Do you believe in past lives?

[Dawnstar]

Forked from "what is a soul and where is it contained".

This is a very good question. Do I believe a person has a soul. Yes I have to believe that there is more to my being than just the human side.

Now here is another question and I will fork it to another thread. Do you believe in re-encarnation?

I know a few people that believe in past lives and that they play into our current situation. Do you believe this?

[Janos]

I know a few people that believe in past lives and that they play into our current situation. Do you believe this?

Generally, no. I love the concept, but the vast majority of people (ime) who believe in past lives always have some famous person past life (if not multiple famous past lives) that make me extremely skeptical of even the possibility. No one wants to have been the guy picking up shit behind an Indian Elephant for his past 2000 lives.

[Dawnstar]

The friend that really believes it believes she was born male and female in her past. She was murdered once, and other times just lived a normal life. Never anybody famous. Or even very rich. And she believes that certain key people have been in all of her past lives in one way, shape or form. it is actually very interesting to listen to her talk about it.

Not 100% sure I believe it but it is interesting to think about it.

[Limper]

Generally, no. I love the concept, but the vast majority of people who believe in past lives always have some famous person past life (if not multiple famous past lives) that make me extremely skeptical of even the possibility. No one wants to have been the guy picking up shit behind an Indian Elephant for his past 2000 lives.

There are a lot of things that I'd love to believe are true for various reasons but do not in actuality believe are true.

[Varaj]

I believe in reincarnation of the soul in the same way I believe we are physically made of dead people. Or as I often say, "I don't believe in reincarnation I believe in recycling".

[mollygrue]

wouldnt be a bit suprised. makes about as much sense as any of the other possibilities. heard some interesting theories about all the lives are actually all taking place at once and interacting with one another at different levels--but i cant wrap my brain around that kind of metaphysics.

v.'s "recycling" idea seems very reasonsable.

[Maddman]

What Varaj said. One of the tenet of Buddhism is the lack of self, the idea that we are seperate independant entities is an illusion. So what is reborn? The same 'stuff', another wave in the sea of humanity. We rejoice when a new wave rises up and grieve when one crashes back into the sea, because we imagine that something has been created or destroyed.

[Northcott]

Sure. I wouldn't call it a firm belief, but it's no more or less valid than any other view of the afterlife. Maybe we'll find out some day that strong imprints can be left in genetic material, and we'll discover it's all 'inherited' memory... or maybe there's some kind of wonky spiritual/energy aspect to it. Dunno.

Can't say as I've really had any dramatic experiences on that front. The closest I've come is a handful of re-occurring dreams that stayed with me for years on end. Nobody famous, though. ;)

Those dreams are what lead me to doubt this myth that you die in real life if you die in a dream. In two of those three cases the dream terminated with my death, and it all seemed bloody real at the time.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I have a few people I've met whom I believed we'd been friends before we met. Maybe it was in a past life?

[Bagpuss]

I have a few people I've met whom I believed we'd been friends before we met. Maybe it was in a past life?

Or maybe they just made friends over the internet first?

[Pigs in Space]

Yes, I believe in it - I believe in the continuity of the soul, but the destruction of self, if that makes sense.

Pretty much what Madman is getting at.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Or maybe they just made friends over the internet first?I went to college with these fools.

[Sobek]

I don't believe in reincarnation.

I actually find the concept a bit repulsive. There is no meaningful difference between reincarnation and oblivion. I'm not at all concerned with atomic continuity, whether physical or metaphysical. I am only concerned with continuity of identity.

There is an image that some people have, of the afterlife being some sort of union of consciousnesses into a superconsciousness. That would fall under one of my images of hell, actually.

[Keeper of Secrets]

I don't believe in reincarnation. I am not suggesting that it does NOT happen (as that would be foolish) but I just don't think that is how it works.

Its kind of depressing but I have never had any kind of deep, meaningful religious experience of any kind. Nothing even close.

[obryn]

I'll give a firm "no" on this one.

I don't believe in a soul, for one thing.

I also think it's kind of funny how very few people were just average slobs in previous lives. :) Seriously, how many people were Napoleon in a past life?

I'm pretty much a materialist skeptic, and I have yet to see anything convincing to show me that the world works otherwise.

-O

[Northcott]

I don't believe in reincarnation.

I actually find the concept a bit repulsive. There is no meaningful difference between reincarnation and oblivion. I'm not at all concerned with atomic continuity, whether physical or metaphysical. I am only concerned with continuity of identity.

