So, go ahead and think I'm nuts, but I recall at least three ways I died in past lives, and have memories of life as an animal.

As a deer (don't know what gender)I walked up to a sleeping bear, reclining against a tree, I sniffed his legs and was met with a swipe of his paw that put my lights out.

As a cop in the 20s or earlier, I was chasing someone who ducked into a storefront, I stepped into the doorway and a gun was put to my head and the trigger pulled, I felt the bullet enter my forehead.

A soldier...I was in a large building with glass (a hanger maybe) and a large explosion carried me into the air with lots of debris.

Yes, vivid memories since I was very young, but also of a horse running...I felt every muscle of my legs, the wind, jumping and having fun. A wolf, fox, deer, and who knows what else I don't recall. My faith denies reincarnation, but in recent years I have to realize that for the better part of my life I was wrong.
In nature, nothing is wasted, why then a soul? And animals have souls.

I believe that we all have been here before, in different forms, that our soul merely assumes a different role in existence.
Some of us ignore these memories, suppress them, intent on forgetting that we could have been a lowly creature other then the mighty human.

Anyone else remembers a past life?

holy mother of drugs

No, but I like the idea of quantum immortality and that this is the only universe in which I've been alive for so long.

I like guns and turtle

You know, I always found it interesting about the idea of reincarnation is that reincarnation always had something to do with this planet. As in, people are always reincarnated into something here. A lion or a fox or a lizard or an insect or something. Why is there never reincarnation on alien planets? Alien animals? What if the world was completely destroyed? Say in a sea of nuclear fire or something, to the point that there was no life left on earth whatsoever and it's completely uninhabitable. What would people reincarnate as then? Would they just pop into existence?
Also, I had Thai food for dinner. It was very nice.

alirezatm said:
holy mother of drugs

Knotty_Curls said:
No, but I like the idea of quantum immortality and that this is the only universe in which I've been alive for so long.

Rustyy said:
I like guns and turtle

This basically sums up my thoughts.

There is still no evidence that soul exists. Or that memories could be transplanted past basic instructions inside DNA and rna, there is however large evidence that vivid dreams can easily encompass experience completely alien to the person and even feature different bodies for the dreamer, the brain is crazy like that.

Also, there has yet to be a reincarnation or out of body experience story that actually holds up against a proper science journal, all of those shatter when examined in a clinical trial.

NotMeNotYou said:
There is still no evidence that soul exists.

Well, I have yet to see any evidence contradicting the idea either. Other than "We can't see it so it's impossible for it to exist, and anybody who believes in the idea might as well believe in fairies."

I have been reincarnated two times.

For my first life I was a taco burger at Greasy Bill's Burger Joint in downtown L.A, I died when a obese Mexican lady devoured me faster than the speed of sound.

For my second life I was a obese Mexican lady, but only for a few hours, because I died after eating a spoiled hamburger.

Now for my third life I'm just a Swedish dude.
Halp.

Fenrick said:
Well, I have yet to see any evidence contradicting the idea either. Other than "We can't see it so it's impossible for it to exist, and anybody who believes in the idea might as well believe in fairies."

Oh, I don't deny that, but the burden of proof is on the guys and gals saying that there is a soul, it's not the job of others proving that it doesn't exist.
Yet there have been quite a few experiments trying to figure out if it exists but nothing came up, ever.

It's funny though how the 'regular' afterlife still has enough cultural cache to maintain credence among majorities of a given populace, as if it were somehow less ridiculous than any alternative

Phylax said:
It's funny though how the 'regular' afterlife still has enough cultural cache to maintain credence among majorities of a given populace, as if it were somehow less ridiculous than any alternative

Western cultures are largely Abrahamic, so I'm not surprised at all by this.

NotMeNotYou said:
Oh, I don't deny that, but the burden of proof is on the guys and gals saying that there is a soul, it's not the job of others proving that it doesn't exist.
Yet there have been quite a few experiments trying to figure out if it exists but nothing came up, ever.

The burden of proof is on whomever is making the assertion.

