"Philosophy is thinking about thinking." - A. Quinton ??

I feel that the recent development of Science drives people less intelligent and less creative due to their increasing hyper-dependency on the tech gadgets and devices based on A.I. Some say it could the path to the beginning of the end of human civilization.

Nature can mean so many different entities, and value? On what respect and aspect? Monetary value? Ethical? Aesthetic? Legal? Moral? Religious? Political? ...... etc etc.

It would help, if you could define what you mean by nature.

It would depend on one's mind set, religion, culture and his beliefs and view on the nature.
I don't believe personally nature itself has souls, thoughts or emotions to possess any type or kind of value.

Time doesn't exist. What we call time is a contract between all humans and its societies in this world. It is only memories we all have about past events, and people seem confuse the past memories as time. There is only intervals, but nothing flows or moves. It is just illusion of memories and imagination.

For instance, a society or country can make new time contract that from tomorrow, it will be year 0, and a day will be 40 hours, and a month will be 100 days, and run it like that. I think historically Cambodia had done it sometime in 1970s. And initially people will get confused or feel chaos on the time perception, but they will get used to it.

So, yes time travel is possible, but only in memories and imaginations and the movies. No, it is not possible in real life.

What we have is eternal present called "Now", from which no existence can escape until their consciousness fades away.

Right. So you don't know who Stevenson is, you don't know that psychiatry and psychology are two different things, you don't know that psychiatry uses scientific and empirical methods, but your "common sense" tells you that Stevenson was a "fortune teller".

You must have a highly unusual common sense then. A bit too unusual to believe it, to be honest. — Apollodorus

I am not interested in Psychology or Psychiatry. I don't think I need to know who the Stevenson is, what his methods of researches were, to be able to tell what is genuine scientific truths, or religious type of claims on the minds and consciousness.

I don't think my common sense is unusual. No I don't agree with you.

Stevenson was a respected professor of psychiatry. His work was favorably reviewed in Scientific American. On what basis are you saying he was not a scientist?
Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia — Apollodorus

I don't know who he is, but you should also bear in mind that there is a big debate, whether psychology can be classed as a science. You should read some Philosophy of Science books.

p.s. : Don't take everything as truths what Wikipeedia says, or anything in internet. First read the classics, then use your common sense and logic, rather than relying on the information from the internet.

But your common sense told you they were not scientists. So you are claiming that your common sense enables you to tell what is scientific and what is not. — Apollodorus

I think I said it in the beginning. You seem replying even without reading the posts.
Scientists use facts, concrete evidences and proofs for their truths.
Common sense should tell you that fortune tellers are not scientists.

So, having common sense makes you a scientist? — Apollodorus

Never said I was a scientist. They were calling themselves scientists.

Then how do you know that the people you saw in youtube were not scientists? — Apollodorus

Common sense.

Then why you call yourself a scientist? — Corvus

I don't think I have ever did. I am only a philosophy reader.
You are still too hyper imaginative.

You were probably mixing with the wrong crowd in that case. As for myself, I have seen some scientists calling themselves scientists. — Apollodorus

I have see them on youtube. You seem have wild, dark and unhealthy imagination.
Without facts, concrete evidence and proof, no one should call themselves scientist.
Well, the pseudo scientists, esoteric people and the mystics could, and would, but no one would take them seriously unless they are the same crowd.

If Stevenson and others apply scientific methods in their research then it can't be dismissed as "mysticism". In any case, their findings can't be rejected before even looking at them. To do so would be unscientific. — Apollodorus

Aha, now this sounds like a religion :D a cult. In fact, in the past, I have seen some esoteric and magical secret society people call themselves as scientists too. :)

It may sound like that to you. Stevenson and others like him regard themselves as scientists. — Apollodorus

But scientific knowledge needs concrete evidence and proof on their theories.

You don't know that it doesn't make contact, communicate and interact. For example, inspiration, artistic, scientific, or religious, may partly come from disembodied souls. — Apollodorus

That sounds like they were having some sort of hallucinations.

That question is based on the unproven assumption that consciousness can't exist independently of a physical body. Does a body at rest cease to be a body? Disembodied consciousness may perfectly well experience states of rest or sleep, after which it is reborn into a new body and forgets its previous existence.

Besides, consciousness after death is said to inhabit a body (called ochema in Platonism) that is similar to the physical one but made of a more subtle form of substance.

According to Ian Stevenson children sometimes seem to remember aspects of former lives for a few years until memories fade away and the child's consciousness becomes fully integrated with its new existence. — Apollodorus

This sounds like some sort of mysticism rather than Philosophical topics?

Not necessarily. Maybe some of them try but fail to establish contact except through dreams and visions, etc. that, unfortunately, can be explained away as imagination.

Also, they may go into a state of sleep, be reborn or otherwise be engaged in activities or experiences that impede contact with the living. — Apollodorus

But the concept of "consciousness" seems imply inherently, if it exists, then it would make contact, communicate and interact.

When consciousness is asleep or in dreams without its presiding bodies, would it be meaningful to even call it consciousness?

One things for sure is that, we never hear from the dead, how they are doing since their deaths. Surely if their consciousness exist somewhere in some form, they would have (tried to) contacted us?