There is an image that some people have, of the afterlife being some sort of union of consciousnesses into a superconsciousness. That would fall under one of my images of hell, actually.

But what if that should turn out to be Heaven? If God is infinite, and to enter a state of Grace and gain entrance to Heaven is to become at peace and one with the glory of God, then could Heaven itself not be a form of transcendence where the sense of individuality is left behind?

If Jesus decried elements of selfishness and asked of his followers that they should think of others as themselves; to do unto them, to love them, to turn the other cheek -- does this not reinforce, tacitly at the very least, the notion that Heaven might require the abandonment of self-possession? And if one becomes that strong in their relationship with God, and God being all things, does this limit or reduce the concept of continuity of identity? Or does it make the continuity of identity simply a "bigger" thing? (for lack of a better term)



I hear lots of people saying that "if reincarnation is real, why are there so many Napoleans/Cleopatras/Gueniveres/etc". That seems really... selective. I'll be polite today and use "selective".

Out of the -- what... millions? Billions? Out of all the people in the world who believe that reincarnation may be a possibility, really, how many of those people believe that they were some dramatic and famous figure? A number believe that they may well have been insects at some point, due to fluctuations in karma.


I don't really have a strong belief one way or the other. It could be reincarnation. It could be that we pick up "memories" through some unknown genetic function -- or perhaps something more metaphysical. I've often talked about the idea that if the divine is infinite, it shifts the paradigm on how the world is viewed. If the divine is indeed infinite, then all things, times, places, etc are part of that -- and a sense of reincarnation may be nothing more than a flawed contact with that which is too great for our minds to fully comprehend.

I have had three dreams in the past, reoccuring over a number of years, that seemed exceptionally vivid, long, and detailed. I kept note of a couple of them in journals, but those are unfortunately now lost in the moving I've done over the years. At the very least, they could have been tweaked to make for some decent comic stories. :D

1) Late Medieval. English, I think. Minor lord of no real consequence, but fortunate enough to have a tight circle of loyalty among the soldiers. I was wearing very battered-looking plate and mail, hair was shaggy, beard was thick and black -- a pretty fugly guy overall, but with a strong, bellowing presence. Very hard-core military sense to it. The most vivid visual memories of the dream are flickering in orange torchlight at night, among rough-hewn stone walls, preparing the defenses of a shabby keep.

2) Whoops! Forgot about this one... so this'll be four dreams, not three. Late medieval France, perhaps early Ren -- it blends, really. French peasant. Family man. A craftsman or artisan of some type -- I had written it down at the time, but no longer remember. Just that I wasn't a farmer in the dream. Clearest memory of the dream is a gorgeous, bright, summer's day that should have seemed Heavenly, but the family was distraught over the eldest daughter being hauled away to be burned at the stake.

3) Old West. This one was an excessively long and detailed dream that I had a number of notes on, and had even done a sketch of, having a very clear vision of the faces. One cowboy among many; young, stupid, inexperienced, and probably very naive. Fell in love with a saloon girl, who was brutally beaten to death by a disgruntled misanthrope who believed that he owned her. Hunted him down with two friends: they flushed him out of the woods, and from a hilltop I watched him ride off, making a good escape of it -- until a good rifle-shot from the hilltop took him out of the saddle. It brought no relief, and what followed was a blur of drunken violence over perhaps a year and a half. Two at the most. Growing more quarrelsome, more bitter, alienating most with this collapse of behaviour until one last drunken gunfight finally gave the closure that was being sought. Dying in the street, choking on blood with the sun in my face.

4) World War II. Arguing with mom and dad over the war: mom in tears, dad screaming at me in rage, forbidding me to go, and me desperate to enlist with this old-fashioned, noble ideal of war stuck in my head. Ended up in Europe, peeked up over a rise to see if there was another sheltering piece of dirt I could scramble behind, and caught one in the head, clean through. So much for glory and noble deeds.


Probably just dreams. Maybe not. In the end, it doesn't really matter. :) There's the seeds of some good stories in there.

[Limper]

I'll give a firm "no" on this one.

I don't believe in a soul, for one thing.

I also think it's kind of funny how very few people were just average slobs in previous lives. :) Seriously, how many people were Napoleon in a past life?

I'm pretty much a materialist skeptic, and I have yet to see anything convincing to show me that the world works otherwise.

-O

I was a turnip herder in the mid 1700's... not sure what I was doing before or after that until this incarnation.

