Magnus (2024-10-27 03:30:03), category: cosmos

Hello Ove

I the case of reincarnation, could it not be the case that memories could possibly be inherited? This would explain many of the insanely accurate stories beeing explored by people like Jim Tucker Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences.

Cheers Magnus

Ove (2024-11-02 07:37:36, updated 2024-11-02 07:38:26)

By inherited, you mean genetically? I have previously mentioned that some people (e.g. Dalai Lama) are free to remember the earlier lives of their soul (although most people don’t because they’re supposed to immerse themselves in their current role). However, having memories encoded in genes would pretty much mean Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was right, and science has pretty much disproven that. So it seems the only possible source of memories beyond the current life, must be supernatural, i.e. from the soul.

Anonymous (2024-06-14 03:01:50), category: cosmos

Hei, tenker du at inkarnasjon kan være er en mekanisme for læring eller utvikling? Jeg har lest at oppfatningen i tibetansk buddhisme er at vi ikke husker våre tidligere liv (mens vi lever dette livet), men at vi kan få innblikk i tidligere liv etter døden i et slags mellomstadie("bardo"). For meg gir det ikke mening å lære samtidig som man ikke husker det man tidligere har lært. Er meningen at vi skal lære hvordan vi lærer?

Ove (2024-06-14 03:25:53, updated 2024-06-14 06:38:05)

Her gjør du et par antagelser.
1. Du antar at det alltid gir mening å huske, men det gjør det ikke. Når man gjenfødes, vil man ofte få tildelt en rolle man ikke har hatt før. Hvis du husker tidligere roller, vil du kanskje falle tilbake til dem, i stedet for å fordype deg i din nye rolle. I slike situasjoner må du altså glemme dine tidligere erfaringer, for å fullt ut kunne tilegne deg dine nye. (Men selvfølgelig finnes det også roller hvor man får lov å huske, som f.eks. hvis man er Dalai Lama eller noe.)
2. Du antar at læringen det er snakk om, gjøres med hodet. Det gjør det som regel heller ikke. Læringen vi snakker om her, gjøres med det vi kaller hjertet. Og de som hører på sitt hjerte, de vil ofte merke at hjertet faktisk husker. Hjertet bruker det den har lært til å hjelpe til med livet så godt den kan. Men da må altså hodet, som ikke husker, være villig til å høre på hjertet.

Tor Chr. Dingstad (2023-11-05 15:15:09), category: cosmos

Jeg har lest noen av Secharia Stichins bøker der Sitchin prøver å gi oss en helhetlig oppstilling av menneskets historie. Hvordan og hvorfor mennesket oppstod. Sitchin sier at hans kunnskap kommer fra oversettelse av kileskrift fra det Sumerske riket. Han skriver at Sumererne mente at de hadde fått all sin kunnskap fra gudene ( Anunnakiene) som kom fra verdensrummet. Jeg synes menneskets opphav, hensikt og historie blir forståelig hvis man kan legge Sitchins historie til grund. Har du noe synspunkt på dette som du ønsker å dele med meg?

Ove (2024-06-13 18:55:02, updated 2024-06-14 01:00:43)

Det at noe blir forståelig er på ingen måte et argument for at det er riktig. Argumenter av den typen kalles “argument fra uvitenhet”, eller “argument from incredulity”. Jeg tror ikke det er det som er argumentet ditt her, men jeg tror uansett det er viktig å innse at det er veldig individuelt hva som er forståelig og hva som ikke er det, og at det derfor finnes mange forskjellige perspektiver, og magefølelsen er ofte ikke god nok til å finne den riktige. Så hvis man virkelig vil vite sikkert, må man basere seg på det man har bevis for.

Det betyr ikke nødvendigvis at det sumererne hevder er helt feil, men de så ting på sin måte, og det finnes et større bilde. Svarene på hva som egentlig har hendt med menneskeheten involverer nok mange flere faktorer enn bare dette..

Magnus (2023-04-14 13:39:58), category: cosmos

Hello Ove

Jim Tucker Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Thinks that quantum mechanics can prove reincarnation.

Here is link to the discussion. Starts from about 36:37

https://youtu.be/jG4a8f46w2E

Could this be reasonable?

