GENIUS FORUMS

Is it the simultaneous seizing of vital functions and becoming unconscious in body and soul all at the same time?

Could it be that we have already had past lives, living and dying not to remember one from the other.

For instance, if I were to die, I would go into a period of forgetfulness and unawareness. Then I would be re born as a baby with a new life and not even remember the life I have now.

Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason. Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

You are not the body.

Kow: You are not the body.

I'm suspecting that that is what doggy hopes.

So what are you saying Kow? You 'directly percieve' the science of reincarnation?

Reincarnation pertains to the constantly reincarnating ego. There is nothing in the body to continue after the bodies death.

Doggy, you do not inherently exist, your sense of me is an illusion and your death will be like the extinguishing of a match or a candle. You will be forever finished, however the energy your actions, words and deeds (all of which are you) will live on in some form or another for eternity.

Identify yourself with the totality, and you are immortal.

Unfortunately, human identify themselves with their idiosyncratic thoughts, which they hope are part of some ethereal soul. Your thoughts are just bio-chemical-electrical impulses firing upon a slimey, gray lump of tissue. When the body breaks down, the "I" consciousness is forever finished.

Doggy wrote:Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason.

No, it isn't incredible. It's no more incredible than the fact that yesterday it rained and today it didn't.

Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

Why is the sky blue and not tangerine? Why do cats meow rather than bark? Why was I born rather than not born? Things have causes, not reasons.

Doggy wrote:Is it the simultaneous seizing of vital functions and becoming unconscious in body and soul all at the same time?

Could it be that we have already had past lives, living and dying not to remember one from the other.

There is no soul (i.e. inherently existent entity) to maintain any continuity from one moment to the next, let alone from one life to another.

Doggy wrote:Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason. Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

Because you can have only one identity.

The parts of your conscious experience that you identify yourself as constitute the whole of your identity. If your memories and perceptions were replaced with those of the Swahili you would cease to be you and acquire his identity.

Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

Richard wrote: Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

That's a very good point, but inaccurately expressed. The phenomenon of character is always the same. Only characteristics are different. Only characteristics continue.

Richard wrote:There is no soul (i.e. inherently existent entity) to maintain any continuity from one moment to the next, let alone from one life to another.

You state that with such certainty. are you attached to the idea that there is no soul?

kowtaaia wrote:That's a very good point, but inaccurately expressed.

How would you know what his point is if he expressed it inaccuratly? Do you always assume that people do not mean what they say? If that is the case, why would you assume that?

Wow, kow - 99 posts and you have not even been here three whole days yet.

Doggy wrote: Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason. Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

No, it isn't incredible.
My mother got pregnant. Someone was going to be born. It happened to be me.

If I were some Swahili kid I could sit there and go "I could have been born in America"

It just happened.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:That's a very good point, but inaccurately expressed.

How would you know what his point is if he expressed it inaccuratly? Do you always assume that people do not mean what they say? If that is the case, why would you assume that?

It's obvious what he's pointing to. There is simply a more accurate way to put it, that avoids a self dichotomy.

Reasons also lead to causes.

Richard wrote:

Doggy wrote:Is it the simultaneous seizing of vital functions and becoming unconscious in body and soul all at the same time?

Could it be that we have already had past lives, living and dying not to remember one from the other.

There is no soul (i.e. inherently existent entity) to maintain any continuity from one moment to the next, let alone from one life to another.

Why do you equate soul to "inherently existent entity"? Why couldn't a caused entity have one? And if there is no "soul," what is it that maintains one's continuity from one moment to the next? Why couldn't that, whatever it is, continue through a series of lifetimes?

Doggy wrote:

Also, isn't it incredible that you are put in the family you are in for a reason. Think about it, a baby will be born today and one tommorow, but who is to say which person will take that baby's form. Why wasn't I born to some African Swahili tribe instead of my parents?

Because you can have only one identity.

The parts of your conscious experience that you identify yourself as constitute the whole of your identity. If your memories and perceptions were replaced with those of the Swahili you would cease to be you and acquire his identity.

Your greater self is, in a real sense, born as every individual conscious entity, but you are unique in being the only one who has your own identity.

This is does not argue the point. Number of identities is not the issue. Question is why his present identity is the current one and not a Swahili one.

Anyway, why would the idea of multiple identities be wrong. Why couldn't many identities (even concurrent) fit together within one whole. Just like the Totality: many lives/ identifications/ personalities. I identify with that.

