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

[Constantine]

Oh, before you ask.... minus universals but accepting high predictability in human thought is possible via Dvaita. You'll see me argue that with the dvaitian Hindu in the religion section alot over the next few months so no rush to get into it now.

[Darkneos]

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Constantine]

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

[Darkneos]

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

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

[Constantine]

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.

[Darkneos]

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

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.

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

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.

[Constantine]

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.

[Darkneos]

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.

It’s philosophy. I don’t need the source just the argument.

[Constantine]

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

[Darkneos]

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

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

[Toppsy Kretts]

Death is here when i am not, and i am here when death is here. why should i try and control something that i cannot stop

[bahman]

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

[Age]

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.

When you say and claim that, the term, 'I think therefore I am', was debunked a while ago, as a 'valid argument', then;

1. Did you think that 'that term' was 'a valid argument'?

2. Who 'debunked' 'that term', and who was even calling 'that term' a 'valid argument?

3. How, EXACTLY, was 'that term' even so-called 'debunked'?

4. If some people so-called 'debunk' some 'thing', then does 'that' in and of itself MEAN that 'thing' IS ACTUALLY DEBUNKED for ALL and Everyone?

Thinking doesn’t equate to an “I” and it also assumes we know what thinking is and that it’s taking places.

So, 'what', EXACTLY, equates to an 'I'?

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.

Who and/or what is the 'you', which can supposedly HAVE 'consciousness', itself?

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.

What does the 'this' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

[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.

So, if you so-call 'do NOT believe in universals', then HOW or WHAT do 'you' JUDGE 'your OWN personal positions' ON, EXACTLY?

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.

[Age]

Oh, before you ask.... minus universals but accepting high predictability in human thought is possible via Dvaita. You'll see me argue that with the dvaitian Hindu in the religion section alot over the next few months so no rush to get into it now.

When 'you' say that 'we' will see 'you' 'argue' some 'thing' here, eventually, are 'you' implying that 'you' will provide actual 'sound AND valid arguments', or just your own personal views, assumptions, and/or BELIEFS and just express 'them' in some sort of other argument form?