Gospel and Reincarnation

[Geordon]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If you want angst, consider the case of someone who is teleported.  Is it the same person?  Or a duplicate?     

 

Science fiction has addressed this in a number of places.  For example, in Star Trek, the ship's doctor, McCoy had a complete mistrust of the transporters for that very reason.  There was a TV show, or maybe a movie (I think it might have been part of an anthology series) a bunch of years ago in which there was a "dinosaur" alien race that had developed a transporter technology to cross vast interstellar distances.  The originating side scanned the original person then recreated them as a new physical body/mind at the destination.  After the distant end confirmed that the person was received correctly, the original was disintegrated.  It was a great show, with the plot revolving around the original not being disintegrated properly, and the human technician fell in love with the original, blah blah, he ends up being forced to disintegrate the original by the alien species.  Then, shortly after that, the person returns from the far end with no knowledge of the romantic interlude and the tech has a complete mental breakdown.  

 

12 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

don't know if it's true.  I read about one of the victims of 9/11.  One of the people whose remains were never recovered.  His grieving family wanted something for the coffin, so they tracked down his blood donation -- and buried that.

 

I haven't heard that story, but is entirely plausible.  I know that things like that happen a lot with missing persons cases.  The tissue from the deceased/missing person is used to give the family closure.  Of course, they all know that what is buried is only a symbolic representation, not the actual person.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Geordon said:

 

Science fiction has addressed this in a number of places.  For example, in Star Trek, the ship's doctor, McCoy had a complete mistrust of the transporters for that very reason.  There was a TV show, or maybe a movie (I think it might have been part of an anthology series) a bunch of years ago in which there was a "dinosaur" alien race that had developed a transporter technology to cross vast interstellar distances.  The originating side scanned the original person then recreated them as a new physical body/mind at the destination.  After the distant end confirmed that the person was received correctly, the original was disintegrated.  It was a great show, with the plot revolving around the original not being disintegrated properly, and the human technician fell in love with the original, blah blah, he ends up being forced to disintegrate the original by the alien species.  Then, shortly after that, the person returns from the far end with no knowledge of the romantic interlude and the tech has a complete mental breakdown.  

 

 

I haven't heard that story, but is entirely plausible.  I know that things like that happen a lot with missing persons cases.  The tissue from the deceased/missing person is used to give the family closure.  Of course, they all know that what is buried is only a symbolic representation, not the actual person.

 

 

The earliest science fiction transporter accident that I know of -- was "The Fly."

 

Think of the great mass of good bacteria, lining our intestines.  They would have to be teleported with us.  Think of everything that lives in our skin.  It's an accident begging to happen.

 

If the soul does exist -- could a teleporter send it?  If there's no soul, what is it that emerges?  

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Geordon]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If the soul does exist -- could a teleporter send it?  If there's no soul, what is it that emerges?  

 

Insert massive existential crisis here!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Geordon said:

 

Insert massive existential crisis here!

 

 

Just so.

 

 

[cuchulain]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:33 PM, mererdog said:

It's quite a rabbit hole, isn't it? Absent a supernatural "I" like a soul there must reasonably be a limit to how much brain we can lose before the "I" goes away. But how much? Which parts? If you lose you memories but not your personality? If you lose your personality but not your memory? If you put coffee in a teacup, is it still a teacup?

I wouldn't say the "I" goes away...merely changes.  If water is heated, is "goes away" as well...by changing into something else.

[Geordon]

On 4/11/2018 at 2:17 PM, cuchulain said:

I wouldn't say the "I" goes away...merely changes.  If water is heated, is "goes away" as well...by changing into something else.

 

This is particularly problematical from a Buddhist perspective.  Per the Buddhadarma, there is no essential "I" but only a conglomeration of dependent conditions.  So, there was never really any "I" to begin with!  Only a flawed perception.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Geordon said:

 

This is particularly problematical from a Buddhist perspective.  Per the Buddhadarma, there is no essential "I" but only a conglomeration of dependent conditions.  So, there was never really any "I" to begin with!  Only a flawed perception.