Logical Investigations
Vol. 1 & 2
by E. Husserl

However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

If there had been ever, then they must had been for their own personal reasons, which must have been their own private and psychological state.

Great — Apollodorus

You are welcome.

It's been discussed because others questioned the existence of soul or self. — Apollodorus

In that case, you shouldn't have said, "But that's not what the thread is about".
Everything and anything can be related to each other, and I was just commenting on your statement, because you uttered it.

Nobody disputes that. But that's not what the thread is about — Apollodorus

You are the one who brought it into the thread.

The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

Another highly doubtful and debatable statement. Problem of Self is a big topic of its own. It has many arguments and theories on the issues.

The OP is about how believers in reincarnation justify it in philosophical/rational terms as opposed to purely religious/faith-based arguments. — Apollodorus

Of course, if one says that he just believes in reincarnation, then it is problem of faith, and doesn't need justification.

But I was saying that, the OP is rather a religious and faith topic, which lies out of the boundaries of objective theoretical and logical verification.

The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

When you die, it evaporates forever too. Don't be afraid to admit that you won't know where it has gone to.

I think you've copied that from Wikipedia or some other materialist source. The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

I am afraid your conjecture and thought are wrong.

That is 100% from my opinion. What is the point, copying ideas or texts from Wiki or some dodgy internet site, and bringing here? That would be a waste of time. I will say clearly and ALWAYS, where I got the ideas or quotation, if I were using them.

I come here to read other people's ideas on the philosophical issues, and then debate from my own ideas. I could be wrong of course, but if someone convinces me with his / her logic, reasoning and ideas, so be it. That is the whole point of being here, and worth time and effort of all.

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Another point I would like to add is that, immaterial objects such as souls cannot be used with concept such as existence. The word "exist" only applies to material objects. Using "exist" with immaterial mental properties is a categorical mistake. Mental properties don't exit. They process and emerge.

The concept of "Existence" applies to concrete physical objects with weight, dimension and texture, or at least one of them (e.g gas). It also must have temporal continuity of the existence prior to transforming to another material object. No matter how the physical objects transform, they will always exist as another form of physical object or substance e.g. you burn the woods, and it will become ashes. You burn the propane gas, and it will emit CO2. It can be trapped physically in a bottle.

Mentalities? Nothing like that is possible. Because they are not any form of existence. They are properties, states and tendencies emerged from the matter called "Brain".

You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP. — Apollodorus

I gave my own opinion on the proof of reincarnation issues on the OP. Even if, I seem remember on something, that cannot qualify as proof of existence on the object. But if even the memory is not present, then what chance of proof or verification have we?

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Theoretical possibility of existence of immaterial existence sounds illusional imagination without strong concrete evidence.

OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many are they, out of the whole human population? It is also possible that, they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world.

That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of. — Apollodorus

It proves that reincarnation can never be proven. Therefore the OP is a meaningless question.

Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence. — Apollodorus

Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are??

Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?

Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? Because, even if we suppose that we all have reincarnated from our past lives, no one seems to remember, or knows who they were in their past lives.

Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? — hypericin

Maybe it costed $50 to treat the poodle in the local vet? Whereas the terminally ill child has been told there is no cure (that is what terminally ill means?) by the doctors?

Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. — hypericin

Valuable has many different meanings, and does not necessarily equates to morally right. For instance, financially valuable things and actions are not always right. There are different social valuable things and actions, and there are also personal ones.

"Depending on what aspects something is more valuable", must be added in the question to get the answers.

4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

Or "No one knows yet."

People know he or she is "I" by seeing their own hands, feet, their own face (in the mirror) etc in front of them, feeling hungry (and they say I am bloody hungry. I need to eat something. I feel thirsty must have something to drink...etc), feeling angry (I am angry now, they say), seeing the objects in front of them (they say, I see a mountain. I see a lake etc). They don't need logical deduction to have "I".

"I" is simply a being perceived by the being, even if they don't realise.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics. — Adam Hilstad

yes, I also feel that Ethical issues are more complicated than Aesthetics. I even used to think that they are totally different kind in nature. There are some overlapping parts, but only minor.

Think of the Ethical issues emerging from Euthanasia. Killing a life is bad, under the eyes of ancient and universal moral axiom dominated the whole human history. But recently in some cases, they are now justifying killings under certain situations and call them "Mercy killing" = Euthanasia.

Morality involves far more situational circumstance aspects and reasoning for its judgements.

Aesthetics? Beauty and ugliness are cultural, personal judgements based on momentary feelings on objects. These are direct and simpler mental process largely unsupported by reasoning process than Ethical ones.

The only possible means for “I” at all, is by logical deduction. In humans, all logical deduction is only possible by reason. But “I” am not a being at all, so whether or not a being logically deduced or a being proved by reason, is moot. — Mww

Can't agree. It sounds like if one had no logical deductive reasoning capability (such as children or non philosophical people - who don't know a thing about logic), then he or she has no concept of "I".

It seems to me this is the case. It is ethically right to find and create beauty where appropriate, because it enriches the lives of everyone around us. — Adam Hilstad

I don't see a necessary linkage between beauty and right. What is beautiful is not necessarily right for everyone and every case, and vice versa.