weak and strong survivalism

I don’t know whether this distinction has been already made, but I find it interesting.

Survivalism states that conciousness survives bodily death.

Strong survivalism states that not only consciousness, but also one’s personality with recollections and values survives.

Weak survivalism states that only one’s consciousness survives, without carrying with it personality or recollection, thus without being recognizably like his previous embodied state. For instance, consciousness may be absorbed in some great universal consciousness (kind of brahman) or it may take another body with a new history.

How about low-moderate survivalism. That would seem to fit the data better. There are only a small minority who claim to remember distinct details from any past life. Also imagine if the pure consciousness in that other dimension all mixes together between lives in this dimension so that whatever survives does not come back in the same package that it went out in.

What to add? All is possible.

“Strong survivalism…”So you mean to say that an infinite number of memories are stored within the soul, and that the soul is boundless (capable of holding said memories, even if it is difficult to bring them to the surface). Ummm… no way. I like the idea of basically having a set number of souls (if you decide that they cannot die) because I can comprehend infinity numerically, but not otherwise. However, rebirth also has no proof of existence, and thus is shaky ground to stand on (although neither does any other practicing religion as far as I’m concerned).

“Weak survivalism… consciousness may be absorbed in some great universal consciousness”And mixed up so that .1x10^-10000000000000% of the time you would ever have the same consciousness/soul. Ok, I could go with that.

“imagine if the pure consciousness in that other dimension all mixes together between lives in this dimension so that whatever survives does not come back in the same package that it went out in.” Very impressive xanderman. :sunglasses:

“small minority who claim to remember distinct details from any past life”
And you do not doubt their genuineness? What if they were lying/disillusioned/lucky(chance)?

My own stance is that I find weak survivalism more reasonable than strong survivalism, because of the findings of neurosciences, though strong survivalism receives some support from parapsychology.

However, I prefer a qualified weak survivalism: this life, with its particularities, must leave some mark on the soul, otherwise soul’s existence would be meaningless.

I have to withdraw what I said previously. I said:

The word consciousness is a bad choice. I would like to replace it with soul.

Thus, I can hold that what is linked to the body and what survives death is not necessarily always conscious, but can be sometimes conscious, and sometimes not. For instance, I sit sometimes, and I stand sometimes, and I am distinct from both these states.