 

Unless my memory survives physical death -- along with awareness -- some ephemeral essence continuing on -- doesn't seem to make any difference.  At least, not to me.  

 

 

[Geordon]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Unless my memory survives physical death -- along with awareness -- some ephemeral essence continuing on -- doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

That is how I conceive of it, myself.  Tibetan Buddhists conceive of some sort of ghost or soul that leaves the body at the moment of death, and, to my understanding, that entity sticks around in a sort of afterlife between this life and the next, called Bardo (Wikipedia again, as a jumping off point).  This is outlined in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

 

However, once the spirit enters into the next life, regardless of what realm it is reborn into (paragraph 8), depending on the state of the being's karma, the only essence that remains is the karma. Intellect, memory, morality, etc, are all things that are tied to the present life and do not transfer to the next one.

 

So, the essential "You" is a one-shot deal in my worldview.  It's like taking a cup of coffee and dumping it into a swimming pool.  The coffee is still technically there, but it is functionally gone and no longer useful as coffee.

 

Does that analogy make sense?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Geordon said:

 

That is how I conceive of it, myself.  Tibetan Buddhists conceive of some sort of ghost or soul that leaves the body at the moment of death, and, to my understanding, that entity sticks around in a sort of afterlife between this life and the next, called Bardo (Wikipedia again, as a jumping off point).  This is outlined in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

 

However, once the spirit enters into the next life, regardless of what realm it is reborn into (paragraph 8), depending on the state of the being's karma, the only essence that remains is the karma. Intellect, memory, morality, etc, are all things that are tied to the present life and do not transfer to the next one.

 

So, the essential "You" is a one-shot deal in my worldview.  It's like taking a cup of coffee and dumping it into a swimming pool.  The coffee is still technically there, but it is functionally gone and no longer useful as coffee.

 

Does that analogy make sense?

 

 

Traditional imagery, is the drop of water, merging with the ocean.  The drop both exists and is gone.

 

Life is short.  We'll know soon enough -- or not.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Phillipe]

On 4/8/2018 at 1:19 PM, Geordon said:

Keep in mind that in Zen, there is no "self."  The ego is an illusion that we convince ourselves (yeah, yeah, I know...) is real when in fact there is no one specific central THING that makes you... You.

 

For example, take a teacup.  It has a bowl, an inside, an outside, and a bottom.  What what makes it TEACUP?  If we take away any one of the pieces that go into "teacup" the thing is no longer "teacup."  This is the nature of dependent origination.

 

Dependent origination recognizes that in order to be something, the whole is only what which it is because of other things.  Take away any one of the parts that go into "the thing" and it is no longer what it was, like peeling an onion.  Keep peeling and eventually you no longer have "an onion" but a collection of pieces.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Br. Shoshin

I have nine toes, having lost one to diabetes.

 

Am I no longer Me?

[Geordon]

6 hours ago, Phillipe said:

I have nine toes, having lost one to diabetes.

 

Am I no longer Me?

 

The you that you are now (kind meta, don't you agree?) is no longer the you that you were when you had all 10 toes.  Also, the toe that you lost to illness is no longer part of you, so it is NOT you.

 

Does that make sense?

[Phillipe]

On 4/16/2018 at 6:49 PM, Geordon said:

 

The you that you are now (kind meta, don't you agree?) is no longer the you that you were when you had all 10 toes.  Also, the toe that you lost to illness is no longer part of you, so it is NOT you.

 

Does that make sense?

Kinda meta, indeed. I suppose it all depends upon what one considers "me".

 

The toe that I lost still has my DNA - does that not make it "me"?

[cuchulain]

Ahhh...the definition game rears its head again, lol.  I think the only way to get anywhere in a debate is for the people debating, or discussing if you prefer, to determine in advance what the definitions are of what they are discussing mutually.  If that cannot be done, then discussion is not really productive, is it?

