# Newbie philosphy question here. I'm just going to jump right in. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2006, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115 "2006-04-25T08:21:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![noblebaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e274bd/32.png) [@noblebaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noblebaron)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/1 "2006-04-25T08:21:38Z")
Newbie Warning: Ok, I’m not schooled in philosophy or math or physics, so please don’t roast me too badly on this. I have a kind of theory on re-birth, and the best way I can express it is written below. I’m not talking about a soul or anything personal that survives a person’s physical death, either. My question is – is what I’m writing covered by some school of thought (or combination of them?) If so, which one(s) please? ## If you need any clarification, please ask. It will give me a chance to kind to better express myself. I was born into this world. I have consciousness. I am human. I do not remember anything before my birth. I will die. As far as I know, these things are true. What are the chances of me being born? Having consciousness? Being human? Being what I am, and not otherwise? Infinitesimal. But not zero. Time is endless. Therefore, even though I will die, A consciousness will exist again. On some Earth, somewhere. In a universe of infinite possibilities, it must. Though “I” will be gone: (DEAD… totally and absolutely ANNIHILATED.) By sheer odds, there will be an “I” again. There must be an I again. Not the “I” that writes this, But another consciousness—another experience of “I”. A kind of re-birth. Not a personal re-birth, because “I” dies. But certainly another consciousness that appears again. (This theory only works based on frail, human logic: If all humans suddenly became liquid spoons for five years, three months and a day, Then transformed into forkish orks for five weeks, Then grew rainbow wings and flew to the sun (but not that sun,) Dining on green lunar hamburgers made next silly month… Then I cannot account for this.) :dubious: * * * As always, thanks. -NobleBaron ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/2 "2006-04-25T08:43:52Z")
> [@](#): > > In a universe of infinite possibilities, it must. Neither the universe nor the possibilities are infinite. The universe is “only” 13.7 billion years old - barely time for 2 or 3 stars like our Sun to live and die. Nor is the “useful” lifetime of the universe infinite (although time itself might well be) - within trillions of years it will be too cold and boring for anything like life. Many possibilities are so remote that an observation period comprising the entire useful lifetime of the universe still yields a negligible probability (monkeys writing Shakespeare, for example). New consciousnesses come into being all the time - they’re called _other people_. Those other people simply _can’t_ be you - at the very least, they’d have a different birthday and family tree. ---
**Author:** ![noblebaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e274bd/32.png) [@noblebaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noblebaron)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/3 "2006-04-25T08:52:51Z")
Thanks for your reply, SentientMeat. Ok. So it is generally agreed that _nothing_existed before 13.7 billion years ago. So, we assume that the universe (aka everything), as we know it will disappear completely again at some point in the future, is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/4 "2006-04-25T09:01:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Ok. So it is generally agreed that _nothing_existed before 13.7 billion years ago. [No it isn’t](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743). There is _no such thing_ as “before” **time**. (In fact, I’d go as far as saying there is no such thing as _nothing_, and never has been.) > [@](#): > > So, we assume that the universe (aka everything), as we know it will disappear completely again at some point in the future, is this correct? Not disappear, no. It will effectively become ‘timeless’ again, since no _change_ will be possible (thermodynamically speaking). Time and change are interdependent (or even _synonymous_ in some sense). If the universe “before” 13.7 billion years ago and “after”, say, 10 trillion years hence was **exactly the same** as it was **at** 13.7 Byr ago and 10 Tyr hence, respectively, that would be _equivalent_ to saying time did not exist then. It is _not_ equivalent to saying there is, was or will be **nothing** then. There was no nothing-to-something transition. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/5 "2006-04-25T11:01:51Z")
> [@noblebaron](#): > > Time is endless. > Therefore, even though I will die, > A consciousness will exist again. This is where you lost me. I don’t really see where one necessarily follows the other. ---
**Author:** ![Staggerlee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/staggerlee/32/3134_2.png) [@Staggerlee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staggerlee)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/6 "2006-04-25T11:16:49Z")
> [@noblebaron](#): > > I was born into this world. > I have consciousness. > I am human. > **I do not remember anything before my birth**. > I will die. > > As far as I know, these things are true. > > What are the chances of me being born? > Having consciousness? > Being human? > Being what I am, and not otherwise? > Infinitesimal. But not zero. > > Time is endless. > Therefore, even though I will die, > **A consciousness will exist again**. > On some Earth, somewhere. The most telling point here perhaps is where you say ‘_A_ consciousness’ rather than ‘_My_ consciousness’. If the new recycled consciousness isn’t recognisable to the new owner, I don’t see in what way you can consider yourself reborn. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/7 "2006-04-25T11:23:41Z")