Not that I believe in souls or reincarnation or faster than light speeds, but scientific paradigms do change.

i think figuring out Faster Than Light travel would be easier than figuring out whatever the soul/spirit/etc. is.

in fact, i'm pretty sure i've spoken to some people about FTL travel before but don't remember the details. it's certainly doable BUT theres several major issues that would need to be solved before it'd work to any effective extent.

that's partly why i like the star ocean games so much. you look in the scientific section of the in-game dictionary and they talk about a lot of interesting advanced science stuff. i think it said in the...4th (well, the 360 game was 1st chronologically) game that they used a bubble of some sort to achieve FTL speeds. but like i said, i don't remember all the details so i'm not sure beyond that. i'd have to go and recheck all of it again.

Beanjam said:
The burden of proof is on whomever is making the assertion.

Not that I believe in souls or reincarnation or faster than light speeds, but scientific paradigms do change.

Yeah. Denying the existence of something is still a claim...

That's why real science doesn't have much to say on theological issues... you just can't prove most of them either way (yet).

treos said:
i think figuring out Faster Than Light travel would be easier than figuring out whatever the soul/spirit/etc. is.

in fact, i'm pretty sure i've spoken to some people about FTL travel before but don't remember the details. it's certainly doable BUT theres several major issues that would need to be solved before it'd work to any effective extent.

This is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

aurel said:
One side could not prove it,
Other side could not disprove it
When things like these happen, try to think up of a better use of your time.
Else: Punch the other side. :D

For once we agree on something (sort of, I'm not sure about the last part)

I'd argue that if your claim can't be disproved, then it is a worthless claim to begin with.

You say that souls exist. What's to stop me from saying "well, souls DID exist, at one point in the past, but then the invisible soul-eating t-rex brigade ate them all, and they don't anymore". You can't disprove my claim, just like I can't disprove the existence of souls. But that doesn't mean I should believe that souls exist any more than it means that you should believe in the invisible soul-eating t-rex brigade.

So yeah. You can, of course, believe in the existence of a soul, if you wish, but you shouldn't pretend "you can't disprove it" is any evidence at all towards it's existence. Because, if anything, the opposite is true.

OP did drugs
Wrote something illogical

FURRIES DISCUSSED IT




Infinitegrowth did drugs
Wrote something scientific (invention)

FURRIES SHITPOSTED

psh, I can rarely remember what did I do an hour ago

Clawdragons said:
But that doesn't mean I should believe that souls exist any more than it means that you should believe in the invisible soul-eating t-rex brigade.

You're acting like the people you're arguing with are children.

There's a lot in this world that cannot be observed. Anyone with a basic understanding of science should understand this

Fenrick said:
You're acting like the people you're arguing with are children.

There's a lot in this world that cannot be observed. Anyone with a basic understanding of science should understand this

In what sense are you using the word "observed"? I don't want to assume I know what you're talking about, so could you give an example of something which clearly exists and yet can't be observed? I think that will help me understand how you are using the term.

Clawdragons said:
In what sense are you using the word "observed"? I don't want to assume I know what you're talking about, so could you give an example of something which clearly exists and yet can't be observed? I think that will help me understand how you are using the term.

Pain, thought contents/dreams, the big bang (though we can infer a great deal), what the words of dead presidents actually meant to convey, the infamous spaces bug, much of the soft sciences.

Disclaimer: This post isn't meant to be taken seriously.

I'll have some of what he's having, because it must be some good shit.

Personally I just see it as another coping mechanism people employ in order to confront and accept the cold inevitability of death, but I do not begrudge anyone for believing in such things as long as one's religious beliefs are not used to harm or infringe upon the rights of others. After having survived a childhood riddled with strife, I've been unable to accept a belief in any sort of higher power; in my mind, if there was some form of higher power or some system of death and rebirth, the higher power was unable or unwilling to help me in my hours of need and the system of death and rebirth lead me to those sickeningly awful points in my life and they may just occur again next time. It is abhorrent to me. But that doesn't mean I think people can't or shouldn't be comforted by those things. I merely prefer to think of death as a part of life that everything must eventually face.

As for the 'incarnation memory' phenomenon, I believe that to be a result of strong belief in reincarnation in and of itself. If one believes something strongly enough then they are going to eventually start to, for lack of a better word, 'hypnotize' themselves into seeing or otherwise perceiving sensations connected to the common tropes of a belief. Sometimes I sincerely envy those who are able to do this, truth be told. Seems like it'd be neat to experience such things so vividly in one's mind.

I've never heard of reincarnation of animal to human before.

ElctrcBoogalord said:
I've never heard of reincarnation of animal to human before.

you've never heard of hinduism?

