An Argument for the Afterlife

[Surrealist]

I have argued against many people concerning this argument... and none of them have held up to serious logical scrutiny. Also... by "argued," I only mean in a "debate" sort of sense... not a shouting match of anything like that. I have had so many objections to this argument, that I'm confident that any objection presented here in this forum already has a rebuttal of mine ready on the backburner. Don't misconstrue what I have previously said as me having a "big head," or being "sure that I am right..." as I am not sure that I am right. The reason that I am not sure that I am right is because the argument is inductive... not deductive. Inductive arguments only hint at the conclusion being "most likely" true... in the case of a "cogent" inductive argument. I am presenting this argument here because I think that it has immense relevance to lucid dreaming, as lucid dreaming is directly related to our minds, perception, and such. If the afterlife is shown to most likely exist, then that might have an impact on whether "shared lucid dreaming," "contacting the dead in a lucid dream," or other such things should actually be taken seriously. Having had a few shared lucid dreams, I can already guarantee you that I have immense anecdotal evidence for a non-physical soul. I am not touting my argument to support my own beliefs... but rather trying to show others not fortunate enough to have experienced shared lucid dreams the definite possibility that the afterlife, and souls, are real. I have had a debate on these forums before about a previous argument of mine... and to clarify things: I feel that that argument is not necessary anymore... mainly due to this one. Keep in mind that I am not trying to shove any of this down anyone's throat... and I would appreciate it if the discussion could remain congenial. I do not wish for this thread to get reduced to a flamewar... nor do I wish any negativity on my opposition. What this means is that if you have a legitimate question about the argument, then I encourage you to post it. I will not bash you, nor call you stupid, or anything like that. I will respect all questions and objections, regardless of how trivial or irrational they might be. Questions are the way to knowledge... so questions and discussion are encouraged. This argument of mine has gone through some serious transitions. It might go through many more throughout the course of this discussion. What that means is that is you have an objection, I encourage you to quickly look through the posts to see if it has already been addressed, or something has been further clarified. Now, with all that obligatory "cleaning-up," on to the argument: I'm now going to define a couple of things... Consciousness: any set of a single person's subjective experiences. Subjective experiences: What it "is like" to experience anything experienced.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) "To imagine:" Imagining the *actuality* of the subject of the imagined event. Event: A transition from one state to another... with both states being defined as well. "An impossible to imagine 'event':" An "event" that has the second state in the transition impossible to imagine by any conceivable being(in other words... completely impossible). Now on to my argument: 1. If an event is impossible to imagine, then it is impossible to happen. 2. It is impossible to imagine your consciousness not existing. 3. Therefore, it is impossible for you to cease to exist. Before you object to premise #1, let me remind you that this is an inductive argument. An inductive argument has at least one premise that isn't obviously shown to be true, but is supported by a *large* number of cases where it is shown to be true. When you show the major premise to be true in many, many cases, and never shown to be false, you have a cogent inductive argument... which means that the conclusion in the argument is "most likely true rather than not." That is the case with the above-mentioned argument. The first premise is shown to be true in many cases, and never shown to be false. Consider all contradictions to that Laws of Logic. Any contradictions to the Laws of Logic can not exist in reality, either in our imaginations, or the actual world. If they can't exist in our imaginations, then that satisfies the first part of the "if/then" statement. They also satisfy the "then" part the "if/then" statement, since they are impossible to happen as well. That would make all contradictions to the Laws of Logic cases where my premise evaluates to true. Since there are a "near-infinite" number of "contradictions to the Laws of Logic," that means that there are a "near-infinite" number of trues cases where my premise is shown to be true. Since there are a "near-infinite" number of cases where my first premise is shown to be true, and no cases where it is shown to be false, that makes it a "cogent inductive argument." Now... to defend my second premise. The reason the second premise is true is because I am saying that it is impossible to directly imagine yourself "not existing." Imagining "blackness" doesn't do it, because that isn't imagining your consciousness not existing directly. As a matter of fact, I can give a deductive argument that shows that it is impossible to imagine your consciousness not existing. Here it is: 1. Anytime you imagine something, you are imagining a set of your subjective experiences. 2. Consciousness is a set of your subjective experiences. 3. Therefore, anytime you imagine something, you are imagining your consciousness existing. That means that there are no times that you can imagine your consciousness not existing, which means that my second premise is true. That doesn't suffice to show that is is impossible to imagine my consciouness not existing, since I must show it to be impossible for anyone else to imagine it as well. This is what I do with the following deductively sound argument: 1. Consciousness" is a "subjective thing. 2. It is impossible to know anything about what a subjective thing is, unless you are the subject. 3. You are not the subject of my consciousness. 4. Therefore, it is impossible for you to know anything about what my consciousness is. 5. If you do not know anything about what an object is, it is impossible to imagine anything about it. 6. It is impossible for you to know anything about what my consciousness is. 7. Therefore, it is impossible for you to imagine anything about my consciousness. 8. Therefore, it is impossible for you to imagine my consciousness not existing. Since the first premise has immense inductive support(and no false cases), and the second premise can be deductively shown to be true, then it follows that the conclusion of my argument is "more likely true rather than false..." which means that the afterlife more likely exists rather than not. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Beeyahoi]

