• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Reincarnation

Status
Not open for further replies.

jugfingers

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
2,020
Location
kuu'lahngwntruhsks
Who here believes in Reincarnation?



When I first went to a tournament(oc3)

I had deja vu for like two days straight. A whole bunch of people I met seemed really familiar and I had a strong impression that we had known each other or had met each other a long time ago(in past lives or another alternate universe time stream in a more mystical land)


one of my friends was traveling in south america more recently and started having deja vu non stop for months, then met some natives who said he was an intergalactic time wizard.


but yea anyways

anyone get the impression that we have done this all before?
 

sammy p

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,385
Location
good ole illinois
i totally know what your talking about! i would really like to believe that there is something like reincarnation once we die. as much has a heaven sounds nice, id feel MUCH more comfortable to think that we live again. once our bodies die, our souls can live again on this earth or whatever
 

Teran

Through Fire, Justice is Served
Super Moderator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
37,167
Location
Beastector HQ
3DS FC
3540-0079-4988
I used to be white.
 

Thatfatcat

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
131
Because we ALL know that wikipedia is totally a reliable source. Right guys?
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.

~ Isaac Asimov ~
 

Jonas

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
2,400
Location
Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
Because we ALL know that wikipedia is totally a reliable source. Right guys?
at least it's more reliable than random guys seeing things.
And no, you shouldn't question Wikipedia. You should question Wikipedia's sources (and by this I don't mean Wikipedia is 100% reliable all the time, I'm just saying its articles are no more or less reliable than its sources and that it's a good idea to check these for a more thorough examination of the subject and for source critique).

Anyway, I don't believe in reincarnation at all, but I still think it would be cool if it happened. I'd like to be reborn in an age where the galaxy his being colonized or something :laugh:
 

Thatfatcat

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
131
Except that you can check all of the sources for the information on Wikipedia to make sure that it's reliable.
That is very true, but even the sources can tend to be unreliable. For example, I looked up Jim Morrison a few months ago just for ****s and giggles and it told me he got killed by a gypsy. The thing abut it was that it there WAS a source. It was a very unreliable one all togeher, but it was still considered a source.

I guess my point is that why would someone go through the time and effort to look up individual sources of a site that should be a legitimate source itself? Why not go to an .edu or an encyclopedia or even a book?
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Because Wiki is a good source to get some quick info or to explain a concept, because it synthesizes a lot of the information already out there in one convenient article. A large number of people contribute to and keep an eye on Wikipedia, and more popular articles are monitored so that inappropriate or improper changes are reversed and corrected within minutes or seconds.

Also, the page for Jim Morrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_morrison) does not mention the word "gypsy" or say anything incorrect about his death. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Anybody who disses Wikipedia's credibility has probably not done much college level coursework!
 

Lythium

underachiever
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
17,012
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Goldie speaks the truth. He cannot tell a lie.

Also, Wikipedia is the shizz, and a better procrastination tool than Facebook. It's my first bookmark. :mad:
 

Thatfatcat

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
131
Because Wiki is a good source to get some quick info or to explain a concept, because it synthesizes a lot of the information already out there in one convenient article. A large number of people contribute to and keep an eye on Wikipedia, and more popular articles are monitored so that inappropriate or improper changes are reversed and corrected within minutes or seconds.

Also, the page for Jim Morrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_morrison) does not mention the word "gypsy" or say anything incorrect about his death. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Anybody who disses Wikipedia's credibility has probably not done much college level coursework!
I think it got taken out since a few months ago. And the problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can change it and alter it. It's really not a reliable source. A man of your stature would understand.
 

Thatfatcat

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
131
No, my dear sir. That is not the problem with it at all. Quite to the contrary, that it what makes Wikipedia so complete and reliable.
It makes it so much more reliable? The fact that people can write opinions as fact on what is believed to be a reliable source? Oh, that is, indeed, what makes it so complete and reliable.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
@thatfatcat if you look at only ONE source as fact your a dumb ***. No researcher consults only one source. if you have a problem with wiki compare it with other sources. The same as you would with a news article, or .edu site.

Doesn't reincarnation imply belief in the soul? And belief in the soul implies belief in god. So really the question the OP asked is "who believes in a god?" And this will go nowhere. Good day.
 

Thatfatcat

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
131
Lol Peeze, I never said I did.

Lythium: There is a policy for everything. To put faith into the human race that everyone is a law abiding little angel is really sad. I'm very sorry.
 