Munkelzahn said:
you've never heard of hinduism?

That I know, but I thought reincarnation, specifically what I've said before, was only limited to Hinduism<<<That's what I meant to say.

Now reincarnation in general I'm not sure if it's believed in all faiths, but in Abrahamic faiths (specifically Christianity) I don't think it's possible.

Fenrick said:
Yeah. Denying the existence of something is still a claim...

That's why real science doesn't have much to say on theological issues... you just can't prove most of them either way (yet).

The inability to disprove something doesn't lend any credibility to the claim. You can't disprove that there isn't a giant teapot inside Uranus, but that doesn't mean that this claim would gain any credibility just because of that.

Theological issues also were (and are) researched quite widely, but with little to no useful results which directly plays into the fact that whoever makes the claim needs to provide evidence first, before it gets taken serious.

So, yeah, I stand by it that any claim of existence must bring evidence in order to be valid, and that the inability to disprove said claim doesn't change anything on the burden of proof.
Nobody gets to shift the burden of proof towards the person denying a claim. Evidence or GTFO. (I always wanted to say that)

Also, this isn't an attack against you, I just view this inside cold and emotionless logic, and logic dictates that every claim is invalid until proof of evidence for that claim is supplied. This also means that "you can't disprove it" is simply an illogical argument.
If someone does supply proof that incarnation or any other spiritual or religious thing is real then I am more than glad to change my position, but until that proof exists I stand firmly by my decision to require proof before I believe anything.

Fenrick said:
There's a lot in this world that cannot be observed. Anyone with a basic understanding of science should understand this

We're slowly but surely getting ever closer to the limits of "reality", I for one look forward to the things that can and will be found, no matter in which direction the results will swing.

Slowdive92 said:
Personally I just see it as another coping mechanism people employ in order to confront and accept the cold inevitability of death [...] I merely prefer to think of death as a part of life that everything must eventually face.

The two are inseparable and by embracing both does one realize the vacuity of those platitudes which would deign to deny it. It's easy to see how people flock to such sentimentality in the face of grief, but it's not as if biological objectivity is even particularly recent....as Seneca said:

The whole race of man, both that which is and that which is to be, is condemned to die. Of all the cities that at any time have held sway over the world, and of all that have been the splendid ornaments of empires not their own, men shall some day ask where they were, and they shall be swept away by destructions of various kinds; some shall be ruined by wars, others shall be wasted away by inactivity and by the kind of peace which ends in sloth, or by that vice which is fraught with destruction even for mighty dynasties — luxury. All these fertile plains shall be buried out of sight by a sudden overflowing of the sea, or a slipping of the soil, as it settles to lower levels, shall draw them suddenly into a yawning chasm. Why then should I be angry or feel sorrow, if I precede the general destruction by a tiny interval of time?

Seems one could focus much more of their energies on this current life if they weren't so bound up about the next

What I believe is: Electrical discharges inside brain and heart - That's what all personalities are made of. Without power there's nothing left then biological material

NotMeNotYou said:
Or that memories could be transplanted past basic instructions inside DNA and rna

Very traumatic events can inprint the DNA. That can be transmitted to childrens (Of course not full memories of the event, subliminal at best)

Phylax said:
The two are inseparable and by embracing both does one realize the vacuity of those platitudes which would deign to deny it. It's easy to see how people flock to such sentimentality in the face of grief, but it's not as if biological objectivity is even particularly recent....as Seneca said:

The whole race of man, both that which is and that which is to be, is condemned to die. Of all the cities that at any time have held sway over the world, and of all that have been the splendid ornaments of empires not their own, men shall some day ask where they were, and they shall be swept away by destructions of various kinds; some shall be ruined by wars, others shall be wasted away by inactivity and by the kind of peace which ends in sloth, or by that vice which is fraught with destruction even for mighty dynasties — luxury. All these fertile plains shall be buried out of sight by a sudden overflowing of the sea, or a slipping of the soil, as it settles to lower levels, shall draw them suddenly into a yawning chasm. Why then should I be angry or feel sorrow, if I precede the general destruction by a tiny interval of time?

Seems one could focus much more of their energies on this current life if they weren't so bound up about the next

I don't think that a few minutes of debate regarding the afterlife (if any) could be regarded as a waste of time. Those who achieve may have some spare minutes to reflect on creation, existence and mortality without disrupting their vast contributions to humanity.