I disagree with your theory of anything that is impossible to imagine being impossible to occur. First off, it isn't impossible to imagine the concept of your consciousness not existing. If this were so, you wouldn't be talking about it. I think what you're referring to though, is imagining something in the sense that you feel as if it is actually occuring to some extent, as is experienced when one thinks of a knife being thrust into one's stomach. I like to think of things more along the lines of a quote that Terrence Mckenna likes to put into his lectures. I forget who originally said it though. "The universe is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose."

[Eonnn]

just becoz u can't imagine your consciousness not existing doesn't mean its impossible for you to cease to exist i dont know how you jumped to that illogical conclusion.

[Tornado Joe]

Hi Surr, I'd really like to go into your post more thoroughly and respond with more in-depth and thorough response - but I'm at work and only had time to skim through it real quick. From what I caught, there's probably quite a bit I'm in agreement with you about - however, one thing really stuck out: "If an event is impossible to imagine, then it is impossible to happen." and unfortunately, without that first point, the following points become a bit moot. I think 'impossibility' itself is too much of an absolute concept to use here. For instance, do you think the Aboriginies down under could 'possibly' ever imagine that the world would be able to communicate instantly without the limitation of distance? Very unlikely, but... possible. Now, could they have imagined we would be doing it via telephones and computers? I'd first say 'impossible', due to the fact that they have no way of knowing what even the concept itself of a telephone is - let alone a computer. BUT, still 'impossible'? If there is such a thing as clairvoyance, remote viewing, etc - then maybe they could have foreseen it all. If you are in favor of this afterlife argument, then you are also delving a bit into this realm of paranormal occurances, which contradict your impossibility point as well. It just seems to me that there really is no such thing as 'impossible'. It's a relative concept. According to physics (or quantum physics?) there is a possibility (however very very remote) that if you keep trying to walk through a brick wall, you will in fact at some point phase right through it onto the other side. It may take a few trillion or more attempts, but probability says it IS possible.

[DuB]

Moved to Religion/Spirituality.

[Xei]

I find this extremely interesting... I think you have effectively created a sort of Godel sentence that applies to consciousness. I agree with 2. because to imagine requires consciousness. To imagine unconsciousness is to imagine not imagining which is impossible. I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with the argument but I can't quite pin it down. I suppose the easiest way to attack it would be to tackle the validity of 1... that would require imagining something which can happen but cannot be imagined, which is a contradiction...

