Before my birth was death, but now I am alive. Does that suggest life after death is possible (I mean rebirth cycles)

[consciousnessdualism]

My argument presumes the status before birth is equivalent to the status after death. I know someone may compare 'self (consciousness)' to an objective object (e.g. a chair, a computer, etc..), and argue that for the objective object, it did not exist before it was made, and it will not exist after its destruction (and will not exist again). However, my arguemnt is that - for the objective object, its existence only depends on subjective classifcation (e.g. its functionality, its appearance, etc.), objectively it has never existed at all right from the beginning (just a collection of components or atoms). For consciousness, the situation is different. A self (consciousness) either exists or not exists, its existence is objective rather than subjective. Now, for self (consciousness), it has already existed (objectively), and it (existence) can only come from existence (as nothingness always produces nothingness). Note my argument focuses on the difference between objective object and consciousness. An objective object has never objectively existed (only subjectively), so can pop out like from non-existence before it is made. However for consciousness, it objectively exists, and existence can only come from existence (nothingness always produces nothingness) - so the rebirth cycle argument may be true (from a non-religious perspective, it may or may not overlap or conflict with other religious point of views).

[Darkneos]

Short answer, no life after death. Make the most of what you got.

[Constantine]

Life returns in many categorical standards after death. Also during life. Consciousness in a species is largely a duplication of thinking found in others. You simply put aren't that original in most of your aspects.

[Darkneos]

Life returns in many categorical standards after death. Also during life. Consciousness in a species is largely a duplication of thinking found in others. You simply put aren't that original in most of your aspects.

In terms of new life being made then sure. Though it does depend on what you mean by “life”. Though I’m pretty sure consciousness isn’t a duplication of thinking found in other species

[Constantine]

Sometimes even that is. My instinct to freeze if I spot something in the corner of my eye is shared by a deer. Your debelief at my statements is shared by countless billions hearing statements from others. Consciousness is fairly predictable. Constantly being reborn.

[Darkneos]

Sometimes even that is. My instinct to freeze if I spot something in the corner of my eye is shared by a deer. Your debelief at my statements is shared by countless billions hearing statements from others. Consciousness is fairly predictable. Constantly being reborn.

Reborn or remade. I don’t think consciousness is fairly predictable though. Some don’t freeze at fear and some don’t share disbelief at statements.

You’re making sweeping claims without evidence.

[Constantine]

The scientific method reborn.

In a sense science is dedicated to preserving a form of consciousness across individuals and generations.

[Darkneos]

The scientific method reborn.

In a sense science is dedicated to preserving a form of consciousness across individuals and generations.

It’s not though.

[Constantine]

How? Tell me which dead science guys I gotta replicate the consciousness of in reasoning so in a dialectic of exchange you can accept the legitimacy of my statements? You replicate and I replicate.

[Darkneos]

How? Tell me which dead science guys I gotta replicate the consciousness of in reasoning so in a dialectic of exchange you can accept the legitimacy of my statements? You replicate and I replicate.

It’s not replicating consciousness, you’re just repeating the knowledge they have written and passed down. You’re not preserving consciousness, that dies as soon as the brain does.

It might be weird but consciousness isn’t magic. It’s like electricity in a computer, it enables it to work but doesn’t actually do anything else.

[Constantine]

Consciousness is the result of computations and networking (including feedback loops), and humans share very similar hardware and software.

[Darkneos]

Consciousness is the result of computations and networking (including feedback loops), and humans share very similar hardware and software.

Hmmm nope. We don’t entirely know how consciousness works yet but we have narrowed it down to a function of the brains.

Though calling it hardware and software is woefully incorrect

[Constantine]

I would ask you how you would know, but you would state something and I would ask where the persona derived from the deduction came from. A paper, a lecture, book, conversation you had, etc.

I don't need a precise understanding of consciousness thanks to Decartes. I think, therefore I am. I have a intuitive grasp, as do you. Further we have a shared vocabulary meaning it's been talked about for a very long time. You are just replicating the approach and arguments of long dead men.

[Darkneos]

I would ask you how you would know, but you would state something and I would ask where the persona derived from the deduction came from. A paper, a lecture, book, conversation you had, etc.

I don't need a precise understanding of consciousness thanks to Decartes. I think, therefore I am. I have a intuitive grasp, as do you. Further we have a shared vocabulary meaning it's been talked about for a very long time. You are just replicating the approach and arguments of long dead men.

Actually I think therefor I am was debunked a while ago as a valid argument. Thinking doesn’t equate to an “I” and it also assumes we know what thinking is and that it’s taking places.

It’s not an intuitive grasp, which by the way is a logical fallacy. We have a shared vocabulary, do we thought? I have words for things I know you don’t use or understand. That’s quite the assumption you’re making.

Like…you’re not really making your case here for some universal trait of consciousness. Like I said before, it’s weird but not magic.

Also a book isn’t replicating someone’s consciousness but their knowledge. You can have consciousness without knowledge. Heck there are even debates about whether consciousness actually exists or not.

So…I’m guessing you don’t know as much about it as you think you do. And if I’m repeating arguments from long dead men then maybe that’s an indication that this is more complicated than you think it is.

[Constantine]

I didn't hear of the debunking. I would point out my position isn't a universal position (I don't believe in universals) and presume variations but the variations are fairly predictable. It also doesn't rest on identity (perception in the lowest levels of the visual cortex doesn't rely on a sense of self). But we hadn't progressed that far and you wanted a scientific explanation.

If you recall who tried to debunk Descartes let me know the name and paper. I don't believe Decartes limited consciousness to that axiom, just that if reduced to that alone he would be justified in knowing he existed even if all other things could be held with doubt.