I would call all of those “something like a soul”; an embodiment of your essence external to your physical body.
If it’s not an embodiment of your essence external to your physical body, then it’s difficult to really call it reincarnation, since it’s not you
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 22 hours ago
I see it simply as a continuation of experience after this current biological vehicle dies. I think that the idea of a “soul” - in the sense of there being a center to consciousness where “you” are located - is an illusion anyway, so the notion of that moving into another body isn’t something I’m concerned about.
Of course, it’s an abstract term, and people use it to mean different things, so in that sense, I suppose the transfer of your “soul” is necessary too. I just don’t agree with what most people mean by that term. Even now, the people who do believe in reincarnation assume they’ve already had past lives they can’t remember. So if “you” aren’t your physical body or your memories, then what actually remains? I’d say it’s the bare fact of experience - consciousness itself. The feeling of being.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
That’s the whole point of this post.
What if you do retain your memories, but your past lives were creatures that didn’t have the ability to form memories?
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 22 hours ago
Yes, but the point of my response is that I disagree with the premise. It’s a serious answer to unserious question. I’m willing to entertain the idea of something like reincarnation, but I’m not making the same assumptions about what that would actually mean.