[Photolysis]

Too bad the argument fails at premise #1 1. If an event is impossible to imagine, then it is impossible to happen. Apart from the vagueness of "imagine" (by whom, what intellectual capacity must they require? A rock can not imagine it's own existence so therefore it doesn't exist, for example), just because something is impossible to imagine, it has no bearing on whether it does happen. If you continue to insist you the original premise is correct then have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand in the spectrum of imaginative potential. "If an idea cannot be imagined by a human of IQ X then it is impossible ...", and declare as being impossible on the position of the arbitrary line which itself is absurd (Reductio ad absurdum) If you skip this human bit and say "an idea unimaginable by anyone" then you make a massive assumption about the cognitive capablitities of any species that might have superior intellect and/or creativity. Conversely you can look at the inverse to see the statement is nonsensical "If an event is possible to imagine, then it is possible to happen". Because we know full well that imaginings are not tied in to reality. They're just imaginings. Futhermore, I can actually begin to imagine what my own non-existence would be like: identical to the time before I was born. Therefore I have disproven the idea using the author's own (twisted) logic.

[Xei]

Yes, on reflection I think the problem is that the axiom is circular. 1. Only events which can be imagined are real. It is impossible to give a specific counterexample to this because that would require imagining some real event, and hence it would not be a counterexample, because it can be imagined. However, this does not mean these events do not exist. It just means we cannot state one. This is similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem; just because a proof in a system for fact X does not exist, it does not mean that fact X is not true. In fact Godel's work is absolutely central to understanding why your argument is wrong. Just because you cannot formally disprove the axiom, it does not mean that the axiom is correct. Let's defeat it by 'going outside the system'; as photolysis says (though not so formally), we could apply this argument to something with a smaller set of qualia than ourselves. Here's an elegant one: a deaf man (or, to be pedantic, a man with absolutely no neurons in his brain capable of comprehending sound). This man cannot imagine music. However, music exists. So, the axiom is wrong. The following axiom is instead true: 1. Some events which cannot be imagined are real.

[Oneironaut Zero]

To the OP: I'm sure you'll find this interesting: A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

[RedfishBluefish]

As well as Xei's counter-example, I see a problem with your first (inductive) axiom. As you said, it is true that when one imagines something, they are imagining what their subjective experience of that event might be, and therefore imagining "my consciousness exists, and event X" for any event X. So naturally all example cases we have only apply for the imagined event "my consciousness exists, and event X". Therefore the event X which contradicts "my consciousness exists" is a exceptional case, and so the inductive axiom is unlikely to apply to it.

[Universal Mind]

1. If an event is impossible to imagine, then it is impossible to happen. Why? You don't think there are parts of reality that are beyond human conceptualization? 2. It is impossible to imagine your consciousness not existing. Then how were you able to mention it? Is it impossible to imagine Daffy Duck's consciousness not existing? If so, does that mean Daffy Duck has consciousness?

[really]

I'm now going to define a couple of things... Consciousness: any set of a single person's subjective experiences. I don't really understand this. How is consciousness related to pure subjectivity? Now on to my argument: 1. If an event is impossible to imagine, then it is impossible to happen. Not really, because imagination/perception is not Reality. Even if an event was impossible to happen, we may be able to imagine it. E.g. in this very thread, you are writing arguments to prove that something cannot not exist, of which, "non-existence" is originally nothing but an imagining. I think this is only a vague observation that is only related to your argument and in no other situation. So, imagine that I exist and make a cup of tea. But you can't? It is relative, and so you should not be making claims about existence, but mere perceptual appearances. 3. Therefore, it is impossible for you to cease to exist. It is impossible for anything that exists to cease to exist. That which is temporal is essentially undergoing a timeless transformation. Overall I don't think it is necessary for an argument standpoint that appeals to ones imagination like this, unless it is about imagination and nothing else. There are other ways to prove the "after-life" (in essential definition), for example by confirming that "time" does not exist. But unfortunately, for the benefits of the imagination, we actually perceive time exists with an inevitable lead to our death, however both of such concepts are impossible.

