So you think it is the other way round ! But what difference does it make if it is the subjective experience of an individual. The individual feels he/she does not exist (in hard terms). So they are skeptic about their own existence.
Yes but being skeptic is also a sort of being. If you really are not, ypu are not skeptic, If you are dead, you don't think that you are dead, you don't think!
I understand that being skeptic is also a sort of being. But this applies to anything other than the subject which the subject can be skeptic about anyhow. So the question boils down to being. When the being is doubtful, or the existence of being is doubtful, how can there be a being (with certainty)? It is confusing but I believe it contains certain level or argument.
Religious people do not accept my premise: "If you are dead, you don't think that you are dead, you don't think!" They believe that death be;pngs to the body, but thinking belongs to the immortal soul.
I don't think we should be concerned about who accepts or rejects your premise. I am trying to discuss the point from the subjects point of view. I agree to the statement that you made "If you are dead, you don't think that you are dead, you don't think!". But what difference does it make to the subject suffering from the syndrome in question?
That is a different question, which is not connected with Descartes'quote. Descartes introduces certainty by reason, while Cotard's syndrome causes doubt by emotion (depression?).