Cheers Magnus

Ove (2024-06-13 18:27:35, updated 2024-06-14 00:46:12)

No, at least not the way you phrase the question. By itself, quantum mechanics can’t prove much of anything beyond itself, that’s not how it works. To scientifically “prove” something, you need observable evidence of it (and even then you can never prove anything with 100% certainty, because there’s always a chance of flaws in your evidence). That is, evidence is used to prove the correctness of quantum mechanics, not the other way around. Once proven, it can obviously be used for technological applications such as making computer chips and whatnot, but it can’t by itself prove something bigger than itself, much less metaphysical claims like this. So, to prove reincarnation, it would make sense to use data such as near-death experiences and people remembering their past lives in a verifiable way, but quantum mechanics as a theory won’t help you. If anything, it’d be an obstacle: you’d have to either show that reincarnation doesn’t contradict quantum mechanics, or if it does, that there’s something wrong with quantum mechanics. (Fortunately, quantum mechanics has nothing to say about it, so there’s no inherent contradiction between these things. I suspect that’s also what he’s trying to say in the video. QM doesn’t contradict it, it just doesn’t help you.)

Magnus (2022-09-28 03:45:10), category: cosmos

Hello Ove
I read your answer to Allis Mind, where you say; <<Now, as far as I can tell, there actually seems to be reincarnation>> Can I ask you to elaborate a bit on this topic? I personally feel that this is true, but its just a feeling. How do you reason your way to this conclusion (or at least tilt in the direction that reincarnation is true)?

Cheers

Ove (2022-09-29 14:36:38, updated 2022-09-29 15:09:32)

There’s more than one way to interpret this question. If you’re asking how I reached this conclusion, it involves several personal things,which I would rather not go into here. But I can say that some of it is evidence I’ve personally witnessed or learned about while learning about spiritual traditions. This type of evidence is typically not recorded or written down because of its personal (and sometimes dangerous) nature. But in these situations, there’s also no reason to record it, because there’s nothing unnatural about it, it’s simply a part of the cycle of life that everyone knows about, and everyone has seen evidence of, and therefore takes for granted.

But what you really want to know, is probably how you can find out. There are a few ways, but the most straightforward way to find evidence of it that anyone can do, in principle, is with the technique of hypnotic regression, which might work if you know someone (maybe yourself) who’s hypnotizable and likely has lived more than one life. (To maximize the chances, choose someone who seems especially wise, as it’s likely their wisdom comes from having lived multiple lives. But I suspect you’ll find that the majority of people alive have lived more than once, anyway.) Then, through hypnosis, gradually try to make your subject remember their past, eventually going beyond the time they were born and conceived. They will then usually remember the “light” and bliss of the afterlife (or, more appropriately, the “in between”), and when you ask them to remember what happened before that, they may then remember a past life. Now, although most people won’t typically lie under hypnosis, you should keep in mind that human memory is never 100% reliable (the way it works, memories can get distorted in certain ways; essentially, the brain usually doesn’t record every little detail the way a camera would, and thus may later need to reconstruct details based on what it does remember, and sometimes gets it wrong — and, obviously, this problem may be magnified when asked to remember things that your current body never experienced). Be careful not to suggest things to the subject that may influence how they remember details, so that you don’t accidentally distort their memories. And it’s always a good idea to try to gather concrete details which can be used as evidence, such as names, places, dates, notable objects, and so on. Things that would still be possible to investigate today.

Even if you do get results, this kind of thing might never be enough to convince a diehard skeptic, they’re experts at finding ways to discredit any particular story (sometimes themselves using flawed logic, ironically). They tend to demand a level of proof that not even science demands for most scientific discoveries; thousands or millions of pieces of evidence from all over the world mean nothing to them. But, the thing about truth, is that it’s true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, and this method is at least one relatively straightforward way for you to investigate for yourself whether reincarnation might be real or not. (Or, if that’s too much work, you could also just look for books with such stories or something, if you like. But I suspect that’s always going to be less convincing than having seen it for yourself.)

ALLIS MIND (2022-07-06 15:30:11), category: cosmos

Thanks for replying.