[Tornado Joe]

There are other ways to prove the "after-life" (in essential definition), for example by confirming that "time" does not exist. But unfortunately, for the benefits of the imagination, we actually perceive time exists and an inevitable lead to our death; all of which, is impossible. 'confirming' that time does not exist? I don't know, you would have then also confirm that space doesn't exist either (and I'm not saying it's impossible ). But time is merely another dimension which we experience, just like space. We have the 3 dimensions of space (up, down, left right, forwards, backwards). Without the 4th dimension of time, we would not have distance or travel. We have three dimensions that describe space for us, yet only one which endows us the ability to move. So, can it be so hard to imagine that there may be other dimensions which we simply cannot experience with the 5 developed senses we use consciously? If you think about it, all our experiences happen in our head. Signals go through your eyes, ears, mouth, etc., into your brain, then somehow translated into and experience. The experience, an interpretation of the signals based on previous knowledge you've accumulated during the course of your 'life'. Knowledge is gained via the same process of signal>transference>interpretation through the same/only developed senses you use to figure out if there's something else out there. It's one big F**kd up cycle! If you can't find a way to view it all from another perspective or point of reference, you're just swimming in the same pond.

[Photolysis]

Let's defeat it by 'going outside the system'; as photolysis says (though not so formally), we could apply this argument to something with a smaller set of qualia than ourselves. Here's an elegant one: a deaf man (or, to be pedantic, a man with absolutely no neurons in his brain capable of comprehending sound). This man cannot imagine music. However, music exists. So, the axiom is wrong. The problem with this is that the imagination required is not specified, which is why I picked up on the vagueness instead. As a counter-example to yours, the OP could simply say "music is able to be imagined by someone, therefore it exists". That's why I went for the different tactic instead by showing that the statement either requires declaring that if beings of a certain arbitrary capability are unable to imagine something, it is impossible (which is absurd - the turning point is meaningless), or declaring that if no being is capable of imagining something (on what basis - this makes a huge assumption on the capacity of a more intelligent being with nothing to back it up). Then if you look at the inverse statement "if it is possible to imagine, it is possible", which is obviously false because we can imagine many impossible things, but it clearly shows that there is no relation between imagining something, and it being possible, which the original premise effectively states. And as I said, before we were born we did not exist, and it seems death would be the same. It's hard to grasp non-existence, but I am able to imagine what it's like by relating it to the time before I was born. So basically the argument is invalid as it: 1. Arbitrarily declares what is possible and impossible 2. Falsely relates comprehension with existence 3. Claims that non-existence can not be imagined

[really]

'confirming' that time does not exist? I don't know, you would have then also confirm that space doesn't exist either (and I'm not saying it's impossible ). It seems that a given location only really exists in relation to something else. However, what is the context for this to be possible? The spaceless. What is the context for time? The Timeless. Obviously that which is beyond both space and time allows for them to exist, however while not being subject to them. But time is merely another dimension which we experience, just like space. We have the 3 dimensions of space (up, down, left right, forwards, backwards). Without the 4th dimension of time, we would not have distance or travel. We have three dimensions that describe space for us, yet only one which endows us the ability to move. Time is not really a solid dimension, it is an experiential illusion. All movement and time is really a product of perception. So, can it be so hard to imagine that there may be other dimensions which we simply cannot experience with the 5 developed senses we use consciously? There are infinite dimensions of subjective experience, they're also known as "reality tunnels". We all live in our own dimension or context for life, each of which is infinitely complex. Consciousness can "tap" into many realms, depending on its nature. And as I said, before we were born we did not exist, and it seems death would be the same. It's hard to grasp non-existence, but I am able to imagine what it's like by relating it to the time before I was born. Just because you may have forgotten, or think you only live once in this lifetime, doesn't mean that you were once non-existence and that you have imagined it. That is another assumption - just like believing that you can die and become non-existence again. There is nothing special about this imagining.