Carl G wrote:
Anyway, why would the idea of multiple identities be wrong.

Every desire calls itself "I".

Carl G wrote: Why do you equate soul to "inherently existent entity"? Why couldn't a caused entity have one? And if there is no "soul," what is it that maintains one's continuity from one moment to the next? Why couldn't that, whatever it is, continue through a series of lifetimes?

The two contradict one another. What maintains continuity from one moment to the next is memory. Since we have no memory of past lives the concept makes no sense.

Dan Rowden wrote: Why is the sky blue and not tangerine? Why do cats meow rather than bark? Why was I born rather than not born? Things have causes, not reasons.

What's the diff? In the examples you gave I see none.

Causes or reasons, there is room for doubt as to the full circumstances of my birth. Did I have any part in the causes for my arising in this present body? I lack the perspective to know, and find myself skeptical of logic's ability to tell me for certain.

Rory wrote:

Carl G wrote: Why do you equate soul to "inherently existent entity"? Why couldn't a caused entity have one? And if there is no "soul," what is it that maintains one's continuity from one moment to the next? Why couldn't that, whatever it is, continue through a series of lifetimes?

The two contradict one another. What maintains continuity from one moment to the next is memory. Since we have no memory of past lives the concept makes no sense.

Speak for yourself. Many people do have memory of past lives.

Carl G wrote: Speak for yourself. Many people do have memory of past lives.

No, many deluded people believe they have memory of past lives.

carl: Causes or reasons, there is room for doubt as to the full circumstances of my birth. Did I have any part in the causes for my arising in this present body?

Carl, if this is true, then when was your soul born? Does it seem possible to you that your soul always existed?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

carl: Causes or reasons, there is room for doubt as to the full circumstances of my birth. Did I have any part in the causes for my arising in this present body?

Carl, if this is true, then when was your soul born? Does it seem possible to you that your soul always existed?

No, it does not seem possible that my soul, or whatever we wish to call the I-dentity of me, has always existed. I do not know when the birth of that would have occurred. When it originally took place, it would have necessarily happened without my participation.

However, I spoke of the causes of the arising of this present body. There is the distinction. There is no logical reason I can think of for me not having some participation then, as I do now, in the progression of events. I can be causer as well as caused. I need not be only caused.

Carl G wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Why is the sky blue and not tangerine? Why do cats meow rather than bark? Why was I born rather than not born? Things have causes, not reasons.

What's the diff? In the examples you gave I see none.

Causes or reasons, there is room for doubt as to the full circumstances of my birth. Did I have any part in the causes for my arising in this present body? I lack the perspective to know, and find myself skeptical of logic's ability to tell me for certain.

It seems to me the difference would be that "cause" is a triggering event whereas "reason" would indicate intent.

The underlying difference of opinion that I infer is that doggy believes that there is a noncorporeal individual that is infused into a particular corporeal form for an intentional, premeditated reason (purpose), but Dan does not believe that there is a particular purpose, rather that ceriain events just lead to a logical progression of following events.

No, it does not seem possible that my soul, or whatever we wish to call the I-dentity of me, has always existed. I do not know when the birth of that would have occurred. When it originally took place, it would have necessarily happened without my participation.

Ok, so your soul once did not exist and somehow was born.

Now, do you think there will come a day when your soul will perish and thus become the way it was before it was born (non-existent)?

Or do you think it is somehow possible that, despite your soul was born, that it will never die, that it will live on indefinitely?

Cory Duchesne wrote: Ok, so your soul once did not exist and somehow was born.

Now, do you think there will come a day when your soul will perish and thus become the way it was before it was born (non-existent)?

Or do you think it is somehow possible that, despite your soul was born, that it will never die, that it will live on indefinitely?

I have notice that things in nature seem to "like" to cluster together. Mist forms beads of water, the wind blows leaves into piles, the woods are in one area but the meadow is its own little area... Even looking at the atomic level, atoms "prefer" to bond with other atoms to make a stable outer electron shell.

Cory, couldn't it be the same with whatever type of energy that goes into making concious thought? That this energy - expressed in the human mind as the electrical impulses in the brain - might not also somehow cluster together? That this energy might stay together at least for awhile after the human body is no longer suitable as a conductor of this type of energy? And is it so unreasonable that this energy, clustered together, if it wanted to remain clustered together and needed another suitable conductor to stay with its grouping of energy - would not enter another host if available?