samr

I cannot provide a successful positive case that consciousness can be independent of matter.

(It is necessary in the time between consciousness moving from one body to another). And I cannot think of a mechanism how the consciousness would "sense" a body to be reincarnated to, having no sensory information. Tibetan Buddhists posit that consciousness has extra-sensory perception at the time between the different lifetimes)

But thinking in basic principles - where does our consciousness come from, does seem to suggest it comes from a previous reincarnation.

A consciousness would have to be created EX NIHILO (from nothing), or from matter, or reincarnated from another consciousness.

I do not see how something can be created from nothing (if something is created FROM something, then there should be a reason why it is this thing that is created and not another. This reason should be interaction between nothing, and the conditions. But since "nothing", cannot interact, something cannot be created from it).

And I do not see how could matter be _transformed_ into consciousness. So, I have to assume it came from another.

And there is the issue of Mozart, for example. Where did his genius come from? I don't think genius can be "encoded" in genes. It is just not that type of thing that can be created by something physical. It has to be created by a spiritual process (spiritual in the best sense of the word. Like Howard Rork was "spiritual").

I would suggest in turn that you think of a set of conditions in which continued physical existence would be intolerable. Think about the mental and emotional consequences of the choice you are positing here as they are very much as metaphysically real as the physical existence that you are referring to as if it were in a vacuum. "Life", "man's life" specifically, is more than simply avoiding death.

If Death exists (there is no other life after this one), then survival is the highest value. Since without being alive no other values are possible to actualize.

But if surivival is the highest value, then all our values should be subordinated to it. Therefore, we should always choose the _safest_ route. Therefore, if a person has a choice of living a brave life that would involve risk taking (even the risk of dying), or living a safe life - he should always choose the safest.

If the latter is a bad way of living, there is no Death. Or there is no logic. Or I am misusing logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onthology

The Internet: use it.

What the heck is "onthology"?

If Death exists (there is no other life after this one), then survival is the highest value. Since without being alive no other values are possible to actualize.

But if surivival is the highest value, then all our values should be subordinated to it. Therefore, we should always choose the _safest_ route. Therefore, if a person has a choice of living a brave life that would involve risk taking (even the risk of dying), or living a safe life - he should always choose the safest.

If the latter is a bad way of living, there is no Death. Or there is no logic. Or I am misusing logic.

I think there is a strong argument in favor of reincarnation, from the existence and the non-physicality of mind. (Since mind exists, is non physical, and its sufficient cause cannot be matter, then it has to be reincarnated from a previous lifetime, ad infinitum).

I would somewhat be skeptical of specific reports of NDE - even if some are valid, obviously some are mere delusions. How do you distinguish the valid ones from the dellusions? If you don't have a valid tool, then how can you asess?

I think there is a strong argument in favor of reincarnation, from the existence and the non-physicality of mind. (Since mind exists, is non physical, and its sufficient cause cannot be matter, then it has to be reincarnated from a previous lifetime, ad infinitum).

I would somewhat be skeptical of specific reports of NDE - even if some are valid, obviously some are mere delusions. How do you distinguish the valid ones from the dellusions? If you don't have a valid tool, then how can you asess?

Before asking a new question, please see if someone has already provided an answer. Also feel free to reply to any of these threads with more specific questions.

If you do not find your question here, please use the forum's Search function to see if it has already been asked. Or, you can try using Google to search this forum.

Metaphysics

What is meant by "Existence exists"? Isn't that just a tautology?

Epistemology


Is free will an illusion? If we are made up of particles, how can we make choices? How does one validate volition? (threads: 1, 2, 3, 4) (keywords: volition, determinism)
Is induction a valid means to knowledge? (threads: 1, 2)
How does the choice to focus occur?
What is a law of nature?

Ethics


How can you derive an ought from an is?
Why not steal if you can get away with it? (prudent predator, threads 1 2)

Politics


Do babies have rights?
Is forced taxation wrong? How would government function without forced taxation? (threads: 1, 2, 3)
How would the Constitution be rewritten from an Objectivist perspective?
How would roads be handled if all land is privately owned?
How would a water supply be handled if not by a city government?
How could lakes and seas be privatized?
How should criminals and punishment be handled by a proper government?
How would prisons work in a free society?
Is intellectual property actually property?
Is preemptive war justified? (interventionism)
What is wrong with anarchy/competing governments?


Science


Does quantum mechanics violate identity or causality? (1, 2, 3)
What is space, and in what sense does it exist?
Is global warming or "climate change" really occurring? What effect are humans having on global temperature? (see also: One Minute Case Against Climate Alarmism)

Economics


Are we moving towards greater inflation, hyperinflation, deflation, or something else? (1, 2, 3)
What effect will the "quantitative easing" of the Federal Reserve have on the economy?

If anyone would like to add to this list, or if there are better topics to link the above questions to, please leave a reply.

1. Should the US have not instated the draft during World War II? If so, what do you think would happen?

2. Was it immoral for Ayn Rand to collect Medicare?

3. Are public libraries a moral evil?

4. Are Objectivists opposed to government issued fiat currency in principle?

5. Did Ayn Rand get anything wrong?

Not really interested in starting a shitfest this time. Just curious as to what the opinion of people here is.