#3 in Zen philosophy books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Zen Physics, the Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation

Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 1

We found 1 Reddit mentions of Zen Physics, the Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation. Here are the top ones.

Zen Physics, the Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Works with Windows / Mac / Linux / Raspberry Pi 4 (2020 upgrade) to create a zwave hub for control of Z-Wave plus and Zwave devices, Tiny but powerful
  • 1.1 x 0.4 x 3.5 inches in size and capable of controlling up to 232 different Z-Wave devices. package: 1x Z-Stick Gen5, 1x Manual, the others are not included
  • Can be used to upgrade the firmware of compatible Z-Wave Plus devices that can accept OTA / wirelss firmware upgrades
  • Compatible with Z-Wave enabled, home automation software including Home Assistant, Home Seer, Indigo 7, OpenHab, and OpenHab2. No software included
  • Z-Wave Plus certified. Certification number: ZC10-15060006
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.59083886216 Pounds
Width0.41 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 1 comment on Zen Physics, the Science of Death, the Logic of Reincarnation:

u/wstewart_MBD · 2 pointsr/OpenIndividualism

Thanks for that reference. Spaulding's paper was one of the precedents and contemporary papers I'd noted in essay Ch. 10. I don't know how many of those papers you'd want to devote separate posts to, here in the OI subreddit, but you might at least take a look at the other material if you haven't already.

That chapter notes the papers of Spaulding and Clark, which have now been mentioned in this subreddit. The other papers noted in that chapter are:

​

David Darling (1996). Zen Physics (Chapter 8: 'You Again').

​

>Abstract
>
>What happens to “you” – your self – when your body dies? What is the purpose of life? And can we realistically look forward to a life after death? For millennia people have pondered these fundamental questions. In this book I offer some possible answers drawn from a synthesis of the latest scientific research and the ageless wisdom of Eastern philosophy.
>
>I begin by upending our most basic notions of what it means to be us. The urban myth of ‘who we are’ is peeled back to reveal a strange truth: we are little more than narratives held together by a selfish brain whose primary concern is its own immortality. I point to clinical evidence that demonstrates how fragile and malleable our “I’s” are. I explore the mysteries of multiple-personality syndrome, left-brain/right-brain splits, and memory disorders, to unravel the greater mystery of why we evolved selves in the first place and to prove how easy it is to “change our minds”. Although each individual self is the product of a certain brain and as such changes over time and eventually dies, the fact of consciousness is shared and independent of the body.

​

Mark F. Sharlow (2009). Why Science Cannot Disprove the Afterlife.

​

>Extract
>
>By presenting these four ideas about personal identity or the self, I'm not arguing for any of them. Nor am I arguing for any of the four possibilities for rebirth. Those who think they have fatal objections to one or more of these ideas need not be too upset. I know that much of what I have said is speculative. (Critics, pay attention to the preceding sentence before writing.) All I am trying to show is that it is not out of the question for a later human organism to be the same person as an earlier human organism. Nothing illogical, supernatural, or antiscientific is required. These four scenarios for survival of death do not violate the scientific principle known as Occam's Razor; they do not assume any extra objects (like ghostly souls) or extra complexity in the physical world. (The only objects required are human bodies and brains, with all their usual properties and features.)
>
>Note that these four proposals do not add up to proof of an afterlife, or even to proof that an afterlife is likely. (I repeat: I am not claiming to have a proof of the afterlife.) Besides the four views of personal identity that I've hinted at here, there are other views that make spontaneous survival very unlikely. Examples are views based on the continuity of bodies or on the continuity of most of a person's memories. I am not going to argue for or against any of these theories here. I have presented the above four ideas to make one point: that we can't disprove the afterlife merely by stating that the mind is nothing but a process in the brain.

​

And of course there's my reconstructed historical precedent, found in Druze material dating to the 11th century. For example, Ch. 10 cites a 16th-century Druze text: Abdul Ghaffar's Points and Circles:

​

>Extract
>
>The talking Spirit cannot remember save through the physical memory.  It cannot think save through the brain in the body.  It cannot differentiate except through the distinguishing power resident in the body.  It cannot memorize except through the memorizing organ in the body.  Distances don't matter to it when it leaves (at death) one body for another, with no lapse in time in the process....
>
>The Spirit while resident in the body, participates in all its activities.  When it departs, it loses all factual material it had acquired in it.
>
>The spiritual advances the higher Spirit has gained, however, are retained....
>
>And it remains true and worth repeating that 'In this earthly life, souls do not know their past.'