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

[Age]

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.

It’s not needing a paper so much as pointing out his arguments don’t justify knowing you exist.

But one can NEVER Truly KNOW if 'you' exist. However, KNOWING that 'I' exist can NEVER be DOUBTED. And, 'this' IS BECAUSE of the 'thoughts' existing within the body.

Knowing you exist is an assumption after all not something you can demonstrate with total certainty.

Sure perception doesn’t need a sense of self but any claim to the existence of one does otherwise it’s incoherent.

And if you’ll recall Descartes needed God to bail himself out of the hole he dug himself in, so he’s not exactly the best person to cite here.

WHY? BECAUSE 'you', personally, BELIEVE God does NOT exist?

But yes he did hinge the existence of his self on thought alone, because he couldn’t do it based on senses because that is in doubt.

Also I think you are advocating for universals if you’re just assuming I have an intuitive grasp. It’s not good to rely on what the other person knows since you don’t have direct access to their mind.

'These people', back in the days when this was being written, REALLY DID ASSUME or BELIEVE that 'they' HAD 'their OWN, personal, minds'.

Which is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to WATCH and OBSERVE, considering what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

You can infer but that’s about it and nothing here I’ve said would lead someone to infer that.

Like I said, I really am not sure you get consciousness.

Do 'you', "darkneos", so-call 'really get' 'consciousness', itself?

[Age]

No.... I mean for other reasons I need that Decartes refute.

Besides the fact that his famous argument doesn’t follow.

Are 'you' AWARE that just BECAUSE some 'thing' may not appear to 'follow' TO 'you', then that does NOT mean that 'that thing' does NOT 'not follow'?

[Age]

No.... I'm not worried about this debate we are in, it's going to be done in some form a million times this week. Win or lose, acceptance or rejection. What is unique here is you claim you have a anti-cartesian source I'm interested in having and requested for twice. I'm quite interested in you giving me that source. As to you believing I know consciousness, that's inconsequential to me. It's like saying I don't know taste or walking. Okay. So be it.

This just sounds like a cop out because you don’t have any real counterpoints. I don’t need the source to echo their arguments against it, and to be honest they’re good ones.

Talk ABOUT A 'cop out' here.

I SAY, 'An argument has been debunked, or refuted', BUT when asked WHERE and WHEN, I then just SAY, 'I do NOT need to supply 'the source' I can just SAY that 'arguments' AGAINST 'the argument' exist, and then even MORE FOOLISHLY SAY, 'And to be honest they are good arguments'.

'you' could NOT be EXPRESSING and SHOWING A BIGGER 'cop out' here "darkneos".

I suggest that 'you' now provide:

1. The ACTUAL 'argument', which you CLAIM here has been DEBUNKED. And then;

2. The ACTUAL 'argument/s', which you CLAIM has DEBUNKED the 'argument' in 1 here.

Never mind that one big flaw is Descartes assumes the conclusion with his statement.

'What' so-called 'big flaw'?

Are you even AWARE that just because you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there are 'flaws' and/or 'arguments against' some 'thing', then unless you SPECIFY 'those things' 'we' do NOT necessarily KNOW what 'it' is that you are TALKING ABOUT nor REFERRING TO here?

I’m not saying I don’t think there is an I just that Descartes argument for it is really bad and has more or less been disproven.

That just because 'you' 'think' or BELIEVE some 'thing' is so-called 'really bad' does NOT mean that 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, NOR that just because 'you' 'think' or BELIEVE some 'thing' has been 'disproved', then 'that thing' has ACTUALLY been 'disproved'.

It’s also odd you ask for a source when you make sweeping generalizations with no claims.

So, to 'you', "darkneos", it is NOT so-called 'odd' for 'you' NOT to supply 'sources', for 'your' CLAIMS, but that it is just 'odd' for someone "else" to ASK for 'sources', when 'they' "themselves" make 'sweeping generalizations with no claims', right?

It’s not like saying you don’t know taste or walking, consciousness has been an issue for centuries with different takes on it. And even just defining it has be a massive task to where we can only, sorta, agree to a working definition for it.

So no, you don’t know consciousness and I’m kinda confident in that since you equated it to taste and walking.

But I did NOT see 'consciousness' being equated to 'taste' nor 'walking'. "constantine" was just mentioning that 'you' BELIEVING that "another" does NOT know 'consciousness' would be like CLAIMING that the "other" does NOT know 'taste' nor 'walking' NEITHER. AND, that it does NOT matter that 'you' would BELIEVE nor CLAIM either.

Oh, and by the way, do 'you', "darkneos", KNOW 'consciousness' "your" 'self'?

