You are missing the main point here, which is that Buddhists accept direct experience, and by and large modern science does not. So, I accept my direct experience of the mind as "proof" for my purposes. You, apparently exclusively following the model of materialist and materialist-leaning science cannot, and have to rely -only- on inference due to your philosophical preference. What you describe is not a "moment to moment" experience at all, it is actually an event described through inference, you do not experience having cells replaced, that conclusion is a result of inference, not a personal experience. AFAIK the seven years thing is a myth anyway, btw. but perhaps that's for another thread.reiun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:55 am It has already been discussed on this forum that cells die and are replaced about every seven years, hence a form of rebirth. Or, also mentioned, moment-to-moment it can be said we experience a renewal or rebirth. So that is "gaining confidence based on personal experience." No problem rationally proving either of these, as far as I'm concerned.
In case you doubt me, look into Dennet's "manifest" and "scientific" image, people who accept the materialist view do not think any direct experience of reality is possible, only a scientific image through science/inference, and a manifest image through subjective experience - which according to them can never be reality, and is fully an epi-phenomena of matter - our brains. It's an illusion that comes from matter, which is the only reality according to them.
A Buddhist on the other hand accepts that one can cut through, penetrate, comprehend this manifest image and directly experience reality, which is called Bodhi, and of course there are varying views in Buddhism on the nature of matter.
A person who cannot accept this possibility essentially does not believe in Bodhi by definition. I have a lot of respect for many of these thinkers too, I just have come to a different conclusion.
https://bestmentalmodels.com/2018/09/25 ... fic-image/
I don't even think you understand the terms of the debate yet, it's not some silly "science vs anti science" thing. Scientists and philosophers have high level debates on this stuff for years and years.As for using modern science in this discussion, I accept your capitulation.
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/do ... ind-part-2