*Caution...reality time*

In my work I have witnessed death, some resigned to die, quietly, others fearful, and die difficult, for fear of loosing earthy crap, others of faith or some comforting belief... are satisfied and accepting of their fate. I choose to be included in the increasing few that hope for something more then oblivion, after all, in the end it only effects the person who's actually dying, and they shouldn't care what anyone thinks, they are about to know the truth, whatever it is.

But this is Furry! We live forever! Why concern ourselves with ancient philosophy and wisdom? Why bother with reality, we're foxes trapped in human bodies!

D4rk said:
What I believe is: Electrical discharges inside brain and heart - That's what all personalities are made of. Without power there's nothing left then biological material

Very traumatic events can inprint the DNA. That can be transmitted to childrens (Of course not full memories of the event, subliminal at best)

more biological stuff

But DNA can save memories. There was once a research study with butterflies. They trained caterpillars with special sounds. After the pupation the butterflies remembered the different sounds. (Impressive since there's only protein slime left in the cocoon first)

The only known possible way to transplant memories and/or preferences is through a heart transplantion. It's a very rare case that that happens, but possible.

The brain floats inside the butterfly soup, so the memories simply stay there because the brain itself does not liquefy and is kept intact.

Also, I'm pretty certain that nothing gets written in the DNA like that, the DNA and RNA are building structures, part of them are active based on enzymes present. The DNA itself in a living being does not get rewritten except in error, by bacteria, or when chopping it up to create semen. In all other cases making a carbon copy of the DNA is the prime objective of the cell's internal working.

I initially wrote a really deep and long post about my views on reincarnation and that all is one and the likes. Then i looked at the clock, its the middle of the night here, and remembered what kind of site i am on.

Before i talk about reincarnation, i really should get a life first ~.~

aurel said:
Only the brain,
electrical discharges in the heart are there only to keep it pumping.
----

"The only known possible way to transplant memories and/or preferences is through a heart transplation. It's a very rare case that that happens, but possible."
whaaaaaaaaaaaaat
no
no, this is just stupid to even consider.
Neither the heart has enough neurons to form memories, nor surgeons would bother connecting all that stuff, if such neuron mass existed.

But you do know that the heart has the 3rd highest amount of neuron like cells inside the body (circa 40.000), right? Containing baroreceptors as example. Its kind of an "enteric nervous system":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system for the heart. It's even autonomous to some point(Like the GPU on a graphics card). There's a research area called Neurocardiology [quote]NotMeNotYou said: Also, I'm pretty certain that nothing gets written in the DNA like that, the DNA and RNA are building structures, part of them are active based on enzymes present. The DNA itself in a living being does not get rewritten except in error, by bacteria, or when chopping it up to create semen. In all other cases making a carbon copy of the DNA is the prime objective of the cell's internal working. [/quote] One point is missing: Chemicals can change the DNA, too. Example: Every child knows that cigarettes causes cancer (cells without working apoptosis function). When somebody is depressed, has a lot of stress or a traumatic event, the body reacts with hormones (chemicals). A constant level of those can have a negative affect, too.

There's things that I feel like link me to past bodies, like how I like to chew on things (canine) or how I just flat out love to smell / sniff things, whether I know they're bad or not (also canine, and any other type of animal).
Could just be because I'm weird as fuck though.

furballs_dc said:
This is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

o.O hello futurama style space travel.

*loads up xbox 360 star ocean game* lets see here... the method used in star ocean is FTL travel by means of a subspace bubble. the in-game dictionary says, Subspace Bubble:

A method of attaining FTL (i'll just stick to the acronym on that) warp travel.

In this method gravitational waves are emitted within the gravitational field around the craft, constricting space in the direction of motion and expanding space on the opposite side (s you pointed out with you're wiki link). This creates a cycle of gravitational waves, enveloping the craft in a closed-off subspace and allowing it to travel at extremely high speeds relative to normal space.

pretty much the same thing as what you linked to overall.

as for the gravitational waves thing: The general theory of relativity states that any object with mass warps spacetime around itself. if the object moves in any way, these warps in space-time expand and contract, creating a waveform and generating what are known as gravitational waves.

so...taking into account the whole relativity thing, it's traveling FTL relative to normal space even though it's actually moving below the speed of light.