[Age]

Dude.... let's completely drop the argument and say you win. For unrelated but important to me reasons, can I please get the source on Descartes, as it relates to something I'm working on. It's not a cop put, not a cope.... just a request.... the fourth time I've made it. Just the source. Pleaseeeeeeeee.

Here we have FURTHER PROOF of just how MANY TIMES the peoples, in the days when this was being written, would MAKE CLAIMS, but NEVER back up and support 'their CLAIMS.

"constantine" even ASKS JUST for 'the source' ONLY, and even ASKS NICELY WITH A 'Please'. But WATCH and OBSERVE how 'the CLAIM' will NEVER be substantiated.

[Age]

Dude.... let's completely drop the argument and say you win. For unrelated but important to me reasons, can I please get the source on Descartes, as it relates to something I'm working on. It's not a cop put, not a cope.... just a request.... the fourth time I've made it. Just the source. Pleaseeeeeeeee.

Yeah this is just a cop out. I’m giving you the arguments against it they made but you want a source just because that way you can easily dismiss me.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHERE and WHEN did 'you' SUPPOSEDLY GIVE 'the arguments' AGAINST the saying, phrase, or term, 'I think therefore I am'?

It’s philosophy.

'What' here is, supposedly, 'philosophy'?

I don’t need the source just the argument.

I do NOT even KNOW what 'the argument' IS, EXACTLY.

Let alone what 'the source' IS, OF 'the, IMAGINED, argument' here.

[Age]

I don't even need the argument, just the source.

You don’t need the source that’s just the cop out.

Absolutely NOTHING IS 'needed'. BUT 'the source' IS being ASKED FOR. So, WHY can 'you' NOT just PROVIDE 'the source'?

Could it be BECAUSE ACTUALLY NONE exists?

'We' are YET TO EVEN SEE 'the argument', by the way. So, 'this' could make some WONDER IF 'an argument' AND 'source' even exist ANYWAY?

[Age]

I don't think that there is such a argument for life after death. We just have to face it to know it.

There ARE sound AND valid arguments for 'life' 'after' 'death'. So, 'life after death' IS ACTUALLY an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

BUT, some are just NOT YET READY FOR 'this'.

[Sculptor]

My argument presumes the status before birth is equivalent to the status after death.

That's a shame since not only does that seem to sound like an abuse of language, you have absolutely no way to assert that given that you can have no evidence. Even if you were right then no such evidence could be available to a dead person.
On the matter of an abuse of language. Death is the cessation of life, since you are now saying that death predates life, you are either abusing logic or abusing langauge or , more likley both.
If we were to accept thes abuses, then you have essentially predefined your argument.
This is a classic goalpost changing fallacy.
Thanks for playing,

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).

[rootseeker]

I have little understanding of an atheist perspective of the universe. It seems that even if there were no souls that consciousness is formed from physical matter alone, and the matter that formed your body continues to spawn life after your death. Given infinite time, then, at some point in time the same exact substance that caused you to exist then causes a new life to exist. I don't know why that couldn't then be considered you being reborn in a new body. However, maybe you are saying that the substance that was used in your creation will pop out of existence entirely. I don't see why that would happen any more than I expect it would pop into existence by random chance alone.

It makes more sense for God to form abstractions of discrete life to me than for life to be purely an illusion or projection or some such entity of physics. Otherwise it would then be purely a subjective opinion whether a person has been reborn in some way after death because even if you reconstituted their body to the exact atom with all the same atoms, it could then it could still be considered a clone that happens to resemble a previous life. Without a soul I don't see how one could consider a living person to be reborn.

[bahman]

I don't think that there is such a argument for life after death. We just have to face it to know it.

There ARE sound AND valid arguments for 'life' 'after' 'death'. So, 'life after death' IS ACTUALLY an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

BUT, some are just NOT YET READY FOR 'this'.

WHat is your argument?

[Age]

I don't think that there is such a argument for life after death. We just have to face it to know it.

There ARE sound AND valid arguments for 'life' 'after' 'death'. So, 'life after death' IS ACTUALLY an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

BUT, some are just NOT YET READY FOR 'this'.

WHat is your argument?

LIFE continues on AFTER the death of 'things'.

AND, the word 'afterlife' NEVER EVER referred to what the majority of 'you', human beings, ASSUME or BELIEVE 'it' does.

The MISINTERPRETATION of the word or term 'the afterlife' IS being PASSED ON and HAS BEEN for millennia now, that is; UP TO the day when this is being written.

The word 'life' in the term 'after-life' REFERS TO the 'way of life', or a 'way of living'. And, AFTER that 'way of' LIFE ends, the 'NEW-LIFE', obviously, BEGINS.

The reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, INTERPRET the phrase 'afterlife' to MEAN or REFER TO 'you', individually, AFTER 'you' so-call 'die' IS just BECAUSE 'you' have ALL become SO GREEDY and SELFISH.

LOL 'you', people, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that word 'afterlife' WAS REFERRING TO 'you', INDIVIDUALLY.

Which SHOWS and PROVES just HOW GREEDY and SELFISH 'you', people, HAD BECOME.

[bahman]

There ARE sound AND valid arguments for 'life' 'after' 'death'. So, 'life after death' IS ACTUALLY an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

BUT, some are just NOT YET READY FOR 'this'.

WHat is your argument?

LIFE continues on AFTER the death of 'things'.

AND, the word 'afterlife' NEVER EVER referred to what the majority of 'you', human beings, ASSUME or BELIEVE 'it' does.

The MISINTERPRETATION of the word or term 'the afterlife' IS being PASSED ON and HAS BEEN for millennia now, that is; UP TO the day when this is being written.

The word 'life' in the term 'after-life' REFERS TO the 'way of life', or a 'way of living'. And, AFTER that 'way of' LIFE ends, the 'NEW-LIFE', obviously, BEGINS.

The reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, INTERPRET the phrase 'afterlife' to MEAN or REFER TO 'you', individually, AFTER 'you' so-call 'die' IS just BECAUSE 'you' have ALL become SO GREEDY and SELFISH.

LOL 'you', people, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that word 'afterlife' WAS REFERRING TO 'you', INDIVIDUALLY.

Which SHOWS and PROVES just HOW GREEDY and SELFISH 'you', people, HAD BECOME.

You call this an argument!?

[Age]

WHat is your argument?

LIFE continues on AFTER the death of 'things'.

AND, the word 'afterlife' NEVER EVER referred to what the majority of 'you', human beings, ASSUME or BELIEVE 'it' does.

The MISINTERPRETATION of the word or term 'the afterlife' IS being PASSED ON and HAS BEEN for millennia now, that is; UP TO the day when this is being written.

The word 'life' in the term 'after-life' REFERS TO the 'way of life', or a 'way of living'. And, AFTER that 'way of' LIFE ends, the 'NEW-LIFE', obviously, BEGINS.

The reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, INTERPRET the phrase 'afterlife' to MEAN or REFER TO 'you', individually, AFTER 'you' so-call 'die' IS just BECAUSE 'you' have ALL become SO GREEDY and SELFISH.

LOL 'you', people, ACTUALLY BELIEVE that word 'afterlife' WAS REFERRING TO 'you', INDIVIDUALLY.

Which SHOWS and PROVES just HOW GREEDY and SELFISH 'you', people, HAD BECOME.

You call this an argument!?

No. Do you?

I was just POINTING OUT that because of HOW GREEDY and SELFISH 'you', adult human beings, have become, this HAS and IS DISTORTING the way 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', which has LED to the MISINTERPRETING WAYS 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things', in the bible and other religious texts for example.

[Age]

I have little understanding of an atheist perspective of the universe.

Let us see if I can help you out here.

A so-called "atheist" either BELIEVES that there is NO God or that there is NO God existing, in the Universe, or DISBELIEVES that God exists, in the Universe. 'This' more or less is the whole perspective on an "atheist".

Does this give you more understanding here?

It seems that even if there were no souls that consciousness is formed from physical matter alone, and the matter that formed your body continues to spawn life after your death. Given infinite time, then, at some point in time the same exact substance that caused you to exist then causes a new life to exist. I don't know why that couldn't then be considered you being reborn in a new body.

But 'you', that had already been 'born', can NOT be 'born again'. And, the exact same 'substance' causes ALL new 'life' to come along anyway.

However, maybe you are saying that the substance that was used in your creation will pop out of existence entirely. I don't see why that would happen any more than I expect it would pop into existence by random chance alone.

The ONLY substance that creates, or causes, ALL new creations exists eternally anyway.

It makes more sense for God to form abstractions of discrete life to me than for life to be purely an illusion or projection or some such entity of physics.

Okay. But 'what' is 'God', EXACTLY?

Otherwise it would then be purely a subjective opinion whether a person has been reborn in some way after death because even if you reconstituted their body to the exact atom with all the same atoms, it could then it could still be considered a clone that happens to resemble a previous life.

ONLY of 'the body', and NEVER of 'the you/the person'.

Without a soul I don't see how one could consider a living person to be reborn.

'What' is 'a soul', EXACTLY?

[Impenitent]

rebirth cycles have nothing on Norton

-Imp