[doc]

There was a short story I read about reincarnation, this Buddist finally reached inner perfection and obtained his final form before accending to Nirvana, he was a cat.

[Sobek]

But what if that should turn out to be Heaven? If God is infinite, and to enter a state of Grace and gain entrance to Heaven is to become at peace and one with the glory of God, then could Heaven itself not be a form of transcendence where the sense of individuality is left behind?

If Jesus decried elements of selfishness and asked of his followers that they should think of others as themselves; to do unto them, to love them, to turn the other cheek -- does this not reinforce, tacitly at the very least, the notion that Heaven might require the abandonment of self-possession? And if one becomes that strong in their relationship with God, and God being all things, does this limit or reduce the concept of continuity of identity? Or does it make the continuity of identity simply a "bigger" thing? (for lack of a better term)

Oh, believe me, I've considered that possibility and really struggled with it. If there is anything that'll keep me out of heaven, it's that unwillingness to completely surrender self.

If I'm sucked into some sort of group nimbus but retain some vague sense of myself, I'll be fine. If "Sobek" disappears and I truly become just a piece of God, I will be rather unhappy. I don't mind being part of a whole and I'm willing to place others ahead of myself.

I see the complete loss of identity as equivalent to oblivion. If I am wholly joined into any collective at the complete and total cost of my own consciousness, I would consider a God who would do that to have destryed my soul, anyway.

If you smash the statue David into gravel it is gone, period. It doesn't matter if you add the pieces to the cement that makes the Taj Mahal. David is obliterated, and what made it unique, wonderful, and worth loving is no more. If God loves me, he will not grind my soul to gravel. A loving God precludes reincarnation or universal union.

[mollygrue]

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/

every snowflake is unique. a snowflake which is part of a snowbank, on an iceberg, at the arctic circle, during a blizzard is still an individual snowflake--it retains its identity, and is unique, beautiful--fearfully and wonderfully made.

[Northcott]

Mr. Durden! Paging Mr. Tyler Durden! :D

Sobek: Interesting line of thought. I'll pursue this when I'm fully awake and can give it a proper response.

[Varaj]

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/

every snowflake is unique. a snowflake which is part of a snowbank, on an iceberg, at the arctic circle, during a blizzard is still an individual snowflake--it retains its identity, and is unique, beautiful--fearfully and wonderfully made.


A nice sentiment just not really correct. It is highly unlikely that any two snowflakes will be a like but even more unlikely that if you gathered all the snowflakes together currently on earth you would not find two exactly alike.

[mollygrue]

A nice sentiment just not really correct. It is highly unlikely that any two snowflakes will be a like but even more unlikely that if you gathered all the snowflakes together currently on earth you would not find two exactly alike.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/

And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike

Contact Information

E-mail: kgl@caltech.edu
Phone: 626-395-3722
Fax: 626-395-3802
Address: Physics Department, Caltech 264-33, Pasadena, CA 91125

Kenneth G. Libbrecht --Home Page
--Professor of Physics at Caltech
--and Chairman of the Physics Department

[Varaj]

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/

And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike

Contact Information

E-mail: kgl@caltech.edu
Phone: 626-395-3722
Fax: 626-395-3802
Address: Physics Department, Caltech 264-33, Pasadena, CA 91125

Kenneth G. Libbrecht --Home Page
--Professor of Physics at Caltech
--and Chairman of the Physics Department

"It is indeed extremely unlikely that two complex snowflakes will look exactly alike. It's so extremely unlikely, in fact, that even if you looked at every one ever made you would not find any exact duplicates," says physicist Kenneth Libbrecht

Oooh this is fun. :rolleyes:
So you agree your basic principle isn't correct, they aren't required to be unique. Glad to hear it. Since original statement didn't require complex snowflakes when you are bored google for Nancy Knight of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Lets not forget to mention that once a snowflake is compressed with others to make larger ice structures it isn't a snowflake anymore. It is melted from the pressure and refrozen in a completely new crystalline structure. Your analogy really falls apart with your iceberg thing because that is exactly what Sobek was fearing.