> [@Staggerlee](#): > > The most telling point here perhaps is where you say ‘_A_ consciousness’ rather than ‘_My_ consciousness’. If the new recycled consciousness isn’t recognisable to the new owner, I don’t see in what way you can consider yourself reborn. This has always been one of criticisms levelled at post-Kantian moral philiosphers - that the reduction of human consciousness to an abstraction stripped of all contingent attributes doesn’t leave anything left to be “me”. There’s a powerful British school of philosophy that insists we can only view consciousness / identity in terms of a specific, embedded entity, bound by temporal and physical restraints - rather than concentrating on a nebulous Kantian “being”. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/8 "2006-04-25T11:34:49Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > This is where you lost me. I don’t really see where one necessarily follows the other. There’s a couple of not-too-explicit assumptions involved: 1. OP assumes the chances of “his” conciousness coming into existence are non-zero. 2. Given infinite time, anything that _can_ happen _will_ happen. Assumption 1 reminds me of the old Star Trek question as to whether the Transporters actually transport people, or do they anihilate one person and create _an exact duplicate_ somewhere else… Assumption (2) could be true, although we’d need a few clarifications about what “infinite time” actually means. As far as this universe is concerned, infinite time is unlikely to be available. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/9 "2006-04-25T12:08:05Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Assumption 1 reminds me of the old Star Trek question as to whether the Transporters actually transport people, or do they anihilate one person and create an exact duplicate somewhere else… Or, of course, the old problem of our atoms continually cycling and recycling over a lifetime - it could even be said that every night “I” die, to be replace by someone else who _thinks they’re me_ because they share the same memories. _This_ is where **noblebaron** ’s ‘rebirth’ becomes possible - not by a random fluke which is statistically negligible even over universe-lifetimes, but by somehow _deliberately_ storing your entire memories and personality in some medium other than your neurons. (Of course, that might itself be no more feasible than Star Trek). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/10 "2006-04-25T12:48:48Z")
I doubt that you consider a consciousness identical to yours to be yourself. Consider the cloning problem. Somehow, I manage to make a clone of you that’s exactly like you, down to the subatomic level. It has your memory, your emotions, your habits, your **everything**. You can begin a sentence, however random, and the clone can finish your sentence exactly right–but only if the two of you have found some way to agree who will start the sentence (e.g., “whoever is standing closer to the ficus.”) You’re that close. Is that clone you? Your wife (or husband, or lover, etc.) is freaked out by this situation. She doesn’t want to have two of you: she only wants the one of you. Whichever one stays, the other one must leave forever. Are you willing to leave, since your clone is you? This will mean abandoning all your possessions, your friends, your family, and your lover/wife/husband. If that consciousness really is you, then you should have no hesitation in deciding to leave. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/11 "2006-04-25T12:55:24Z")
> [@noblebaron](#): > > Newbie Warning: Ok, I’m not schooled in philosophy or math or physics, so please don’t roast me too badly on this. > > I have a kind of theory on re-birth, and the best way I can express it is written below. I’m not talking about a soul or anything personal that survives a person’s physical death, either. > > My question is – is what I’m writing covered by some school of thought (or combination of them?) If so, which one(s) please? Though “I” will be gone: (DEAD… totally and absolutely ANNIHILATED.) By sheer odds, there will be an “I” again. There must be an I again. Not the “I” that writes this, But another consciousness—another experience of “I”. A kind of re-birth. Not a personal re-birth, because “I” dies. But certainly another consciousness that appears again. (This theory only works based on frail, human logic: If all humans suddenly became liquid spoons for five years, three months and a day, Then transformed into forkish orks for five weeks, Then grew rainbow wings and flew to the sun (but not that sun,) Dining on green lunar hamburgers made next silly month… Then I cannot account for this.) :dubious: * * * As always, thanks. -NobleBaron [/QUOTE] Welcome to the boards! Here is some stuff for you to research: ‘Reincarnation, literally “to be made flesh again”, as a doctrine or mystical belief, holds the notion that some essential part of a human being (or in some interpretations, any living being) can survive death in some form, with its integrity partly or wholly retained, to be reborn in a new body.’ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation) > [@noblebaron](#): > > I was born into this world. > I have consciousness. > I am human. > I do not remember anything before my birth. > I will die. Yup. Me too. > [@noblebaron](#): > > What are the chances of me being born? > Having consciousness? > Being human? > Being what I am, and not otherwise? > Infinitesimal. But not zero. Ah. Well now we can use mathematical probability to help. Firstly, **once an event has taken place** , the chance of it happening is 100%. So since you have been born and are who you are etc, the chances are 100%. **Not** infinitesimal. \*\*Not \*\* zero. You may be thinking about a time before you were born. In that case your chances are more accurate. Bear in mind that in (say) the UK National Lottery, there are about 16 million combinations. only one can win each week. Each gambler’s chance of winning is Infinitesimal - but with millions of entries, there is often a winner. This is mathematically to be expected. > [@noblebaron](#): > > Time is endless. > Therefore, even though I will die, > A consciousness will exist again. > On some Earth, somewhere. > In a universe of infinite possibilities, it must. We \*\*don’t know \*\* if time is endless. There’s \*\*no evidence \*\* that if you die, a new consciousness will exist. Whole species have gone extinct. There’s \*\*no evidence \*\* there is another Earth. Mathematically, since this Earth exists and the Universe is large ( **not** infinite), there could be life elsewhere in the Universe. If there is, we know nothing about it. Here is a serious scientific effort to find out more: ‘The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.’ [http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025](http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025) > [@noblebaron](#): > > Though “I” will be gone: > (DEAD… totally and absolutely ANNIHILATED.) > > By sheer odds, there will be an “I” again. > There must be an I again. > Not the “I” that writes this, > But another consciousness—another experience of “I”. > > A kind of re-birth. > Not a personal re-birth, because “I” dies. > But certainly another consciousness that appears again. There’s no evidence for **any** of this. In particular, the phrase ‘sheer odds’ means nothing. Enjoy your search for the truth! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/12 "2006-04-25T13:14:18Z")
> [@](#): > > LHoD]If that consciousness really is you, then you should have no hesitation in deciding to leave. Unless the first rule of multiple selves is that they _ **all** attribute primacy to themselves_. Thus cloning merely yields an additional _entity that claims primacy_. And no subsequent conflict resolution is possible by appealing to reason because both entities are _equally impervious to reason_. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/13 "2006-04-25T16:36:15Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Unless the first rule of multiple selves is that they _ **all** attribute primacy to themselves_. Thus cloning merely yields an additional _entity that claims primacy_. And no subsequent conflict resolution is possible by appealing to reason because both entities are _equally impervious to reason_. No, I agree that what you describe is a problem–indeed, that’s the crux of the issue. You can never consider another consciousness as identical to your own, because there will be a key difference. You’re number one, that other dude is number 2. If you truly believed that you were one and the same, you wouldn’t be ranking one of y’allas better than the other: the concept would be as incoherent as my saying that I am smarter, better, or worthier than I am. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![yelimS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/54ee81/32.png) [@yelimS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yelimS)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/14 "2006-04-30T16:35:32Z")
My view of this: My body is just a jigsaw puzzle, and my limbs, organs, tissue, etc. are just tools. They say every cell in our body is replaced three times during our first 21 years, still we consider ourselves the same person. The one constant is what we only can experience ourselves: our own consciousness. Although it is the brain (or perhaps our entire body, “collective unconsciousness”, or the entire universe) that feeds this consciousness with information, this consciousness still has to be something, and thus must be reducable beyond our experience of self: Even if there were no brain/ body/ universe to tell our consciousness that it was seperate from the rest of the world, the conscious would still exist, if not, where would the newborn brain find a consciousness to feed information? Anyway, I don’t know how well I can explain this on a Sunday morning, but I think the consciousness is the basis of existence and the only constant and whatnot. SO! If at any time “your” jigsaw puzzle was assembled again, whatever that might be (since our jigsaw puzzles change troughout our lives, but we still percieve ourselves as the same, or do we just think we remember that we’ve allways been the one we are now?), I’d say that “you” would be reborn. So, I see three options for what defines ourselves: 1: You are the smallest kind of particle, the kind the entire universe is made up of. Like all the other particles, your only attribute is being conscious. Just so happens that you’ve ended up in a brain, which keeps feeding you information you didn’t really ask for. 2: You are the part of the universal consciousness that has been asigned to all lifeforms resembling what you think of as yourself. Meaning, whenever any creature comes along with all the traits included in the definition of “you”, you are the part of the universal consciousness that gets to experience it. 3: There is no you, only one consciousness which experiences all lifeforms at once, but since experiencing any single lifeform also means not experiencing the not-self, each of the selves you experience are unaware of also being experienced by, well, yourself. I realize I’ve skipped a lot of definitions (In the sentence “you experiencing you”, there are really two different you’s, etc.), but I hope at least some of you understand what I’m trying to say. ANYWAY! I don’t see how any of my three definitions of consciousness rules out reincarnation. But the OP didn’t ask for my view, but what schools of thought says the same about reincarnation. Best answer I can give: Now you know my view, and if you want to check out some of the schools of thought/ philosophers that showed me the way, it’s basically different forms of mysticism, from Taoism to Spinoza, and you’ll probably guess I’ve been reading some hindu and buddhist texts, too. I hope any of this makes sense to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![noblebaron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e274bd/32.png) [@noblebaron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noblebaron)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/15 "2006-05-03T09:41:08Z")
Thanks to everyone for your insightful comments… as always, I appreciate your feedback. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2006, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newbie-philosphy-question-here-im-just-going-to-jump-right-in/354115/16 "2006-05-03T09:52:37Z")
In a biological sense though part of your body will eventually end up as part of another organism, hell flakes of skin do all the time, but thats not at all the same thing as your consciousness will ever be again.