[blade5x]

3. Claims that non-existence can not be imagined. So how were your 14 billion years before being born?

[juroara]

I understand non-existence as can not exist in any form of existence what so ever for example. think of something that doesn't exist. you can't! not in this context. the moment you think of something it exists in your mind, as a thought. which can be measured with scientific tools! word play but really, that's how I understand it. our minds can only conceive of what is possible. maybe not probable, or realistic. but......possible. and possibilities are what, just a quantum fart away?

[really]

for example. think of something that doesn't exist. you can't! not in this context. the moment you think of something it exists in your mind, as a Yes! Unicorns for example, have no physical, actual existence. But they are not "non-existence", and when we imagine them we are not imagining non-existence. As it has been implied, this is because imagination has existence. But while it can picture anything in any possibility (because it is not subject to objective laws), non-existence has no category or possibility whatsoever. The opposite of existence is purely a perceptual defect, with which, deep examination reveals it to be totally invalid. So when we are talking about the afterlife, we are still talking about our One, Eternal Life that has been "forgotten."

[Surrealist]

Now... I appreciate all of your replies. And, like I mentioned in the OP, I've dealt with practically all of them before this. What will follow are all my standard rebuttals to all objections presented so far by all posters. I will do my best to tackle them all... so this might be a long post. Alright... let's dig in... First off, it isn't impossible to imagine the concept of your consciousness not existing. If this were so, you wouldn't be talking about it. That's true. However... I'm not referring to the concept of your consciousness not existing... as if that was what I was using in my argument, we wouldn't arrive at a very useful premise, right? I'm talking about imagining the actuality of your consciousness not existing. That is what I need to be talking about in my argument anyways to get a useful conclusion. just becoz u can't imagine your consciousness not existing doesn't mean its impossible for you to cease to exist Umm... I have an argument. The structure of the argument is valid. The first premise has enough inductive justification for the argument to be considered a cogent inductive argument. BUT, still 'impossible'? If there is such a thing as clairvoyance, remote viewing, etc - then maybe they could have foreseen it all. If you are in favor of this afterlife argument, then you are also delving a bit into this realm of paranormal occurances, which contradict your impossibility point as well. You are correct when you point out that a great majority of things cannot be said to be impossible to imagine. You get hung up on "time" though... you think that the "aborigines" had to imagine telephones for telephones to be possible to imagine. I don't put a restriction on time in my first premise. If something can be imagined at any point in time, then it is possible to imagine. However, like I mentioned in my OP, I can make the claim that at least some things are impossible to imagine... those would be the result of a deductive argument, as demonstrated in my OP. by whom, what intellectual capacity must they require? A rock can not imagine it's own existence so therefore it doesn't exist, for example I can imagine the rock existing. Here is something important to realize: If at least one being, at any possible time, can imagine something, then it is possible to imagine. Since I can imagine the rock existing... it is possible to imagine the rock existing. then have to draw an arbitrary line in the sand in the spectrum of imaginative potential. No... I don't. If you skip this human bit and say "an idea unimaginable by anyone" then you make a massive assumption about the cognitive capablitities of any species that might have superior intellect and/or creativity. Nope... I don't run into that problem. The reason for that is if I have a deductive argument showing that it is impossible for any possible being to imagine my consciousness not existing(which I conveniently have in my OP), then I'm not assuming anything about any other beings. My argument shows, deductively, that it is impossible for anything(including yourself) to imagine your consciousness not existing. That's all I really need for my argument. Conversely you can look at the inverse to see the statement is nonsensical "If an event is possible to imagine, then it is possible to happen". That statement is not logically equivalent to my premise. The actual contrapositive would be: If an event is possible to happen, then it is possible to imagine. Google "contrapositive" to find out how to form those types of logically equivalent statements. Futhermore, I can actually begin to imagine what my own non-existence would be like: identical to the time before I was born. Therefore