Lythium

underachiever
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
17,012
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
If you say so. More Wikipedia for me, then.

But getting back to reincarnation, I really like Haruki Murakami's idea of reincarnation, though it sounds insane. I'll see if I can find a link to it that discusses it in more detail.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
It makes it so much more reliable? The fact that people can write opinions as fact on what is believed to be a reliable source? Oh, that is, indeed, what makes it so complete and reliable.
Repeating my statements incredulously is no substitute for an actual argument.

I'm sure you're aware of Wiki software and the ability to easily revert vandalism. It takes far more time to vandalize a Wiki page than to fix it. Which is by design.

Wikipedia is clearly and demonstrably the most complete encyclopedia ever to exist. But it is more than that. Wikipedia aims to provide free access to the sum of all human knowledge. It is doing well on that promise, and continues to improve upon it.

I also take exception with the assertion by some that Wikipedia itself is unreliable, but its sources are not. Next time you read an article, take a look at who wrote it. A great deal of Wikipedia is written by heads of their respective fields. (It should come as no surprise that the type of person who writes encyclopedia articles for fun tends to be very intelligent)



As for reincarnation? No, it's absurd. Don't fool yourself into wish-thinking. It is the lowest form of thought, if it can even be called that.
 

jugfingers

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
2,020
Location
kuu'lahngwntruhsks
Deja vu does not imply reincarnation is real.

It's also explainable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déjà_vu#Scientific_research
first of all it was not my intention to propose that deja vu implies reincarnation,

from wiki


Scientifically speaking, the most likely explanation of déjà vu is not that it is an act of "precognition" or "prophecy", but rather that it is an anomaly of memory giving the impression that an experience is "being recalled
This description of deja vu is not in conflict with my impressions of past lives from deja vu,
it is congruent.

in this situation the experience that is being recalled, is an experience perceived to be from a past life.

this wiki article seems to be at odds with the idea that deja vu is a precognitive event
which has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread. it does not even mention reincarnation

we are discussing impressions of past lives, someone was a cat, another lived in a pear

precognition and prophecy have not been mentioned.



again from wiki

déjà vu may be a form of familiarity-based recognition (recognition that is based on a feeling of familiarity with a situation)
again this is not contradictory in anyway to my experience. the feeling of familiarity is from a past life in this case.


the theory of brain seizures is also not really at opposition with this definition, as it is merely stimulating the brain electrically in an unusual manner, the proposition that this creates an erroneous perception of memory requires that the person proposing this theory knows everything that has ever happened in the universe and every possible manner of experiencing everything that has every happened in the universe......

As for reincarnation? No, it's absurd. Don't fool yourself into wish-thinking. It is the lowest form of thought, if it can even be called that.
wishful thinking? lol I guess if you live in paradise or something.... I don't think life is really that pleasant of an experience for the most part, death disease, suffering are quite popular

as for the absurdity of reincarnation

if you haven't gone outside and observed the world and the universe at large, everything seems to be cyclical.

from an analytical perspective reincarnation is very logical, if you believe that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is not such a giant leap to think about the continuation of some form of consciousness as a necessity, think about where are consciousness comes from? think about where life comes from? where does it come from??

nobody really knows the answers to these questions so dismissing ideas such as reincarnation as a mechanism for the renewal of consciousness/life as absurd is not as logically justified as you appear to believe.
 

Brick_Top

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
106
Location
Greenville, NC
Yes. It is. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Completely true. I may or may not have changed Yamcha's wikipedia page to say he had a superaids attack and it was changed back in like 30 seconds. There are more people dedicated to fixing and maintaining wikipedia pages than there are trying to screw them up.

On a side note, are schools still really strict about citing wikipedia? In high school you weren't allowed to, but I don't know if it's changed at all.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
from an analytical perspective reincarnation is very logical, if you believe that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is not such a giant leap to think about the continuation of some form of consciousness as a necessity, think about where are consciousness comes from? think about where life comes from? where does it come from?
Nonsense. The laws of conservation of matter and energy have nothing to do with this. There is no scientific justification to the notion of reincarnation. If you were to justify it, you would have to stoop down to the level of pure superstition.

But I invite you to try to elaborate on your previous hand waiving about how reincarnation will be a necessary consequence of conservation of matter.
 

victra♥

crystal skies
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
14,275
Location
Edmonton
Slippi.gg
victra#0
I missed AltF4 and Goldshadow. <3 Good stuff.

