QueerCommie

I agree. I brought up no self because multiple people in this thread suggested that it could only be “them” if they had the same memories and picked up right where they left off. I find this implausible despite my agnosticism on the question of rebirth. More likely would be the same life lived exactly again from birth like “eternal recurrence” or the widespread idea of samsara where you will simply experience more lives without the memory of past ones (except possibly accessible through meditation).

The idea that it could only be “them” if they pick up where they left off implies that there is a self or soul that continues from their past through their current circumstances. Buddhists have ideas about general consciousness as well mind you.

If you are constantly losing this body and mind then maybe those aren’t necessary for continued consciousness. Buddhism posits consciousness like a flame passed from one candle to the next. Each moment contains no essence from the last and yet it is experienced consciously. It’s not all about seeing through identification (though that is what allows that flame to finally cease), non-self also means that everything else is empty. The concept of essences is just [useful] bullshit. Things still exist colloquially, this is just how things have always been if you paid enough attention.

Thus, I argue that everyone who is willing to consider this question should consider the theory of samsara rather than limiting their thinking with certain fallacious dogmas.

I was under the impression she was referring to dissociation, but I’ll leave that to her.

For my part, I agree. Sorry I came off as a metaphysical chauvinist or whatever. I’m actually known to speculate openly at length on philosophical topics many find boring, irrelevant, opaque, etc. I am in this thread because I have thoughts on the topic and am interested in the thoughts of others.

My understanding is that dialectical materialism is a powerful conceptual framework that has its limits when it comes to ontology and other speculative matters. All ways of understanding have their limits, but it’s worth investigating to find the limits. In this case I don’t see any conclusion to be drawn from the scenarios presented and am instead arguing for the Buddhist position of the empty nature of the self based on dialectical materialist epistemology I presume many of us are able to agree upon in some sense and consider. From the basis that the source of all knowledge is practice, experientially we know that all changes and dies, and quantum physics empirically tells us that nothing is the same from one moment to the next. Thus no self essence can be found. This has implications for this contemplation.

As a hyposensitive autist, thank you head chefs?

I like way too much salt and oil but my favorite thing is to just throw a bunch of vegetables and garlic and curry and tons of other stuff in a skillet. I don’t understand the appeal of pizza at all at this point especially compared.

The same consciousness that wrote the comment you’re responding to is no longer existent.

Agreed with the use diamat. Everything is constantly changing, constantly dying. Hypothetical idealist arguments are silly, it’s understood by quantum physics.

With scientific premises isn’t it more likely an identical “you” lives the exact same life that you did independently, rather than your consciousness picking up where you left off? Maybe Nietzsche was right, lol.

And you’ve done it. Independently arrived at the truth of no-self. You don’t have to agree, but if the truly discontinuous that is reality can appear continuous, perhaps this consciousness could appear continuous with another life (I am in no way denying the laws of cause and effect).

You don’t lose memories as you live this life? Is someone with dementia or amnesia a different person than they were before? Memories cannot be the basis of self, they are not permenant, and are not always referenced, and each new reference creates a new slightly altered version. There is nothing that can be truly called a self in the colloquial sense, just a vague collection of things artificially stabilized. From this basis it is fair to imagine you could experience another life with the same consciousness without many remnants from the past lives.

Now they’re going to start catching on to us.