Have you heard about Bernando Kastrup? Many videos on you tube. He's an idealist. Mind is all that exists. That would imply that we are all one mind., also we would never die.

Ove (2022-07-06 23:56:59)

No, I don’t think I’ve seen anything by him, and I don’t generally have much time for watching such videos without a good reason. What you’re mentioning isn’t such a reason, because that’s a very old idea. It’s even a fundamental belief of some versions of the Hindu religions, where Brahman is that one mind. Then the purpose of life is to live a good enough life that you will no longer be reincarnated, but through nirvana, you may finally let go of your ego and be absorbed into the greater whole.

And I suspect your inference is incorrect. For the sake of argument, let’s first assume there’s no afterlife. In that case, what would death be, on a fundamental level? I think it’d be the destruction of the “you”, right? Meaning the thing that thinks, has an identity, autonomously controls your body, looks out of your eyes, and has its own free will. When you die, that free will, that mind, would be gone. This thing has been given various names through the ages, usually some version of “soul”, “essence”, or “ego”.

This “soul” thing is important, clearly it can exist even if mind is all that exists. But if there’s only one mind, then it follows that your own mind isn’t a mind, meaning your soul is not autonomous and you have no free will, and this “karma” thing is pointless because you don’t control your own actions anyway. That seems absurd, so I think there can’t just be one mind.

Of course, you could instead argue that we are minds that are, or were, somehow part of a greater mind, we just happen to be a little detached from it for whatever reason. This is the more common way to look at it, as it makes a lot more sense. But in this case there’s a lot of minds, not just one, even though there’s this greater mind that’s made up of all us smaller minds, and we’re all part of that greater mind in some sense. More importantly, in this case each of these smaller minds can cease to exist. Even if its component parts (e.g. knowledge, experience) don’t cease to exist, but are just reintegrated into the greater mind, its autonomy and free will would still be gone when reintegrated. In that sense, it would be dead.

Now, as far as I can tell, there actually seems to be reincarnation (which is what you’d expect from a world where mind is all that exists), so your physical death does not necessarily imply the immediate death of your soul. But in principle, it’s still possible for your soul to be destroyed after death, and perhaps it might happen to particularly insufferable souls.

Also, in hinduism and buddhism, the death of the soul is even considered desirable, because life is suffering. In their view, you’re supposed to live a certain way so that your soul is finally allowed to die, and be reintegrated with the universe. You can agree or disagree with such views (we might know more about enjoying life nowadays), but it’s clear that in many ways, death isn’t necessarily as bad as we typically make it out to be here in the West. Perhaps we shouldn’t be as afraid of it as we are. But the idea that we could never die… well, it depends on how you define “die”, but by the definition I think most would use, I would probably not consider it true.

Knut (2022-01-23 00:42:44), category: cosmos

Har du noen formening om det finnes noen form for Gud? Tror du på reinkarnasjon? Jeg respekterer om du ikke ønsker å svare på disse spørsmålene, enten fordi de er for private eller av andre grunner. Men det hadde vært veldig interessant å vite hva du tenker om dette.

Ove (2022-02-06 10:33:53)

La oss bare si at jeg har opplevd for mye rart til å kunne si at slike ting ikke finnes. I utgangspunktet har jeg jo ikke særlig lyst til å tro på slikt, men virkeligheten er som regel ikke avhengig av om man tror på den eller ikke. Man må bare erkjenne bevisene man har fått, og tilpasse seg det.

Allis Mind (2021-12-08 03:39:51), category: cosmos

What do you think about the hard problem of consciussness. How can zeros and ones in our brain compute feelings and suffering.

Ove (2022-02-06 10:22:09, updated 2022-02-06 10:57:31)

I could answer questions like this in two different ways, both of which might be correct and true.

The first way is the materialistic way, where I could explain that there’s no particular limit to what you could compute with zeros and ones. If a machine is Turing-complete, then it can compute anything that’s possible to compute, it might just take some time. The things we believe to be uncomputable involve things like infinities and paradoxes, not things like feelings. Feelings are reactions to inputs. You’re scared when you notice something potentially harmful, in pain when you’re damaged in any way, and angry when something violates your perception of what’s fair. In artificial intelligence, preferred outcomes are encoded as “utility functions”. An advanced AI might attach some kind of “feelings” to their utility function: they attach good feelings to high values, and bad feelings to low values of their utility function. This way, all feelings can be expressed as computations. (Note that in living beings, many feelings also have a chemical basis, as hormones and such, which can affect the brain’s computational processes in strange ways. Would still be possible to represent this as computations, though, just very complicated ones.)

The other way is the spiritual way, of course. Even if feelings can be computed, there might still be something that transcends the brain. Something that’s conscious, that has a sense of identity, “I am me”, and which is more than the body it’s in. No scientist has yet been able to pinpoint what causes this. They tend to assume, without proof, that it must be an emergent property of the extremely complicated system that’s the physical brain. It’s not an unreasonable assumption, I’d be inclined to agree with it myself. But from what I’ve seen, I’m not so sure it can really be reduced to that, as there are a number of phenoma that appear to falsify it. So, even if feelings might just exist in the physical brain, it seems your core consciousness (including some of your memories) could be rooted in a connection to something else in the universe. If the universe itself is alive, then our consciousnesses might be linked to its life force. (Although we still need our brains in order to exist physically.)

Rune (2021-08-06 07:27:16), category: cosmos

We, plants, the sky, The earth, galaxies, universe is made of different energy? Right? So if the earth was suddenly taken away, we would just be floating about? Or to say it differently, energy (we plants, other,) would be in that exact space at that time. But space is also energy. So if all is energy, is it possible to say that we are the universe, and the universe is us?

Should we be «nice» to for example the roadsign by the road, because it is energy, and that energy is in fact the universe, and therefore ourself?
Are we all connected? What are we?

Ove (2021-08-06 13:51:45, updated 2021-08-06 14:13:33)

It’s not clear to me what you mean by “different energy”, but if you mean their energies are substantially different from each other, then I’d say no, they’re not. In physics, arguably there fundamentally aren’t even different kinds of energy, there’s just energy, just manifesting in different ways. There are different forms of matter, but all matter is made of energy, it’s all the same. And if you mean spiritually, then the shamanic traditions I’ve looked at also say something similar: everything has a soul or spirit, including animals, trees, drums, roadsigns, the Earth, galaxies, and so on. Obviously, such things might not think like us, or do the same things as us, but the fundamental forces are not really all that different. We’re all made of the same stuff as anything else in the universe, we’re all part of it. But whether that means the universe really is us, might be a question you’re better off trying to answer for yourself. Some people might see it one way, others might see it another way, and every way to see things may yield its own unique insights.

Similarly, I think whether you want to be nice to a roadsign, or a tree, or whatever, should be up to you. But even if you don’t consider the roadsign part of you, your behaviour towards it certainly is. How nice you are to things, that’s you. Choosing whether to be nice will always affect who you are. And indeed, whether or not you can feel the universe inside or outside yourself, you’re still part of it and your actions will affect it, in some way. Always.

Magnus (2021-07-27 04:48:31), category: cosmos

Hello Ove, can I ask your thoughts on multiverse theory?

Cheers Magnus

Ove (2021-07-27 05:57:31, updated 2021-07-29 14:10:10)

Scientifically, there’s currently no way to know for sure, but personally I don’t really care much for it. For various reasons, I don’t really believe that’s how the universe works. For example, take “the universe is actually a simulation” hypothesis (which is getting quite popular). Based on my investigations into both modern physics and into spiritual traditions, I too believe the universe isn’t necessarily “real”. But if the universe is a simulation, then that simulation could only handle a finite number of parallel universes (probably only one) at any time, not an infinite multiverse. Thus, at any given time, I think there’s only one “physical” universe like the one we’re living in (although it’s possible that when one universe eventually dies, it gets replaced by another, ad infinitum). But, this one universe can hold more than we think, and it does. Much more.

[Edit] Another reason I want to mention is that the multiverse hypothesis is unfalsifiable (i.e. doesn’t qualify as science). So its main purpose seems to be to allow physicists to avoid certain difficult questions about how the universe works and how it came about. At the moment, it’s not really useful for much else.