I really wish I could be reincarnated as a sloth or a house cat, but sadly I do not believe in reincarnation in the slightest.
 

jugfingers

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
2,020
Location
kuu'lahngwntruhsks
Nonsense. The laws of conservation of matter and energy have nothing to do with this. There is no scientific justification to the notion of reincarnation. If you were to justify it, you would have to stoop down to the level of pure superstition.

But I invite you to try to elaborate on your previous hand waiving about how reincarnation will be a necessary consequence of conservation of matter.
lol

hand waving....

sorry its just a funny image.....

"hey guys reincarnation is real"(while im waving my hands around)

anyways

the law of conservation of matter and energy basically states that matter/energy in the universe is constant, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed blblahahblah

now the model of reincarnation that I am about to propose I am just sort of going to postulate right now and may not be the model that other people believe, but hopefully you can understand my line of thinking.


now this model relies on the fact that a person is independent while simultaneously being interrelated with the rest of the universe, and also relies on the fact that space is not nothingness but is an inverted form of matter/energy or alternate form of information, this is a more complicated discussion but for the time being just assume that space factors into the constant of matter and energy.

these two ideas, being indepedent/interrelated and space being inverted matter/energy
reinforce the final and most important idea that a person is not only a conductor and transformer of energy but also a primal source of energy itself. basically meaning that a person holds an energy in him/her that is not merely the sum of the food/light that he has absorbed.

now this primal/independent energy is of course naturally pure and untainted by foolish human thoughts, but as the stupid humans that we are, we tend to, through our lives, transform this energy some of this energy into thoughts, and these thoughts are very strong, they mold the way we perceive the universe, but most importantly they mold they way we perceive ourselves. and this mold that we forge from our primal energy, this thought form is very powerful. as I'm sure you are familiar with if you remember your dreams, in our dreams we think we are a solid real person, just as solid and real as we are in our waking life, you might be afraid for your life at some point in your dream because of how real your thought form appears to be

thoughts if they exist, which I'm sure you'll agree they do, must also be part of the constant energy in the universe, and since they are a part of the constant they must be accounted for at the time of death.

and the idea of reincarnation is that these thoughts have been assembled together so strongly that they stick together at the time of death, your heat dissipates into the surrounding environment, your body decomposes, but where does this thought form dissipate to?

it is energy as well it must be somewhere, and wherever it is, has it remained cohesive?

in this model the thought forms that we create are so strong that at the time of death they do remain together in a coherent pattern.

and this thought form that has dissipated into the universe still has the same physical cravings and desires as it did when it was contained in a flesh and blood body so it is naturally attracted to the subtle or not so subtle energies produced by two humans having sex and finds a home in the womb of a recently impregnated women, or maybe it is simply attracted to a developing fetus and is able to find lodging in the similar biological structure that created the thought form in the first place, like a key fitting into a lock. and so this baby is basically powered by the same consciousness/primal energy that was lost from its previous human container.

but yea basically comes down to the fact that thoughts are a form of energy, and the ideas we create of ourselves are incredibly powerful, doesn't really have anything to do with an eternal soul necessarily . And also relies on the assumption that developing fetuses can absorb and use these thought form energy patterns ......nay require these thought form energy patterns to develop fully.

there! consciousness/thought form energy accounted for, and the universe remains constant

Hooray *waves hands*



phew that was a fun.....obviously not exactly how it goes down, but the energy has to go somewhere, we have formed a very powerful mental structure throughout our lives that must be accounted for after death for the universal energy to remain constant.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Have you not heard the phrase "hand waiving" before? It's an actual term. I didn't just make it up!

Anywho, that was an awfully nice try. But try thinking about this:

1) Consciousness and thought do not consist of matter nor energy. They are systems, and qualities exhibited by those systems. Thought is the combination of many processes in the brain including neuron synapses and chemical reactions. When these processes cease, they cease. There is no "lost energy" that needs to be accounted for. Not any more than there is "lost energy" when you turn off your computer.

2) Consciousness is controlled by the brain. This much is obvious. Try removing segments of your brain, and see how well your consciousness operates! So how exactly can the consciousness of a human be imparted into the brain of, say, an ant? The machinery inside an ant's brain simply isn't capable of complex thought.

3) To suppose reincarnation is necessarily to suppose a dualist worldview. A concept like reincarnation is just utter nonsense in a materialist world. You have to resort to an supernatural explanation. It is not your physical body which is said to live on after death. Because that is obviously untrue. It is your "soul", or "mind" which does. And these ideas cannot be defined in terms of physical objects. Hence my statement of having to resort to mere superstition to explain reincarnation.