[mollygrue]

V. i am having trouble understanding your thought process--i guess i just am not at your level --could you explain a bit?

i rather thought i was pointing out that even something tiny and inconsequential like a snowflake was unique --even when it appeared to have lost its identity in larger whole.

and i was hoping that

And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike

would be the substantiation to refute your comment that


A nice sentiment just not really correct. It is highly unlikely that any two snowflakes will be a like but even more unlikely that if you gathered all the snowflakes together currently on earth you would not find two exactly alike.


the professor believes that not only would you NOT find two alike, but that there never have been two alike.


to this you responded :

Oooh this is fun.
So you agree your basic principle isn't correct, they aren't required to be unique. Glad to hear it.

and i am not clear on how you take that meaning frrom what presented.


and as far as "not requiring complex crystals" --i was using a simple metaphor, not defining the snowflake in scientific terms. i shall try to be more specific in the future so that lack of clarity in my ideas will be lessened.


and as far as the snow crystals turning into ice--try looking at frazil ice crystals sometime. they are very individual and complex--even when they are part of a larger structure like an ice berg.

sobek did not wish "sobek" to dissapear, as i undestand it. crushed into gravel or lost in some sweet gelatinous godhead of souls-- i was attempting to indicate that uniqueness is something we dont always perceive, when it is part of something larger and yet it is still there.

since i have difficulty grasping the concept of all snowflakes, ever , being unique--i certainly cannot grasp the complexities of how this would work on a metaphysical level.

perhaps you could tell me how i might better have used the analogy?-- I was hoping only to offer another point of view not analyse snow. --

I am interested in hearing how the arguement should have been made, in your point of view. please explain.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I think what he's saying is that the "unique snowflake" argument has been statistically misproven.

[Varaj]

You went from snowflakes to complex snowflakes. That is called moving the goal post. You didn't make the google I suggested did you? Duplicate snowflakes have been found and recorded. Simple snowflakes for sure, but snowflakes non the less.

You claim uniqueness but the quote you gave only said you are unlikely to find duplicates for a specific sub-set of snowflakes. Those are two very different things.

As for the iceberg and frazil ice crystals, those are not snowflakes glued together. Those are new crystals made during the destruction of the original ice crystals. Snow falls and is compressed destroying the original crystals and allowing the formation of something new and different.

sobek did not wish "sobek" to dissapear, as i undestand it. crushed into gravel or lost in some sweet gelatinous godhead of souls-- i was attempting to indicate that uniqueness is something we dont always perceive, when it is part of something larger and yet it is still there.

I just pointed out your analogy was flawed, it didn't do what you wanted. You described a destructive creation process where something is destroyed to make it part of the whole. As for better analogy pick something that involves creation of a larger item without the destruction of the component parts. A stained glass window or a mosaic or a chandler, etc.
If you want to stick with snowflakes, go with snow banks or drifts not glaciers and icebergs since those destroy snowflakes in the creation process.
Basically pick something that actually fits what you are wanting to describe not the exact opposite.

You have a bad habit of mis-characterizing the truth you should stop.

[JavaElemental]

Actually, I got the analogy just fine, technically scientifically correct or not. :rolleyes:

[Varaj]

Actually, I got the analogy just fine, technically scientifically correct or not. :rolleyes:

Goodie for you.
Considering mollygrue's history of deliberate lies here at KT I figured I should set this one straight.

[JavaElemental]

Goodie for you.
Considering mollygrue's history of deliberate lies here at KT I figured I should set this one straight.

You, sir or madam, are being a big old grumpy-bear to Molly for no good reason. Here, have a hug. I hope you feel better soon.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/JavaElemental/Misc/bearthug.jpg

[Varaj]

You, sir, are being a big old grumpy-bear to Molly for no good reason. Here, have a hug. I hope you feel better soon.


Thank you for your observations. As always we here at GOM, inc. (Grumpy Old Men) appreciate any feedback. Just for clarification though:
I'm being a big old grumpy-bear to mollygrue for very good reasons.

P.S. Hugs are nice but polar bears are mean.

[Tetsubo]

I believe that reincarnation is an option available to those who have passed on. Not everyone takes it mind you. Mostly folks that had unfinished business or just really like being flesh and blood... me, I'm looking forward to the Summerlands and not being all fleshy... :)

Not looking forward enough to rush the process mind you... :)

[Northcott]

P.S. Hugs are nice but polar bears are mean.

http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

Some are quite pleasant. Unless you're a seal. :D
http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

[Janos]

http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

Some are quite pleasant. Unless you're a seal. :D
http://nifplay.org/polar-husky.html

You blamed coffee earlier in the NWN thread, what's your excuse this time?