^^^
that's something i've always like about that series of games. they usually have an in-game dictionary explaining various things about the things seen throughout the game, including various tech and scientific theories like this. a lot of the stuff in those in-game dictionaries (the science related info) tends to line up with what's known irl too. mostly

Paradox: How can one be a reincarnation if they don't have a life?

D4rk said:
One point is missing: Chemicals can change the DNA, too. Example: Every child knows that cigarettes causes cancer (cells without working apoptosis function).

When somebody is depressed, has a lot of stress or a traumatic event, the body reacts with hormones (chemicals). A constant level of those can have a negative affect, too.

Radiation, chemicals, high temperatures or anything that can affect a string of proteins (technically also sharp knifes, probably something that'll happen once mechanical nanobots become available) can all affect DNA, but none of those changes affect the DNA passed down towards the offspring unless it happens in specific cells (the ones creating sperm or the sperm itself, or eggs in the female). So I didn't list those reasons as these type of mutations don't matter for our purposes.

You know, I like this topic, but it's existence perplexes me. I would have thought that this would be locked under the no-religion-discussion rule. Which means I don't understand that rule properly, I guess. Mind if I ask for clarification? Is it because we're not discussing any religion in particular?

Clawdragons said:
You know, I like this topic, but it's existence perplexes me. I would have thought that this would be locked under the no-religion-discussion rule. Which means I don't understand that rule properly, I guess. Mind if I ask for clarification? Is it because we're not discussing any religion in particular?

Probably because it's talking about a concept that's not exclusively religious and it's also not really focused on discussing the few religions which include the concept either. It could probably go there but so far it hasn't much, so it's doing ok. Sort of like how a topic discussing whether or not people believe in ghosts/spirits would probably be ok. But a topic discussing whether or not people believe in god/goddesses/deities etc would probably be too religious by nature to stay open for very long. The rule is more about things which openly discuss either major religions or major religious figures. So far this thread has stuck mostly with personal opinions about reincarnation as a concept and debating science. So unless it gets into a debate about one religion vs another's stance on the subject, it's probably going to stay clear of that rule.

Clawdragons said:
no-religion-discussion rule

The existence of this rule perplexes me. If we can have a semi-civil discussion about feminism of all things, I wouldn't think a topic like religion would cause much of a problem. I seriously doubt anyone here is a fundamentalist anything.

Beanjam said:
The existence of this rule perplexes me. If we can have a semi-civil discussion about feminism of all things, I wouldn't think a topic like religion would cause much of a problem. I seriously doubt anyone here is a fundamentalist anything.

Fundamentalism is a bit beside the point. You certainly don't have to be a fundamentalist to have a strong attachment to your particular cosmology. For example, I can think of a number of religious people I've known who really weren't fundamentalist, but they -were- (AFAICS) both lacking in critical thinking skills and having a strong irrational (literally irrational; this is a description not a criticism) attachment to the idea that there was a god. I've also met atheists who I would describe in a similar way.

Among people who have more nuanced views, IME there still tends to be a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle sniping, even between people whose views are, to an spectator, near identical.

Personally, even if we could have a religion thread, I would hope nobody would participate in it, because I sincerely believe that getting involved in that kind of politicking makes people feel like it is okay to say things which are both profoundly stupid and obviously wrong, just to score points off their 'enemy'. Even those who hold themselves to a higher standard tend to just be nasty in as objective a way as possible.

NotMeNotYou said:
Radiation, chemicals, high temperatures or anything that can affect a string of proteins (technically also sharp knifes, probably something that'll happen once mechanical nanobots become available) can all affect DNA, but none of those changes affect the DNA passed down towards the offspring unless it happens in specific cells (the ones creating sperm or the sperm itself, or eggs in the female). So I didn't list those reasons as these type of mutations don't matter for our purposes.

I did a huge mistake. The DNA itself doesn't change, only the access to the information on the gene segments get better or worse on the influence of stress. I indeed claimed something wrong in my previous posts.

But I was right with the fact that parents can give stress caused symptons to their offsprings.

In the end: Real memories don't get passed, not even subliminal. Only cells can "remember" the parent's stress according to missing access to genetical information.

I was probably just as angry and lonely then as I am now so not much interesting there.
But, maybe there's something in the bag for me. I don't know.

then i was a bear in the past and my soul was recycled into a human similar to a bear