My intention was only to prove that the belief of "We are out bodies" is nonsensical and unsubstantiated. — Alkis Piskas
Now, one can examine the subject using theories belonging to the philosophy of mind, and more specifically "dualism": "the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). But this is not in my plan. — Alkis Piskas
"I am", in fact, the emergent, recursively continuous, output of this body's interactions with its environment. — 180 Proof
"I am", in fact, the emergent continuous output of this body's interactions with its environment. — 180 Proof
If you have a body, then what are YOU? — Alkis Piskas
Thinking that you are your body is like a car driver who gives so much importance to his car (he can't live without it, etc.) that he eventual believes he is that car! On a higher level, the driver knows he is separate from his car but he still believes that his body drives the car. — Alkis Piskas
....YOU who became a president of a company, YOU whom will still be in the memories of people who knew YOU, after you pass away, YOU ... Is all that an illusion? — Alkis Piskas
So, what is this YOU? It is the spirit, soul, elan vital and other names people have given to the vital princeple, the animating force and the identity itself of the human being. — Alkis Piskas
Sorry, I can't resist: is this the transcendental unity of apperception? — Srap Tasmaner
to model a "world" in which we are there as the "other" of the world
— apokrisis
Sorry, I can't resist: is this the transcendental unity of apperception?
(@Mww?) — Srap Tasmaner
A serious answer would be no..... — apokrisis
.....not if the unity is understood in terms of a synthetic bundle of experiences. — apokrisis
the impossibility of the model containing that which models — Mww
The first, and very obvious question is, "If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on?" You can't be a body and have a body at the same time, can you? — Alkis Piskas
the impossibility of the model containing that which models
— Mww
Why is it impossible? — Srap Tasmaner
My intention was only to prove that the belief of "We are out bodies" is nonsensical and unsubstantiated. — Alkis Piskas
If the model contains the modeler, the modeler becomes a part of the model rather than being in a relation to it. — Mww
The modeler causes the model, therefore cannot be a quantity in it. — Mww
Thank you for your response.And not proven by being caught in the infelicitous quicksand of felicitous language — tim wood
Of course that would be ideal. Should we arrange for a live meeting to show you in action what I tried to express in words? :smile:to get to substance you have to break through language — tim wood
But a human, as a psychological being, is formed by at least four levels of semiosis - genes, neurons, words and numbers. — apokrisis
Thank you, Jack, for your eresponse.the scope may go beyond into the outer regions beyond the limits of the physical aspects which arise in brain as the physical hardware of consciousness. — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.