:p

[Snatch]

What Varaj said. One of the tenet of Buddhism is the lack of self, the idea that we are seperate independant entities is an illusion. So what is reborn? The same 'stuff', another wave in the sea of humanity. We rejoice when a new wave rises up and grieve when one crashes back into the sea, because we imagine that something has been created or destroyed.


Which fits well with established ideas on the nature of the universe. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore while a person's identity may be considered "data" and a person's death "erases" the data, it's quintessential makeup (some type of energy) is simply returned to the cosmos. As Varaj put it 'recycling' is very much a plausible reality.

But I agree with Sobek, the difference between the 'recycling' scenario and oblivion is a matter of semantics.

[Varaj]

But I agree with Sobek, the difference between the 'recycling' scenario and oblivion is a matter of semantics.

In general I would agree, but I also believe that fragmented bleed through is possible. Kind of like how with a painted over canvas you might see a bit of what is behind, except this canvas is stitched together of thousands of little bits of other canvas each having been stitched together of thousands of little bits of other canvas all having been painted over thousands of times usually in colors not visible to humans. :)

[Northcott]

You blamed coffee earlier in the NWN thread, what's your excuse this time?

:p

...

...Ummmm... coffee?

Fucker.



Varaj: I might even go so far as to say "not normally visible to humans". My hunch is that our abilities for perception go beyond the current limits of our science -- or rather, the limit of our ability to scientifically explain a phenomenon. We're still discovering the amazing sensory abilities of other creatures in the animal kingdom -- the ability of sharks to sense motion in the water, the ability of some dogs to sense epileptic fits before they strike, etc.

If what we are bleeds out into the universe and becomes a part of the greater tapestry, who's to say that some people aren't wired to tap into a part of that? It would make sense that the data would be incomplete, and would even explain this notion where multiple people view themselves as the reincarnation of (fill in your favourite historical celebrity here).

[Varaj]

...

...Ummmm... coffee?

Fucker.



Varaj: I might even go so far as to say "not normally visible to humans". My hunch is that our abilities for perception go beyond the current limits of our science -- or rather, the limit of our ability to scientifically explain a phenomenon. We're still discovering the amazing sensory abilities of other creatures in the animal kingdom -- the ability of sharks to sense motion in the water, the ability of some dogs to sense epileptic fits before they strike, etc.

If what we are bleeds out into the universe and becomes a part of the greater tapestry, who's to say that some people aren't wired to tap into a part of that? It would make sense that the data would be incomplete, and would even explain this notion where multiple people view themselves as the reincarnation of (fill in your favourite historical celebrity here).

Fair enough. :)

[Northcott]

Not saying that I believe in that particular strand, but it makes for some interesting thoughts. :)

[Snatch]

In general I would agree, but I also believe that fragmented bleed through is possible. Kind of like how with a painted over canvas you might see a bit of what is behind, except this canvas is stitched together of thousands of little bits of other canvas each having been stitched together of thousands of little bits of other canvas all having been painted over thousands of times usually in colors not visible to humans. :)


Definitely possible but really, how would someone prove such a scenario. It has a nice poetic feel to it though.

[Harry]

First foray into this thread... but nope. I don't believe in past lives.

I do, however, think there is something to be said for some sort of subliminal historical memory or influence, and I've puttered about on the line of thought since I was a teen. Carl Jung put that in my head, damn him to heck, and it won't go away.

[Northcott]

First foray into this thread... but nope. I don't believe in past lives.

I do, however, think there is something to be said for some sort of subliminal historical memory or influence, and I've puttered about on the line of thought since I was a teen. Carl Jung put that in my head, damn him to heck, and it won't go away.

I haven't read Jung. By "subliminal historical memory or influence" -- do you mean people learning more about history than they realize, and so the mind plays a trick in how those subconscious memories are dredged up? Or is it something more esoteric; such as the notion of a "DNA memory", or some sort of vast social consciousness?

And if one of the latter, where is the line of demarcation? At what point, if on some level we're all connected and drawing from the same pool, do we say "that's not a past life", and where do we begin to say "that's a past life, but it's not mine alone"?



Definitely possible but really, how would someone prove such a scenario. It has a nice poetic feel to it though.

I believe that the "supernatural" is just the natural that we've yet to discover, and that the truth of things is likely more complex than the simplistic answers that some would seem to reach for. If a theory such as Varaj's is correct, my feeling is that mankind will likely eventually discover a way to track and explore the knowledge behind it -- presuming we should live so long.