Is Reincarnation Possible?

[Duce]

hell no it's not possible..

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I don't think so. Person X lives his life as usual. Then his consciousness is uploaded into another husk. So we have the original body becoming person O (for original) and the new body becoming Person C (for "copy"). But the moment this happens, both brains will start working independently. Person O will be at his position, under the forces (such as heat, gravity, etc) making his brains split off single-track "Person X" line into the "Person O" line. The same goes for Person C and "Person C" line.

I quite agree with you. But what about if C was created after X's death? Assuming the consciousness of X was downloaded within a reasonable number of moments before his death, could the life of C be considered a continuation of the life of X? Or would C be considered merely a carbon copy of X (as opposed to being continuation of life of X)?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I quite agree with you. But what about if C was created after X's death? Assuming the consciousness of X was downloaded within a reasonable number of moments before his death, could the life of C be considered a continuation of the life of X? Or would C be considered merely a carbon copy of X (as opposed to being continuation of life of X)?

I think that was kind of answered in the sentence that you (ironically) snipped: "We change from moment to moment. Every second we're another person. Copying a "state of mind" to another body would not change that."
In other words, no, I don't think so. I am a different person than I was years ago. Hell, I got a wisdom tooth extracted yesterday, which means I'm a different person now than I was yesterday when I woke up.

Saying someone is still that same person would just be relevant to our subjective experience, but objectively, brains fire and rewire from moment to moment so that wouldn't be true.

 

[Diamondpoint1964]

I've always been fascinated with the idea of "a thought devoid of thinker". In all the conditions described there is a supposition that there is a "brain" or other machine that generates the thought. What if there is such a thing as a thought in space-time, perhaps an organized form of energy (which with infinite time is probable) that just exists and stretches for millennia and then simply loops back?

Just a thought...

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Hell, I got a wisdom tooth extracted yesterday, which means I'm a different person now than I was yesterday when I woke up.

I don't understand. You're still the same person minus the wisdom tooth.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Hell, I got a wisdom tooth extracted yesterday, which means I'm a different person now than I was yesterday when I woke up.

I don't understand. You're still the same person minus the wisdom tooth.

...Thus I'm different. I've been through that treatment now. I know more (namely that I fucking hate needles), I have less (one wisdom tooth less) and I gained something (the horrible anticipation of having to go in again next thursday).

 

[scarified2012]

You still have the same personality, right?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

You still have the same personality, right?

Physical characteristics (such as brain chemistry) are master to the personality. All impressions you take in change the connections within your brain. If you wouldn't have read this thread you wouldn't have the information you had now and thus you would respond differently if you would be questioned on this subject later on than you would now.

That's why I said that you change from moment to moment. Your brains - and thus your person - change all the time. It's ever so slightly, but the change is there.
It's kind of like evolution: Once you make a copy of yourself, that other self will change according to its own impressions and will thus be different from the self that is your branch. You would be two different people, yet very much alike, with a "common ancestor" that is the pre-copy you.

 

[Noumenon]

I've always been fascinated with the idea of "a thought devoid of thinker". In all the conditions described there is a supposition that there is a "brain" or other machine that generates the thought. What if there is such a thing as a thought in space-time, perhaps an organized form of energy (which with infinite time is probable) that just exists and stretches for millennia and then simply loops back?

Just a thought...

What is a thought without being embedded in a context of other mental states, connected to memories of prior states or experiences, and so on? Perhaps when I think of your question, a particular pattern of electrical activity occurs in my brain; and perhaps (in an infinite time space universe*) that same shape of activity could be repeated in an environment other than my brain, such as within an alien nervous system, or a lightning bolt, or previously empty deep space, or wherever; but in the alien it could be the shape of activity that moves a pseudopod, or represents some dazzling act of reasoning or stupidity but which is not my thought about your question at all; in the lightning it is simply a particular flow of current, utterly random and meaningless, etc.

For me the problem is mixing up the medium with the message. The energy houses no knowledge, that is what the brain is for. The "thought", the "energy", these are different things. However, just to massively backtrack: "a thought in space-time, an organised form of energy" - this is exactly what every thought is. The brain is the aspect of space-time that thoughts have been waiting for, we should enjoy being involved!

I wasn't talking about a karmic reincarnation, I was just wondering if after an unknown amount of time (Perhaps billions of years) our consciousness could reawaken in some other form regardless of how you lived your life.

When I think about it I imagine death being like anesthesia, You don't know how long you've been under, but it feels like it was just seconds ago. Except with this, you have complete amnesia since you are a different organism.

