What do you think of Reincarnation?

[monk-in-hell]

i wont say how but i am 1 million percent sure that both god and reincarnation exist
thankfully this life and this world gets wiped away forever when we die
in the next life i hope to be reincarnated as some kind of microbe

 

[grungy自殺]

If that was the case then i wouldn't count on being it the a peaceful insurance of knowing that you be in a different soul and continue on from the decease body that you where from

Because how you can be sure if there's a 1 in 5 (hell even 1 in 2) chance that you would end up in a different life that is 1000x times worse than the current life you have?

 

[fuewybfunsfoiceoi]

if reincarnation were to exist, then it would have little to do with the person I am now. Once I lose my memories, I would be considered to become someone entirely new. probably, no idea.

 

[Darkover]

You are obviously not familiar with the latest comparative research on the so-called "difficult problem of consciousness" phenomenon. It is interesting to mention the so-called Chalmers' (philosopher David Chalmers') five arguments in support of the fact that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be explained by purely physical causes. Robert and Susan Mais worked on solving the "difficult problem of consciousness" using the method of scientific analysis for more than 40 years. You can read more about the whole issue at the following link: https://near-death.com/near-death-experiences-solve-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness/

Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness

Claim: The "hard problem" asserts that subjective experience (qualia) cannot be explained by physical processes alone.

Progress in Neuroscience: Advances in neuroscience increasingly show correlations between brain activity and subjective experiences. For example, studies using fMRI and EEG reveal how specific brain regions are associated with perception, emotion, and thought. While the exact mechanisms are complex, these findings suggest that consciousness emerges from physical processes.

Chalmers' argument often relies on gaps in current understanding, implying that just because we don't yet fully explain consciousness physically, it must be non-physical. This is a form of the "argument from ignorance," which is logically flawed.

Many phenomena in nature (e.g., fluid dynamics or complex ecosystems) are emergent properties of simpler components. Similarly, consciousness may arise from the interactions of neural networks, even if this process is not yet fully understood.

While the "hard problem of consciousness" highlights current gaps in understanding, it does not prove that consciousness is non-physical or that it exists independently of the brain. Advances in neuroscience and cognitive science provide a growing body of evidence that consciousness arises from complex interactions within the brain. Extraordinary claims, such as those made by Robert and Suzanne Mays, require extraordinary evidence, which is currently lacking.