I have disproven the idea using the author's own (twisted) logic. "Begin" to imagine? All you are doing is equating it with something... and hence only imagining the concept, not the actuality. In fact Godel's work is absolutely central to understanding why your argument is wrong. Just because you cannot formally disprove the axiom, it does not mean that the axiom is correct. Ah... the claim of "unfalsifiability." Consider X, which is a cause that can be shown(in concept) to necessarily cause effect Y. Y can only be imagined as a concept... and can be conceptually understood to necessarily happen due to cause X happening. But... we can know enough about the concept of Y to know that the actuality of Y is impossible to imagine. Hence, we have something that can happen(if X happens) that is impossible to imagine. That means it is falsifiable... just in a way that is not readily apparent. There are many times more than just one way to falsify premises. This man cannot imagine music. However, music exists. So, the axiom is wrong. Just because one man cannot imagine something at the current time doesn't mean that it is impossible to imagine it. If at least one person can imagine something, it is then possible to imagine. So naturally all example cases we have only apply for the imagined event "my consciousness exists, and event X". Therefore the event X which contradicts "my consciousness exists" is a exceptional case, and so the inductive axiom is unlikely to apply to it. If, like you already mentioned, everything we imagine must include "my consciousness exists," then it is logically impossible that it would include "my consciousness does not exist" as well. That would go against the Law of Noncontradiction... a fundamental Law of Logic. You don't think there are parts of reality that are beyond human conceptualization? My argument doesn't say that something must only be impossible for humans to imagine... but that it must be impossible period. Therefore, I'm not making the claim that reality is bound to only humanity's imaginative ability. I don't really understand this. How is consciousness related to pure subjectivity? That's just my definition for "consciousness." I'm simply giving a name, a placeholder, for "a set of subjective experiences." I could have just as easily picked "X" instead of "consciousness." Even if an event was impossible to happen, we may be able to imagine it. Right... but that doesn't contradict my premise. An "if/then" statement is only false when the "if" part is true and the "then" part is false. Your example in that quote is the "if" part being false and the "then" part being true, which, in logic, means that the whole premise still evaluates as true. It is impossible for anything that exists to cease to exist. I am imaging my car ceasing to exist right now. A rocket comes crashing down on top of it... and then... no more car. The car doesn't exist... only pieces of a car. The car that was once there, defined by a certain tolerances and expectations of what a car "is" is no more. So how were your 14 billion years before being born? I forgot. the moment you think of something it exists in your mind, as a thought. Imagining the actuality of something is different from imagining the concept of something. I agree that to imagine the actuality of something not existing, you at least have to imagine the concept... but in no way is it impossible to imagine something not existing. I can do it with my car fairly easily. There... hopefully I have posted my answers to all objections so far. I didn't feel it necessary to answer some things, as they appeared to be answers to other posters. So, if I have skipped something which you think would be interesting to see an answer to, then by all means post it again and point it out quite conspicuously. Thanks for all your responses!

[RedfishBluefish]

If, like you already mentioned, everything we imagine must include "my consciousness exists," then it is logically impossible that it would include "my consciousness does not exist" as well. That would go against the Law of Noncontradiction... a fundamental Law of Logic. Nonono, I'm not disputing that ! I agree that it is logically impossible to imagine what one's subjective experience of not existing would be like. My point was that since imagining nonexistence is impossible only on account of the contradiction with the inbuilt assumption of the brain that it is one's subjective experience which is being imagined, it suggests that the fact of this particular event's unimaginability is unrelated to the actual event itself's logical possibility. Or to put that differently, what we imagine is always "my consciousness exists, and event X" (I'll call that event Z, to avoid copy-pasting a bit). If event Z is impossible to imagine, because it contains a logical contradiction, then clearly it will be impossible to actually happen in reality. However that does not preclude event X from happening by itself. We just can't imagine it because we can't imagine event Z - we don't imagine events by themselves.

