It is there to pay attention? — Thunderballs

Yes, you can say that. Something like "Linsten guys!" ... But not as if I was dictating it or something. It is so evident to me that I am not a body that I tried to pass this belief to others who believe they are bodies. But this has a story behind it.

I launched this topic after I saw the disappointing (for me, always) results of my poll "Does thinking take place in the human brain?" a few days before. About 80% of the people who voted and/or responded to it thought they where just bodies with a brain. So, you can also take my exlcamation mark as a kind of protest! :grin: (Of course, they too protested back, "But we ARE bodies!" :grin: )

What's so bad about being your body (you put an exclamation mark behind your statement that we're not our body!)? — Thunderballs

Nothing. An exclamation mark can indicate a lot of things other than "bad"!
One example is the exclamation mark in the above sentence! And in the previous sentence! And in this one!
(Wow! I think I have overdone it! :grin:)

I don’t see any profit in repeating anything. — Mww

I see. So, you are just spreading venom with your baseless criticism and also in wasting people's time.

I am done with you. :meh:

I have in mind our ordinary commonsense intuitions in which we think of ourselves as having a mind and a body. — Manuel

1) Intuition has nothing to do with common sense. Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
2) OK about the mind, but do you need intuition or even thinking to just observe your body and be aware of the fact that you have a body and of your body itself?

This is very closely related to one's beliefs. — Manuel

But it is exactly about belief that I'm talking. And what I discribed shows a big conflict in one's beliefs: a body w/o spirit and then spirit leaving the body. We don't know which belief of the two is stronger. This is not important. What is important is that there is a possibility they actually believe there's a spirit which is connected to a body. Isn't that right?

this is a way of coping and behaving — Manuel

This might also be the case, i.e. the belief about the spirit leaving the body is not real or strong, but it is just an emotional reaction to the loss. Yet, this doesn't change what I am describing above and have also described earlier.

Much like I don't think a person is anywhere before they are born. — Manuel

This is quite reasonable, since we have no sound evidences about the truth of that.
Anyway, this is another story! :smile:

I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, — Mww

OK, fair enough.

I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, which is technically unsound for lack of critical thinking. — Mww

1) Which argument specifically is this? (I have said a lot of things and brought in quite a few arguments to support my thesis.)
2) How it lacks critical thinking? (Direct and general statements like this are no good. Esp. when counter-argumentation is missing!)

I know that you go on with a general analysis and argumentation, and I'm certainly willing to respond to it, but I would like to answer that first because it sounds important ...

When you say:
"Right this person, is YOU. YOU, as a human being, the same YOU since you were born, ..."
I think that's correct. That's the idea of a self as distinct from a body, as I understand it. — Manuel

Right!

...how else can you think of a bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else?
— Alkis Piskas
Yes, mostly physics. — Manuel

OK.

We have our intuition of what bodies are then there's the more in depth study of them. — Manuel

Do you mean how the body and organism works?

I don't think if you ask any of them is that thing in the casket an actual person, any of them would say that it is a person. — Manuel

I don't believe that either. But I can't say what exactly each one feels after a loved person has gone. One moment you can hear them saying e.g. "He/she is now in heaven", etc. and the other moment speaking to them over the grave on their visits to the cemetery. Why do they need to go there? Can't they speak to them from any place?

This subject brings in something else quite interesting: While persons are alive people believe that they are bodies and treat them as such, but after they die, and their body is burried or cremated, they believe that they continue to "live" and exist somewhere (as spirits, souls, etc.)? Do you think that this has someting to tell us? :chin:

Ha, ha! Nicely said! :smile:

Not at all. I am behind in responses — Constance

I'm glad to hear this! :smile: (Not that you are "behind in responses!" :smile:)

Was there a question I missed? — Constance

No. No explicit questions.

Anyway, my intention was not to get a response on the things I said, but only to know that your lack of response was not due to something I said that offended you.

So thanks. Mission accomplished! :smile:

I think that in one sense you are correct. — Manuel

OK, but can you also quote where does this refer to? Thanks.

If by "body" you have in mind what we commonly refer to as human bodies — Manuel

What else could I have in mind? :smile:

In a more strict sense, we don't know what bodies are. — Manuel

What could a more strict sense be and how else can you think of bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else?

