory requires an underlying mechanism that has no scientific evidence to back it up.
Something that can be explained is always less complicated than something that cannot.

I am still (waiting) looking forward to having my questions answered by Mr Monkey...;)

I hope he doesn't forget about me.

I'm afraid your hopes are fading. :(

[TÐöer]

@Monkey S: Let's say we created a person out of non-biological matter. (a conscious, sentient, human-like AI bot) And this person could think; feel; laugh; dream... and experience all the same things we humans can. (even suffering and awareness.)


How would this person fit into your theory?

Reading the OP, that came to mind too. Completely agree with you.

We are all nothing but the result of our programming. If the programming is not executed, then we don't exist. Each time we shut of our PC, what happens to it's spirit anyway? It never existed to begin with.

[Peter A]

All sounds kinda 'soul' like to me... which would be in contradiction to your atheist beliefs.

Not really. Atheism is simply a lack of belief - or disbelief - in god(s), nothing more, nothing less. 'Soul' is a different concept to 'god'.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Atheists have "souls", just not disembodied souls. No injection of souls by deities, no transfer of souls, just souls that are in bodies when they are alive.

The only part of 'the soul" which survives is the memories of a person's interaction kept "alive" by other living people. We have memories of people who die.