 

In the metaphysical sense, me is the personality, the soul, the character, the thought process behind it all that is unique to me.  Physically, I guess I am dna in a specific combination with specific body parts of different measurements and various chemicals tossed into the mix.  So with that definition, "Me" changes if I have a beer.

[RabbiO]

Here's an experiment, Phillipe - Take a chair and break the legs off. Advertise that you have four chairs to sell. See how many takers you get. You can then let us know the results

Edited April 19, 2018 by RabbiO

[Geordon]

2 hours ago, Phillipe said:

Kinda meta, indeed. I suppose it all depends upon what one considers "me".

 

The toe that I lost still has my DNA - does that not make it "me"?

 

In my worldview, the animating element and self awarenesssl is the part that defines what is still "you". So, while the toe in question was part of you while it eas attached, once is was removed, it is no longer "part" of you but it is still "yours". 

 

Does that make sense?

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Ahhh...the definition game rears its head again, lol.  I think the only way to get anywhere in a debate is for the people debating, or discussing if you prefer, to determine in advance what the definitions are of what they are discussing mutually.  If that cannot be done, then discussion is not really productive, is it?

 

In the metaphysical sense, me is the personality, the soul, the character, the thought process behind it all that is unique to me.  Physically, I guess I am dna in a specific combination with specific body parts of different measurements and various chemicals tossed into the mix.  So with that definition, "Me" changes if I have a beer.

 

Definitiins: yep! In order to have any productive discourse, all parties need to have a common starting point.

 

Metaphysically speaking what you have said is precisely what i was trying to convey, though with mugh distraction on my end (training on my new job this week).

 

The physical parts that make up "you" only make it you when taken as a whole.  Change any of the essebtial components and the physical "you" is different.

 

The same goes for the "soul" and personality. Nithing is constant and unchanging.  Eveeyrhing depends on thia very moment and could reasonably be vert different in the next moment.

[Key]

3 hours ago, Phillipe said:

Kinda meta, indeed. I suppose it all depends upon what one considers "me".

 

The toe that I lost still has my DNA - does that not make it "me"?

Alas, your toe was never "aware" of you, as you were of it, or even of yourself. If the DNA is sentient, and still living, then it would only have an identity of itself, not you, thus can't be you.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

Alas, your toe was never "aware" of you, as you were of it, or even of yourself. If the DNA is sentient, and still living, then it would only have an identity of itself, not you, thus can't be you.

 

The elephant in the room that nobody is addressing -- is the soul.

 

Do we have souls?  Are we souls that have temporary bodies?  I don't know.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Ahhh...the definition game rears its head again, lol.  I think the only way to get anywhere in a debate is for the people debating, or discussing if you prefer, to determine in advance what the definitions are of what they are discussing mutually.  If that cannot be done, then discussion is not really productive, is it?

 

In the metaphysical sense, me is the personality, the soul, the character, the thought process behind it all that is unique to me.  Physically, I guess I am dna in a specific combination with specific body parts of different measurements and various chemicals tossed into the mix.  So with that definition, "Me" changes if I have a beer.

 

 

That can easily be made worse.  Say that you go through a Star Trek style transporter.  What emerges?  Is it you?  Or a copy of you?

 

 

[mark 45]

17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The elephant in the room that nobody is addressing -- is the soul.

 

Do we have souls?  Are we souls that have temporary bodies?  I don't know.  

and then we get into the discussion none of us agrees on,which is,"what is a soul,is spirit the same thing",yada,yada.

 

i don't know either.

[Key]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The elephant in the room that nobody is addressing -- is the soul.

 

Do we have souls?  Are we souls that have temporary bodies?  I don't know.  

A Christian might address the situation according to something Jesus taught. "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. If thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out..." With the reason being that without the offensive body part, one might have a better chance ascending to heaven. So, I guess, in that sense, their soul would be split in order to better the greater self?

But that also opens another maze of inquiries. Such as: if the soul can be split, does that also create separate identities? If the body part is supposedly descended, how does the eternal torment work then? etc.