When you adopt a dualist worldview, you inherit all the problems associated with it. Such as the mind-body problem. How exactly does the mind interact with the body? And then try doing so without violating causality. You'll find that it's not possible.
 

OlimarFan

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
790
Location
ACT, Australia
AltF4 just alt-f4'd jugfinger's theory.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

AltF4 is a synoynm of God.

Anyhow...(Mentioned before) I thought that reincarnation was the equivalent of 'hell', just as what the first Buddhism principle stated: "Life is suffering."

Do I believe in it? Yes, to be truthful. That is what drives me to fufill my purpose in life. But does reincarnation exist? I don't know. But I still believe in it.
 

XquiZiTX8X

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
65
Location
McGuire AFB, New Jersey
Reincarnation sounds a bit rad actually, and that's coming from an atheist.

Heh, if it is true, makes you wonder what would happen if humans became extinct or ceased to exist lol. Maybe come back as an alien or something.
 

jugfingers

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
2,020
Location
kuu'lahngwntruhsks
Have you not heard the phrase "hand waiving" before? It's an actual term. I didn't just make it up!

Anywho, that was an awfully nice try. But try thinking about this:

1) Consciousness and thought do not consist of matter nor energy. They are systems, and qualities exhibited by those systems. Thought is the combination of many processes in the brain including neuron synapses and chemical reactions. When these processes cease, they cease. There is no "lost energy" that needs to be accounted for. Not any more than there is "lost energy" when you turn off your computer.

2) Consciousness is controlled by the brain. This much is obvious. Try removing segments of your brain, and see how well your consciousness operates! So how exactly can the consciousness of a human be imparted into the brain of, say, an ant? The machinery inside an ant's brain simply isn't capable of complex thought.

3) To suppose reincarnation is necessarily to suppose a dualist worldview. A concept like reincarnation is just utter nonsense in a materialist world. You have to resort to an supernatural explanation. It is not your physical body which is said to live on after death. Because that is obviously untrue. It is your "soul", or "mind" which does. And these ideas cannot be defined in terms of physical objects. Hence my statement of having to resort to mere superstition to explain reincarnation.

When you adopt a dualist worldview, you inherit all the problems associated with it. Such as the mind-body problem. How exactly does the mind interact with the body? And then try doing so without violating causality. You'll find that it's not possible.

1) consciousness does consist of matter and energy....are you joking? to argue that consciousness does not consist of matter and energy is to say that consciousness does not exist... I think you are missing that everything in the universe is energy even matter..
the reason energy is not lost when you turn off a computer is because computers do not have primal indepedent energy, they relie on our energy to be powered.

this is why I was saying that humans are independent primal sources of energy, because of this exact human consciousness is only the product of a system hand waving...lol



2) first of all a human reincarnating as an ant is not possible for the reason that you stated, it would be like an trying to transfer all of the waters of the indian ocean into the ganges river, can't be done.

removing parts of someones brain, or damaging someones brain, disables them from using that part of their brain, doesn't disprove that consciousness can be imparted from the brain intact as that disabled part of the brain would be unable to contain that consciousness anyways.



3)hmmmrppphhhhhh!!!

superstition? really? superstition is something that you believe in not based on knowledge or experience. do you not experience consciousness? is it not your only experience?


materialist world view is an imaginary world view because the only manner of which we have to perceive the universe is via our mind. talking about physical objects outside of the mind is superstition lol.

thinking that consciousness is a product of your physical mind is logically flawed since you can lose any individual neuron in your mind and still retain consciousness, infact the longest cell life in the human body is in the liver, with a lifespan of about 6 months, all the cells in your body are constantly dying and being replaced by new cells, yet you still retain consciousness, as though consciousness does not really reside in these physical cells.

there is no part of your brain which you can say the consciousness resides in. you are mistaken in thinking that their is a scientific explanation for consciousness, the brain and consciousness are obviously linked, but the link is not completely clear.

there is no neurophysiological research which conclusively shows that higher brain functioning such as understanding, reasoning, contemplation, creativity is located in brain tissue.

materialists just assume that this is true so that their world view doesn't fall apart.


AltF4 just alt-f4'd jugfinger's theory.

lol haters.
 

victra♥

crystal skies
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
14,275
Location
Edmonton
Slippi.gg
victra#0
Don't worry bro, I ain't hatin. Just thought it was a good opportunity to crack that awful joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom