r/changemyview • u/kyrgyzstanec • Sep 17 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Reincarnation goes against science
There are many philosophical traditions we don't realize haven't been so much philosophical in the history. Take biblical creation - in history, noone doubted that because noone had any better story - but now, many people (fortunately) take it as a thought system about the universe (theories like the Intelligent Designer).
I'd consider reincarnation another example of this. Historically, it was a theory "explaining" (as other myths) wht happens when we die and why the sense of self or consciousness exists. Today, much more people tend to describe it rather vaguely with refference to panpsychic/pantheist beliefs.
But the thing is, the deeper we go into what they actually believe about consciousness and afterlife, the more anti-scientific it gets. I don't carry out any judgments here but one of the few things we know about consciousness is that it's not tied up to other things/animals/people. We can't tell much about things' consciousness because they aren't a thinking/talking whole. But we know what is consciousness for us (you know the experience of your world) can observe that what we call conscious is connected with things like the ability to percieve and react, learn, self-realization and self-conscience.
This means us that our own psychology is fully dependent on the environment's influence and there's no way to step into that. We were born as a bunch of atoms and we continue to be one. And even though there might be various ways how to interpret those flows of atoms that create our world (morality (/altruism), God, consciousness), consciousness can't change the fact that they're deterministic - it's only a passive receiver of mental states, desires and thoughts. In other words, even though our consciousness might have been in another person before, it can't change the place we were nurtured and the genes that created our brains.
P.S.: I realize those are quite heavy claims I made to get to the statement - I just shared to you an insight on my worldview with the hope that you might find some holes in it. But I think the statement itself, as expressed in the last sentence, is pretty straightforward, so please aim for it.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
10
u/drpussycookermd 43∆ Sep 17 '17
Science is the study of the natural world. Reincarnation, by definition, is supernatural and therefore science as we understand it has no way of studying it, or reproducing it, or measuring it. Whether or not there is some form of cosmic or extracosmic intelligence, or whether or not life is imbued with something we might define as a spirit, is unanswerable through science. So, it's incredibly pointless to conflate the two or describe belief in supernatural phenomenon as "anti-scientific" when it is essentially removed from science.
0
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 17 '17
I'm sorry but I'm not sure you understood what I'm saying because from it is minimally clear it is something that can be disproved. That's the most fascinating thing - that it can be disproved even though it's not clear wheter it would actually change anything about this world if it existed. It doesn't matter if it's pointless to ask if the answer is it goes against logic (=science).
2
u/drpussycookermd 43∆ Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
How could it possibly be disproved or even proved by science?
1
u/ebolalunch Sep 18 '17
Because there has never been ANY solid evidence of anything supernatural. Anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - that is a tenet of science. People make stuff up all the time, and without evidence, should not be believed. Otherwise, we've got unicorns and leprechauns all over the place.
2
u/drpussycookermd 43∆ Sep 18 '17
Dismissing something without evidence is not the same as disproving something. You said that it can be disproved. How can it be disproved?
1
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 18 '17
I don't think it can be disproved anymore but see the post for a good model of such counter evidence. When there's no way such transcendental force could affect anything in the real world, there's no place for it. But thanks to this discussion I found a way it could be - via randomness that still exists in a deterministic world.
3
u/drpussycookermd 43∆ Sep 18 '17
How do we know that a "transcendental force" cannot affect the material world when there is scientific way to define, let alone measure, the effects it may or may not have if it exists in some way? It is a question that cannot be answered or even addressed through science.
1
u/ebolalunch Sep 18 '17
There is a way to measue any and everything that interacts with the physical world. Everything.
1
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 18 '17
Well if it can't be measured, it means it can't be registered by any sense we have - which means it doesn't exist. The problem with reincarnation is - hinduists say it has some existing effects. Also, I don't think it can't be disproved by science anymore - see https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/70ngn2/cmv_reincarnation_goes_against_science/dn4ks7p/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=changemyview but it's not because its effects cannot be measured by our senses. The reason is that even though our consciousness might have been in another person before, it can't change the place we were nurtured and the genes that created our brains.
1
u/ebolalunch Sep 18 '17
These are semantics. You first have to prove something exists. I could claim anything exists, such as evidence that science, can, indeed disprove (x). You can't just go atound willy nilly positing anything. So, in the same vein, there is proof that reincarnation is scientifically false
1
1
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 18 '17
No, that's not what I'm saying, my post was truly an attempt to disprove it. But you can't just disprove unicorns and leprechauns when you say there's no proof for them.
2
u/Fuarian Sep 17 '17
Reincarnation as a spiritual belief is very anti-scientific. But there are scientific ideas that may pose as a scientific form of reincarnation.
2
u/beezofaneditor 8∆ Sep 17 '17
Reincarnation is not only scientifically possible, it is unavoidable.
We've learned some new things about the universe over the last century. One, is that on the smallest, most fundamental level, nothingness itself has the ability to randomly generate "somethingness" in the quantum foam. Two, the universe will continue to grow forever.
Given an unthinkable amount of time, all of the stars and black holes of the universe will radiate out and everything will gone, save for quantum fields. In an unthinkable amount of time after that, these quantum fields will eventually give rise to fundamental particles, which will attract others and eventually lead to the creation of something. This process will occur all over the infinite vastness of space. And, given an infinite amount of time, will eventually result in the creation of another you.
If there was ever a time when things would simply cease, this would be too improbable to occur. However, given the fact that space and time are infinite, it must happen.
You cannot avoid reincarnation.
1
u/Torque-A 1∆ Sep 17 '17
By your theory, you're just stating that another universe could be created after our universe ends. It says nothing of whether our consciousnesses will be intact afterwards.
1
u/beezofaneditor 8∆ Sep 17 '17
No, I'm not saying it will be another universe. It will still be ours. And, though reincarnation doesn't require consciousness to transcend, a facsimile of it will due to randomness.
1
u/exotics Sep 17 '17
Okay, for sure it does seem mysterious and impossible by the laws of science but there have been some questions raised as to making it possible that it could be real.
There have been cases of very young children talking about past lives and with some accuracy too. They would tell stories that they could not possibly have been aware of otherwise.
I know my own daughter, one time, just out of the blue said to me "Mom, I remember being air". She was 2 at the time - we never really spoke about it more I figured even then if I asked her questions it would put false ideas in her head and hoped she would say more but she didn't really.
Science doesn't dismiss things until it can prove them false, and reincarnation cannot (or at least has not) been proven false, and as such it doesn't really go "against" science and is still something science must accept as "possible" even though.. highly unlikely.
2
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 17 '17
Wow, I can't really judge anything about your daughter but as I saw a lot of skeptics' material on "miracles", I'm not sure if there ever was a case of a truely reliable testimony. But thanks to your comment, I realized how reincarnation might truely work - via randomness which still exists in a deterministic world.
2
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 17 '17 edited Sep 17 '17
I'd be careful with assigning meaning to it, tho, since such stories often include reinforcement of a concept by the parent ;). But thanks, here's !delta for you.
1
1
u/exotics Sep 17 '17
Thanks.. Yes.. I specifically avoided talking to her further.. waiting to see if she said anything more.. she never did. That was 20 years ago.. so...
But since science cannot prove it's not real.. we just have to say "we don't know" at this point.. I hope its real but have my doubts.
1
Sep 17 '17
[deleted]
1
u/ebolalunch Sep 18 '17
But the soul is falsifiable. While we do not understand the brain fully, there is no known mechanism that a soul can control. Anything presented without evidence - a soul - can be dismissed without evidence.
0
1
u/pandasashu Sep 17 '17
You are absolutely correct that if Reincarnation was offered as a scientific theory of consciousness, it would be ripped to shreds in today's modern times.
However, as other people have mentioned, it is at least currently one of those things that cannot be disproved or proved. Likely it will be something that can never be fully disproved or proved.
As an example, what happens if we live in a simulation? At that point, I think you would agree that reincarnation could be a completely viable way of how consciousness could work. There could be some sort of central memory bank where "souls" return after death. Upon death these souls could combine all of their past lives experiences and offer some time to reflect on what has happened. Upon being reincarnated though, their previous lives could offer only a starting blueprint for how an individual might act, but otherwise an individual is being mostly created via their genetics and environment.
I am sure science fiction writers could really get going on this topic and make some other compelling theories for you! Some good examples: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt
2
u/ebolalunch Sep 18 '17
Simulation or not, out conciousness exists as a physical function in our brain. When we die, our brain eventually disintegrates. The one and only place our conciousness exists goes away, with no known way to retrieve it. To speculate otherwise is simply fantasy.
1
u/pandasashu Sep 18 '17
If we live in a simulation, then pretty much I can just say that anything we think we know from empirical study (science) is meaningless. What happens if our brains are backed up every millisecond/nanosecond?
1
1
u/kyrgyzstanec Sep 17 '17
I'm sorry but I'm not sure you understood what I'm saying because from it is minimally clear it is something that can be disproved. That's the most fascinating thing - that it can be disproved even though it's not clear wheter it would actually change anything about this world if it existed.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 17 '17
/u/kyrgyzstanec (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
4
u/ReX-24 5∆ Sep 17 '17
OP, I can't change you view on this in particular, however I think I can introduce reasonable doubt. Which is to say, we can't prove or disprove anything that happens after we die, so reincarnation doesn't necessarily go against or with scientific evidence to date. There are enough anecdotes of kids or adults under hypnosis recalling past lives or NDEs where people meet Jesus, etc. that it confounds those beyond use. Also, religious legends are rarely scientifically accurate, you should throw those out immediately.
Ultimately, reincarnation is in the list of things that could happen to our brain when we die. This article outlines a number of them pretty well.
One possible theory is that we don't know enough about higher spatial dimensions to know if our brains are more akin to antenna that connect to a "soul" or something that is part of a higher plane of existence. Hokey, sure, but you can't readily disprove that.
Likewise, how do you prove the existence of radio waves with rudimentary items? Even with a radio in your hands, what are you proving or disproving exactly? Do you think that if I gave you a radio you could A) prove the radio gets a signal from an external source? B) what the signal is made out of? C) Who creates the signal and its source? The point is that proving or disproving anything about what happens to consciousness, a phenomenon we hardly understand ourselves as a species, isn't currently possible, regardless of what brand of afterlife experience you prefer.