I have yet to see a person existing absent a body. — Manuel

Of course you can't. You connect the body to the person. Even a dead body is still considered a person by the great majority of people. And even when a dead body is burried and it is eaten by worms and becomes just bones, or it is cremated, people still believe that these are the person himself. Do you think this is rational?

(BTW, have you heard women say "I want that you like me for my mind not my body!" ? :grin:)

But the main thrust of your argument is sensible. — Manuel

OK, thanks.

if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'. — stoicHoneyBadger

I agree. That's what I would do too.

the interest is because those commandments are wrapped in a story. — stoicHoneyBadger

This indeed may be true. However, I don't think that these commandments and the story behind them, work like tales for little children ... If I remember well, when I heard about them in a Religion course (in elementary school, I think), I felt a kind of awe ... Not pleasant though! A feeling of blind obedience or something like that. And this is maybe how they were intended for. Actually, the whole Old Τestament is base on creating such an awe, if not terror! (Biblical catastrophes, God's relentless vengeance and punishment, etc.)
On the other hand, I loved the stories about Jesus. The New Testament is much lighhter and inspiring!

I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, this sounds like a prejudice. It also sounds that you didn't read what I wrote on the subject! :smile:

Do you consider youself, a person a human being something arbitrary?
— Alkis Piskas
These do not relate to each other. — Mww

Isn't yourself, the person I communicate with, the human being, ... all one? Aren't these things YOU? If not what else are they?

This only works if realization does not involve understanding. — Mww

Right. It doesn't.
("Realization": "An act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact." (Oxford LEXICO))

If you can’t inform me of how simple YOU is ... — Mww

As it looks, I can't (because I tried). Realization can sometimes happen with information --that's why I tried-- but it most often occurs at some usually unexpected moment.

When you will realize it --and I really hope you will at some point-- you will see why I say "simple".

People who believe their mind is their brain or that their self is their body have either swallowed the scientism lie or are too scared to think about life after material death — Ambrosia

Where were you hiding all that time? :grin:
I need that kind of support. More precisely, to raise my hopes! :smile:

And your right,it's not to do with thinking. It's obvious and Intuitive. — Ambrosia

Well, you are one in a million! (Actually, one among the ~25 people who responded to the topic! :smile:)

Never trust scientists on these matters! — Ambrosia

Of course not. I never stop saying that (in different words!)

just opinions based on misinformation — Sam26

Thank you for responding!
Yes, this is usual the case based on the the replies I get myself. But I thing the problem is more severe: this misinformation cannot be "repaired": it gets stuck in the mind and "acts" as a prejudice!

I haven't found that one needs to believe anything religious in order to believe that consciousness is not dependent on brain activity — Sam26

There's certainly no need for that! I have never connected consciousness to religion. It's a purely philosophical subject (e.g. Philosopy of Mind). So, this idea belongs to the "misinformation" that you are mentioning.

People get wrapped up in their worldviews, which locks them into their ideologies — Sam26

Exactly. I have mentioned this quite a few times (with different words, of course) and it is also what I said above about "prejudice". If misinformation is an obtacle to knowledge, prejudice is a huge obtacle!

When I'll find time, I'll read comments from people and yourself on your very interesting topic!

what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

But if a religion or philosophy is not correct (according to the opinion of most people) how can it give them moral guidance and the rest? If, e.g., I say inconsistent, nonsensical etc. things are you going to take my advices seriously?

Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, it seems they have and in fact a massive interest! (Not for me, of course, but for millions if not billions of people.)

it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes — stoicHoneyBadger

(BTW, "living out those believes" -> "leaving out those believers")
That's an interesting idea. The believers would be certainly left out!

The fact of the wrapper-story being factually correct — stoicHoneyBadger

I'm not sure if we can talk about the correctness of a story. A story is just a story.

***

Because, I sound somewhat negative with my above remarks, I will talk now about something positive: :smile:

Reasoning can be evaluated as correct or not. So, I believe what can not only gain existing believers from various religions, but also gain followers from non-believers. To create a successful religious philosophy, it must be based on a sound ethical system. A system that is rational and will resonate as logical to people. Such a system could be based, e.g. on the principle of "major good for the most". Ethical behavior based on helping and enhancing survival and well-beingness, for oneself, the family, the society, the humanity. Such a system is objective, since it is applicable everywhere in the world. Behavior can also be evaluated, always according to the customs and values of the civilization to which such an ethics system is applied.

Other ethics systems can also be considered. But a religion and religious philosophy must be based on ethics and appeal to reason.

Congrats! :up:
How have you managed to create such a good and successful discussion with such a difficult topic?
I just crated a topic with the title "You are not your body!" 3 days ago, which is much simpler and more "digestible", and half of the place in here tried to devour me! :grin: It seems that I offended them! :grin:
Most of them don't even believe consciousness exists but it is only a concept or illusion! And in your topic, it is taken even to a higher level!
Thank you for that, because, after I am about 3 months in TPF and started to think that I was in the wrong place!

Who/what is this someone you're conversing with? — TheMadFool

Continuing to discuss this subject cannot and will not lead anywhere.

OK, I'll tell you something I have not told anyone yet in here. It's the bottom line:

YOU is not something to be analyzed. In fact, it has nothing to do with thinking. It has to do with realization and cognition. You can realize it or you cannot. There's nothing else to it. And I really hope that sooner or later you will realize it! Not only you, but everyone in here who hasn't yet.

What happens, when I die, to my voice, my gait, my verbal tics, my habits? My interests and passions? My duties? My laziness? — Srap Tasmaner

I can't say. You are mixing matter with ideas with actions ... You have to group them at least by kind!

Doesn’t simple logic suggest any “you” represents a “self”? — Mww

(I would prefer that you responded to the whole topic than picking up stuff from here and there. Anyway, I guess this is better than nothing at all ...)

Simple logic cannot be based on fuzzy and debatable concepts like "self". Simple logic can only be based on basic, simple, easily definable things that everyone can undestand. That's why it is also called "common logic", a term that I don't like because the word "common" can be interpreted in different ways.

when the topic is about some arbitrary YOU — Mww

Do you consider youself, a person a human being something arbitrary? Do you consider the abtract concept of "self" something more concrete than YOU, yourself, the TPF member with the username @Www, the one who has written that comment and with whom I commuincate at this moment?

What affirmation would I gain from being informed “how simple YOU is”? — Mww

A lot! More than you can think of! (Hint: It has to do with realization, not concepts)

When you use "my" you are not the same as that which is yours. — TheMadFool

Certainly.

You're begging the question — TheMadFool

"Begging the question" means "to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response". What specific question are you referring to?

How can you say you're conversing with me when I made it clear to you I don't know who me is? — TheMadFool

You may not know who you are, that's OK, but I I am very certain that there is someone out there with whom I am conversing. That's where my "you" refers to.

Sorry about the previous remark. — TheMadFool

No problem.

What's the difference? — TheMadFool

Oh, I see. Well, I have made it so clear that even a child could undestand it. (Please don't get offended by that. I always try to explain things in the most simple manner and with the simplest words, so that even a child can undestand. Of course, I know that this upsets all those who want to dive into an ocean of concepts just for intellectual pleasure or other personal reasons.)
So, maybe you just don't want to see how simple YOU is --I swear it is! :smile:-- and how unncecessarily complicated the concept of "self" can be. Well, at least as far as this topic is concerned.

I'm between my brain and the physical brain. ... — TheMadFool

OK.

Good luck! — TheMadFool

Good luck for what? You keep saying that! I guess then that it's your motto! :smile:

See vide infra — TheMadFool

Hi! This is a pleonasm, since "vide" means see! :smile: (Trivial comment of course ...)

If you are a mind or a soul, then why do you say 'my mind or my soul', 'I have a mind or I have a soul', and so on?" — praxis

BTW, this is my quote. (Actually it's part of my description the topic). @praxis just quoted it ...

What they mean, what's implied — TheMadFool

How is "I'm not the body" implied from "My body such and such"?
In fact, people "My body such and such" and they believe or claim that "I'm the body". This is what this topic has shown, since most people in here believe they are bodies.

the bag is empty and flse still hasn't been found. — TheMadFool

I can find a few explanations for it: the guy might 1) have made a mistake, 2) believed that the bag contained a flse, 3) call 'flse' an 'apple' or 4) have tricked you. There' may be more ...
But I guess you mean (2).

Is the self an empty word? — TheMadFool

Maybe as a concept, and depending on how you define it. But never as YOU, yourself, the person, the identity, the living unit, the human being. YOU, TheMadFool, with whom I have this exchange. And YOU are not empty!

This is why I say that people are lost in concepts instead of seeing the obvious, using simple logic. They seem to trust concepts more than what they themselves can experience directly. This is really sad.

Is the self an illusion? — TheMadFool

Are you an illusion? (I hope not, because I would have to imply that this comminication is also an illusion!)

This topic was simply about YOU, not the "self" as described in psychology and by the various philosophers through the ages.

Oh, I forgot that you are only wasting my time ... OK, I am done here.

Ātman is Hindu terminology, not Buddhist. — Wayfarer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Atman_(Buddhism)

Next time bring in your reference(s) too! :smile:

Which is exactly why this entire thread is a complete waste of time. — Xtrix

But then, why are you participating in it? You could just ignore it. And thus avoid passing your hard critique as well as wasting the time of others ... So which of the two is actually a waste of time: my topic (in which 22 members have participated and has 139 replies up to now) or your participation?

Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries.
— Alkis Piskas
Agreed. — Xtrix

OK. So, if you agree with this you should also agree with bringing up a definition from a dictionary, because it's the same thing. One has just to remove the source! :smile: (Only that mentioning the source is more honest than looking as if one has conceived that definition himself. The same holds when you quote another person, e.g. a philosopher, as this is often done in here.)

BTW, we are talking a lot about "definitions" (too official a term) and maybe we forget that they stand for "meanings"! And what is more essential in a communication than undestanding the meaning of the words used in it?

we can define words however we want. — Xtrix

Best to clarify what you mean by your words. — Xtrix

I agree. This is the best way.

We’re not interested in defining things in a vacuum. — Xtrix

Didn't get that.

I can define the heart as the liver, if I want to. That’s what I mean when I say “heart.” Okay…does that advance the field of medicine? — Xtrix

It won't have any effect at all on medicine, as far as you are not a doctor! :grin:

I hope that I didn't say something bad or that offended you ...

This is nonsensical. — praxis

Well, examine better what the other said before coming out with criticsm. More specifically examine again the meaing of emotion. I have put time axplaing all this to you and you seem to ignore what I said.

OK. That's it for me. I'm out of this utterly failed comminication.

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit? — praxis

OK, I'm really sorry that I put into that trouble and waiting.

I will answer with another similar question: "How is consuming and having an apple different from solving and having a mental problem?" Semantically, their difference lies on physicality. One is physical and the other non-physical. Otherwise, linguistically they are parallel grammatical constructions.

It’s unbelievable how often this mistake occurs. I’ve written about it elsewhere: — Xtrix

I looked at your reference. You say "I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to 'common sense,' but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms." I am afraid to say that this is the only way a discussion or simple communication can take place. Common or similar definitions of terms consist the common reference on which both interlocutors can be based. And dictionaries are a means to provide that common reference. Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries. This way, the other interlocutor knows what he is talking about. Doing neither of them calls for unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts between the two interlocutors. It's only too logical. ("Common sense" as you mention in your reference of your link.)

I strongly advise you, as a professional translator and linguist, is to start using dictionaries. You will thank me when you will start "saving" your discussions from unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts.

Misunderstood and unknown words are the main reason why comminications fail.

Well, my brain gives me emotions too! — Newkomer

OK, I believe you. But it would be better to look up the term "emotion": "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.", Oxford LEXICO).

What the brain gives you is a physical response to an emotion. Not the emotion itself. The brain is only a stimulous-response mechanism. The vibrations you mentioned are such a response. The adrenaline you may feel in your body (they say dogs can smell it) from a strong fear is such a response. And so on.

To seeing the brain on a scan. — Newkomer

I can't really connect this to "I can see the physical world too." ... Anyway, this is not important. Let's drop it.

It’s not OKAY that you still haven’t answered my question — praxis

Right, that would generally not be OK. But I don't have to answer all the questions after some point in a discussion, when an important mismatch has occurred. Yet, I will answer your question since you asked me to. Can you please remind me exactly what that question was?

It makes my body feel pain or an itch. — Newkomer

Pain and itch are sensations, not feelings. Feelings refer to emotions.

It gives me fantasies about quantum fields and curved spacetime. I can litterally see with the eyes turned inward. — Newkomer

It gives you fantasies ... And also makes you solve equations and think about life and the whole universe ...

Are you talking about this sponge-like organ in your skull, full of neurons? This stimulus-response mechanism?
Are you talking about this?

Roughly, everyone except you. — Srap Tasmaner

I knew I was special! :grin:

I can see the physical world too. — Newkomer

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Where does "too" refer to?

My brain is not an essential part of me. It serves to give me ideas and feelings and thoughts — Newkomer

How is this done? How is your brain giving you ideas and feelings? Can you give me one or two examples?

Thank you. Interesting. But how could one get to that? Certainly not by using a dictionary. Also, I don't know how many people in here know about that term/expression. That's why I believe it is always wise to write within parentheses the definition of terms that are not common.
Anyway, better late than never! :smile:

It's a pity to hear that, — Voidrunner

I was totally honest with you. I really didn't undesrand your point. Do you find it rational to blame someone because he honestly didn't undestand something you said?

Eastern (Buddhist) philosophy is about realizing emptiness and pretty much the opposite of what you appear to be indicating. — praxis

Indeed Buddhism considers the spirit, the mind and the body as one enity. Also Buddhist medicine is based on a holistic view of the human being. However, the meaning and use of term "spirit" is different in Buddhism. They have another term for what in the West we call "spirit": Atman. So it's just a different word. Taosim uses the word "ghost" for we call "spirit". And so on.

Anyway, even if I agreed with your point, this would not be "opposite" of what I indicated. It would be just a case where my indication could not be applied. But this would not mean that dualism is inexistent in the whole Eastern philosophy! (E.g. Hinduism, Yoga, Taosism)

So, what I can see and didn't like at all, is that you tried to find a way to totally refute my indicating of the Eastern philosophy by just mentioning Buddhism, based on the word spirit". This is unfair. Not OK!

Nothing. But can you please tell me why you say "I don't consider my brain ...." Can you be a body and still have a body at the same time?
— Alkis Piskas — DanLager

I have not asked this question from you. Well, you just picked it up. OK, but I would prefer that you had responded to the topic itself. Anyway, since wer are here ...

My brain is not part of my body. It's a mere aid. So I am my body. I don't have a body, I am my body. — DanLager

But you just said your brain is not part of your body. You see, the feeling (which accompanies "having a body", and which is natural) is in conflict with your mind (i.e, what you think about that). This is what can often happen when we think about things in life and rely on ideas instead of experiencing these things directly.

My brain is not part of my body. — DanLager

If it is not part of your body --which is not true, because you can see it yourself in a brain scan (MRI/MRS)-- then where do you think it is part of?

What do you mean by "agency"?
— Alkis Piskas
The usual meaning. The feeling of being free to choose and act on your own behalf. — apokrisis

Usual meaning?! Well, I have never met this word used in the way you define it! I also looked, specially for that, in a couple of standard dictionaries and I found nothing, not even close to that definition! BTW, it is very close to that of "free will" and self-determination.

OK, now I will have to re-read your whole reply to understand it's contents, because it contained that word quite a few times!

Or if not generates, at least interacts for sure with something non-physical. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I am rather for that!

I can't understand why the materialists from the original view "that mind cannot exist without brain" (which I also find true) jump to the conclusion "so mind is psychical!". There is a huge logical gap here. — dimosthenis9

I wonder about that too! I could understand this for people in general, even for hardcore Science who can only handle material things, but I really can't for philosophical thinkers who are supposed to apply rational thinking!

Why they can't accept the possibility that physical creates something that it's obvious non psychical — dimosthenis9

Exactly! There are so many reasons for doing that, i.e. leaving the issue at least "open", and mainly the inability of proving that thinking (esp. higher level thinking) takes place in the brain.

Well, I have a couple of explanations for that kind of "philosophical" behavior that characterizes these people.
(Note: I am referring to the people who have something valuable and pertinent to say, not the weeds, the clueless those who have nothing to do with philosophy and are here for fun, neither the really crazy guys, those who have gone nuts. And there are quite a few of them in here!)

1) They lack critical thinking or they don't trust it because they have been "burnt" in the past (proven often wrong, etc.) That's why most of them prefer to bring in quotes from various philosophers rather than presenting their own views. Critical thinking is not at all an easy thing!

2) They have a view about something and they stick to it because they don't want to change it. Such a thing would mean for them weakness or failure and it will also shatter their reality of the world. This might be very unpleasant! Yet, "deep down", they are aware of the conflicts in their views and reality. This may be even more unpleasant! And yet, they don't understand that by closing the door to other views and not questioning their own, they cannot build a solid reality. It will always be frail!

There are of course more ...