This is not to say you're wrong (by any means!). It's just to say that we'd need to have a really long discussion before getting to the part where we discuss plausibility. I actually find the concept of reincarnation fascinating -- especially temporally nonlinear versions, where e.g. a past life might happen in a future year. One's consciousness might read about historical events that it will "later" participate in. Could lead to some interesting fiction if nothing else.
It unfortunately seems to take a while to get to the part that's interesting.
Lately I was thinking, why don't I feel more anger right now at past me or future me? Like you say, those could be seen as different people than me.
Past me made present me fat. Future me implicitly prevents me from enjoying this cake by pressuring me to do things that won't result with him also being fat.
When I start work in the morning, I've been assigned a task according to the goals of past me. Why should I care what that guy wanted? I want to play Elden Ring. Ah but there's future me again, mad that he can't play Elden Ring because he had to rush to finish work I was supposed to do. Well fuck that guy, I might die of an aneurysm before his time, then none of us get to play videogames!
But I don't really feel mad at past or future me because I recognize them as me and our goals are mostly consistently aligned. I'm thinking that my identity and Mind is very deeply rooted in the Time dimension, though not clear on all the implications there. I do at least feel that memory is a critical part of Mind. The continuation of my memory timeline seems most likely to be what Me is.
'Mad' would be a misnomer, though. mad seems counterproductive.
The self is only part of consciousness.
I'm not sure how to fully reconcile this except to give up and say that full amnesia is as good as having died and "someone else" is now inhabiting my body, but that doesn't seem quite right.
Continuity of experience is part of what seems to make "my" consciousness mine.
Doh, I brought p-zombies into this conversation.
I even tried to click on the "further reading" links at the bottom
for example, my knees are shot. part of being me is having to put up with that, which causes a sort of pattern in my experience. were I to get amnesia, those patterns would persist.
He doesn't really address the question of reincarnation specifically, but I think you would still find it interesting. He challenges typical notions of personhood ("What makes me different from you is the physical continuity of my body over time") by pointing out that this is only a technological limitation. We could imagine a world with teleportation or brain transplants where this wouldn't necessarily be true.
My body is a tour guide.
It's related to empathy somehow. I think we're inherently self-centered, but that we also recognize ourselves within others, and don't desire suffering for ourselves, hence we don't desire it for others.
Also I've had a few moments of something similar to deja vu in my life, except it was the realization that I was the continuation of my father's life. And I catch glimpses of this in my children (though I don't believe they're yet consciously aware of it).
I've had it a lot with friends.
Realizing a part of me is them.
For example, reflections on how one's body ages:
The experience is always personal, but predictable and shared.
Hm, except that would require anti-consciousness to exist… On second thought, this makes me uncomfortable.
There are all kinds of possibilities, but that barrier of Death is a clear cut-off from my perspective. What’s beyond that? I for sure could imagine annihilation, too. After all I can be knocked unconscious.
For example you can't teleport to Mars. You can still choose what you want on your pizza.
But other Christians, obviously not like you, believe in more than a binary option for your afterlife.
This is one of the annoying thing about religions. Not all true Christians (even Scottish Christians) hold the same beliefs, even about something like heaven and hell.
I think it’s bad and hope that the Fourth Noble Truth of Buddhism is true.
It starts with: why do you have a first person experience from the creature that is reading these words? Why are you not having a first person experience from the body of Elon Musk (maybe you are, hi Elon!) or a particular sparrow in the New Forest?
And then, when your body dies, does that mean no more first person experiences again for ‘you’? Or, will some other creature create a first person experience for ‘you’ again (for whatever reason this current creature is creating a first person experience for ‘you’?)
There is no need for a ‘woo’ part ie no memories are retained, no ‘new game+’, no element of karma. Just the concept that first person experiences may not end with death of this current creature.
If this is correct - and we perhaps we should act in a way that assumes it is - what would be the implications?
Many creatures have minimal agency over their experiences. Humans are different, not just with more agency of themselves but of others - at a minimal level of their family and pets and immediate connections, but wider too esp in more developed countries and moving up the influence and power in society.
If you were a cow, you would look at humans and saying ‘if I was one of those I could impact this shitty situation’. Well congratulations, you are! How do you, as a first world human, use that power to mean that if you do have a first person experience from another creature, that future experience is…not utterly horrific?
That idea if embraced ties all living things together. Selfishness disappears - you might literally be in anyones (or anything’s) shoes in the future, so do anything you can to not deliver horrible experiences to anything. It’s to your own benefit! But it’s also a bit of an info hazard - you don’t want to be born into an unpleasant experience, and the thought of that possibility is unsettling.
Your view implies dualism since you are suggesting that "consciousness" is more than just the physical body. You don't need to be a Cartesian to be a dualist but you do need to be dualist if you believe that consciousness is somehow immaterial in that it can survive the body after death.
I personally have a weird intuition considering my cultural background: it makes sense to me that my consciousness would be “born” somewhere else when I die. This in contrast to most people of my cultural background, who either believe in annihilism or an ever-lasting afterlife. I don’t really understand why a little more people don’t at least find it philosophically (what’s the word?) plausible, or something.