If you are a different organism, with no recollection of any previous existence, in what sense is it "your" consciousness? I'm not meaning to criticise, it is certainly an appealing notion, but to give an example of my position:

I am a dictafone (no jokes about my telephone manner, please) upon which all my thoughts and observations have been recorded. Unfortunately, just as I'm getting really well informed and witty my battery runs out - but fortunately it's rechargeable! We charge it up again and put it in... a different dictafone...

* or tsuniverse, that is "an overwhelming wave of reality"!

 

[Noumenon]

I'd like to pose a related question:

Imagine that a process is developed in which, upon death, your brain is removed and the biological materials are replaced with non-decaying alternatives, so every aspect of your brain's machinery remains intact but inoperative. Subsequently, a process is developed in which these preservative materials can be substituted for artificially alive matter, allowing the precise arrangement of reactive material that once was your brain to become active once more. Everything that formerly constituted mental activity - memory, imagination, whatever - picks up where it left off. Finally, now the question:

Is this still your consciousness?

For me the answer is no, but it is difficult to justify why. I feel that what makes me Me is to do with the continuity of mental activity and a long-term interruption would somehow change that (although this argument probably has all kinds of short-term problems in the light of modern medicine, and my intention was to make the duration of inactivity no longer an issue).

 

[SatanicBunny]

Is this still your consciousness?

For me the answer is no, but it is difficult to justify why. I feel that what makes me Me is to do with the continuity of mental activity and a long-term interruption would somehow change that (although this argument probably has all kinds of short-term problems in the light of modern medicine, and my intention was to make the duration of inactivity no longer an issue).

I'd say no as well. The consciousness is not a static thing, it's a continuous process which is affected by all the dimensions of space, including time. So even though, in such a machine all the parts of the brain would be in the same position as they were before, the process which begins once it is (re)-activated is not the same process that my brain was going through when I died. The end end result is probably something very close to me, but still not me.

Of course, the question is nearly impossible to answer, to me the question soundss a bit like asking: "if you take a cup full of water out of the ocean, pour it back, and then some moments later take a new cup from the exactly same spot, is it still the same exact water in the cup as before?"

 

[Krazyskooter]

I'd like to pose a related question:

Imagine that a process is developed in which, upon death, your brain is removed and the biological materials are replaced with non-decaying alternatives, so every aspect of your brain's machinery remains intact but inoperative. Subsequently, a process is developed in which these preservative materials can be substituted for artificially alive matter, allowing the precise arrangement of reactive material that once was your brain to become active once more. Everything that formerly constituted mental activity - memory, imagination, whatever - picks up where it left off. Finally, now the question:

Is this still your consciousness?

For me the answer is no, but it is difficult to justify why. I feel that what makes me Me is to do with the continuity of mental activity and a long-term interruption would somehow change that (although this argument probably has all kinds of short-term problems in the light of modern medicine, and my intention was to make the duration of inactivity no longer an issue).

But don't you go through the same process when you drink too much and black out, or are put under anesthesia for surgery? Sure, it's not exactly the same but both times you're unconscious and time has no meaning. If everything is exactly the same then I would say yes, it's the same as waking up, if you have memories.

 

[Noumenon]

I'd say no as well. The consciousness is not a static thing, it's a continuous process which is affected by all the dimensions of space, including time. So even though, in such a machine all the parts of the brain would be in the same position as they were before, the process which begins once it is (re)-activated is not the same process that my brain was going through when I died. The end end result is probably something very close to me, but still not me.

But don't you go through the same process when you drink too much and black out, or are put under anesthesia for surgery? Sure, it's not exactly the same but both times you're unconscious and time has no meaning. If everything is exactly the same then I would say yes, it's the same as waking up, if you have memories.

This is why I think it is an interesting question. My intuition responds that while the consciousness would be the same, it would no longer be my consciousness. However, I think the consciousness would certainly disagree, as its content would include everything I had thought or experienced, including this conversation.

Of course, the question is nearly impossible to answer, to me the question soundss a bit like asking: "if you take a cup full of water out of the ocean, pour it back, and then some moments later take a new cup from the exactly same spot, is it still the same exact water in the cup as before?"

I disagree.

Imagine that a process is developed in which, upon death, your brain is removed and the biological materials are replaced with non-decaying alternatives, so every aspect of your brain's machinery remains intact but inoperative. Subsequently, a process is developed in which these preservative materials can be substituted for artificially alive matter, allowing the precise arrangement of reactive material that once was your brain to become active once more. Everything that formerly constituted mental activity - memory, imagination, whatever - picks up where it left off.

Is this still your consciousness?

For me, the important issue is the cup, not the water (and in your scenario a third aspect is required: the brain, the dance of electricity, and the information which their interaction represents). I think if I was to try and phrase my question in your terms the closest I could get would be more like, pouring out the water, transforming the cup from china into plastic, then replacing the water (with same or fresh) and asking "Is it still the same cup as before?" But maybe now you can see why I didn't.

Actually, on reflection you do have a third aspect: cup, ocean, and cup-filling-quantity-of-ocean-water - but these last two still blur the boundary between information (which I take to be your meaning of the cfqoow) and... er... I think I'm losing my train of thought.

 

[Krazyskooter]

But all you're doing is shutting the power off to the brain, while keeping everything preserved. If you could restore power to the brain, I don't think it would be a different consciousness. I can shut the power off to my computer as many times as I want, but since everything inside of it doesn't change my computer is going to have the same information. If I shut it down and change some vital components then on reboot it will be a different CPU, because it no longer has the information that was previously on it.

 

[Noumenon]

Well on that basis I would suggest that you've got an answer for your original question at least:

I'm talking about the probability that your consciousness may be reassembled at some distant point in the future based on odds. Since if you have an infinite amount of time for something to occur then even the slightest chance for it to occur becomes 100%, since I know that my consciousness has occurred at least once, is it possible that I may find myself conscious again at some point another few billions years from now?

Unless your brain is spontaneously reassembled at some distant point in the future first (presumably in a body that can support it); and unless that brain comes into existance already in a state supportive of your current or future consciousness (and why not, since the odds of generating your consciousness from a blank slate via growth and experience, the way your current mind has been, must be at least comparable to the chance of a spontaneous reemergence anyway); unless those things happen, I'd say the chances of your consciousness reoccuring in the future are right up there at 100% given an infinity of time and space -

Oh wait. No, I meant the opposite of that.

I think the idea of something as unimagineably complex as a human mentality (let alone even just the machinery required to run one) spontaneously popping into existance is never going to happen, no matter how broad and long lasting reality might prove to be. Shame, but there it is.

 

[Memoryfull]

My opinion on the subject would work like this. SInce there is an infinite number of ways a human is affected during his life, it would mean that any minor change in these would change you into what could be a completely different person from yourself at this point in time.

Now it can also be calculated (according to the laws of probability) that the exact same events that happened to you, and thus caused you to be you, would happen to someone else, thus that other human being would, in theory, be just like you.

The problem with this is that reincarnation means you come back to life, but this would simply be a coincidence caused by the laws of probabilities and not ''you'' exactly coming back to life.

 

[Noumenon]

I agree with your last statement, in principle, but it seems to me that it cannot have a connection to reality.

SInce there is an infinite number of ways a human is affected during his life, it would mean that any minor change in these would change you into what could be a completely different person from yourself at this point in time.

Potentially infinite points of difference, each of which representing potentially infinite forms of difference. Sounds like a lot to ask for again!

Now it can also be calculated (according to the laws of probability) that the exact same events that happened to you, and thus caused you to be you, would [?] happen to someone else, thus that other human being would, in theory, be just like you.

You seem to be expressing a certainty here, so I'm taking this to mean: "...that IF the exact same events ... THEN that other being would be just like you."

But is even this valid? I would suggest that "the exact same events" could not happen to someone else. The earlier observation regarding twins (that even identical humans exposed to the same stimulous throughout childhood would not grow into "the same person") holds just as well, obviously if not better, when the two persons are seperated by untold gaps of time or space, as "the exact same events" cannot realistically be expected to occur.

Further, imagine the subsequent entity grows from a blank slate and experiences even generally identical events to those of my life: when they are ten their dog dies, for example, though it is not the same dog as mine (unless my dog was reincarnated first!), nor at the same points of space-time - but in order to become "me" this blank slate being must respond to both the external and internal stimulous in exactly the same manner as I did/would, or else it becomes something close to but not the same as me - and these variations must ALL be repeated with perfect accuracy if "I" am to return to existance.

This is to say nothing of questions regarding what state of my evolving consciousness is the one reborn. What if my ten year old self is reincarnated, not my present self, or that of the moment of my death? Will it then be compelled to repeat all my experiences like a looped tape, in order "to be me"? Or will it encounter something I never did, respond in a way I never had the oportunity to, and thus cease to be "me" all over again? Even theories of infinite decision-branching universes don't suffer this problem, as all the versions of "me" which populate the infinite realities are all different to some degree.

All this is beyond any reasonable calculation of probability in my opinion, and any realistic expectation.