[Xei]

Problem 1: You didn't really address my main point, which is that you have essentially created a sentence which goes outside of the system - the system here being the traditional methods of logical argument via counterexample, etc. - by applying the sentence to the system itself. Godel showed that this doesn't mean there do not exist counterexamples; only that they can't be given using the system. It's very clever, but can also be countered by going outside of the system itself. Here it is: 1. It is impossible to imagine not imagining anything (because it is to do so would require imagining, which is a contradiction). 2. It is possible to not imagine anything. 3. Therefore there are events which are impossible to imagine but possible to happen. There you go; a counterexample to your axiom by going outside of the system. I can't see any flaws. Problem 2: You have had to backtrack a bit with axiom 1. by generalising it to 1. If an event is impossible to imagine by anybody, then it is impossible to happen. Already this should be flagging up warning signs for you because if there is an issue with the argument for one person then you can't get rid of the problem by applying it to a finite number of other individuals (ie. 'anybody'). However what you failed to do was carry this through for the rest of your argument: 1. If an event is impossible to imagine by anybody, then it is impossible to happen. 2. It is impossible for anybody to imagine your consciousness not existing. 3. Therefore, it is impossible for you to cease to exist. This is not true. Other people can, with ease, imagine your consciousness not existing. They might not even know you existed in the first place, so all they have to do is imagine their version of reality.

[CryoDragoon]

It is impossible to imagine ultraviolet light, isn't it? Then is ultraviolet light, in itself, impossible? Just a question...

[really]

That's just my definition for "consciousness." I'm simply giving a name, a placeholder, for "a set of subjective experiences." I could have just as easily picked "X" instead of "consciousness." Yes, but can you please explain this - what is a "set" of subjective experiences, and why have you chosen this "placeholder"? Right... but that doesn't contradict my premise. An "if/then" statement is only false when the "if" part is true and the "then" part is false. Your example in that quote is the "if" part being false and the "then" part being true, which, in logic, means that the whole premise still evaluates as true. I'm saying that there is no relationship between imagination and reality. Like I said, imagination is outside physical laws, and therefore out of context. I think it is meaningless. I am imaging my car ceasing to exist right now. A rocket comes crashing down on top of it... and then... no more car. The car doesn't exist... only pieces of a car. The car that was once there, defined by a certain tolerances and expectations of what a car "is" is no more. My point is, the car does exist, it simply transformed into pieces. You cannot say it does not exist, because it does. You can only say that the car in a particular shape - in a particular arbitrary frame of reference, that it doesn't exist. But that is invalid because it is hypothetically outside the laws of physics, in your imagination. If I imagine the car exploded, and stopped existing, it is because I am expecting that the car would still be in one piece, but that is still outside reality and invalid. This goes hand-in-hand with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Light does not stop existing or "become" non-existence, because there is nothing to become. It merely transforms into heat, for example. Edit: Obviously this is a much deeper examination of the meanings than with just everyday language. Another example, if a light is turned off, it is because its electricity is canceled back into its potential. It doesn't become non-existent because "off-ness" is being sent through its circuits.

[Taosaur]

#2 is false. Using your own limited definition of consciousness, it is possible to experience without assembling such an experiencer, which I know from experience. Having experienced awareness without consciousness, it is often, though not always, possible for me to re-actualize those conditions, and certainly possible for me to imagine the actuality of the nonexistence of my consciousness or yours. The only obstacle to imagining the nonexistence of consciousness is attachment to consciousness itself.

[Universal Mind]

My argument doesn't say that something must only be impossible for humans to imagine... but that it must be impossible period. Therefore, I'm not making the claim that reality is bound to only humanity's imaginative ability. What are you including in that? Aliens? Spirits? Wouldn't they have their limits too? I know you have a trillion questions to answer, but I was much more interested in your answer to my other two questions. Is it impossible to imagine the nonexistence of Daffy Duck's consciousness? If so, does that prove that Daffy Duck has consciousness?