Yeah, but that may be just to dig a deeper hole. — Mww
Being human can be a general objective proposition, a universal form — Mww
if you’re into the Greek thing — Mww
empirical anthropology — Mww
sputterchokegasp — Mww
A human, which is a strictly Enlightenment thing, which reduces to proper subjective metaphysics. — Mww
Pick yer own poison, I guess, right? — Mww
I think that this reflects the distinction that I draw between the objective homo sapiens which I am, and the subjective "I". — Michael Zwingli
A human, which is a strictly Enlightenment thing, which reduces to proper subjective metaphysics.
— Mww
I don't agree. A human is more than a thing.. — Thunderballs
. I would agree unequivocally, if you’d left off the “which I am”. Whatever “I” am, “I am” not an objective homo sapien. — Mww
You said "To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed."Is that all you have to say? People often do that after I said something. Saying goodbye. — Thunderballs
What premise exactly?It seems that I was misapprehended in my understanding of your premise — Michael Zwingli
What premise exactly? — Alkis Piskas
So, when you state that "a man is not his body", you are defining "a man" in the objective sense...as a real object in physical reality? If not, then how so? — Michael Zwingli
You said "To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed."
OK? Bye again! — Alkis Piskas
The only human “thing”, is its body, as — Mww
....”thing” here relates, albeit euphemistically, to “Enlightenment”, not a human. — Mww
But both at the same time! — Thunderballs
Whats an enlightenment thing? A way of enlightened thinking (according to science and scientific ratio)? — Thunderballs
Is a human founded in enlightenment? — Thunderballs
Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. — Zhuangzi
Nice! :smile:I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then. — TheMadFool
Sounds nice, but in what form does this intelligence exist?intelligence is everywhere, — Santiago
I don't undestand "small point's concentrating hips of it" ...our brain is just a really small point's concentrating hips of it — Santiago
I liked that!we are conscience, — Santiago
How could we not be anything? We should be something since we are aware (conscious)! Awareness (consciousness) is something. I am aware therefore I exist. (To paraphrase Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"! :smile:)in case we are anything of course — Santiago
I couldn't be bothered reading through the 10 pages of responses to find out if the comments I put here have already been said but I also wanted to 'respect' your request to look at this thread. So, I decided to simply respond to your own original questions. At the outset, I would include myself in the 'you exist only within your own brain' grouping. One of the majority you suggest. I have put the questions you ask, and I want to address, in bold
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?
I am not a body, I have a body, yes. Body parts can be replaced, ultimately I could become a brain in a box.
So, a second question follows as a consequence, "If you have a body, then what are YOU?"
I am a human mind, created through human procreation and my existence became possible due to the evolution of the universe and the consequential availability of the required raw materials.
My individuality/awareness/consciousness etc are examples of possible phenomena that can occur when an immense diversity, manifests by combination. In less flowery rhetoric, I am a random human mind created from all the possible human minds that could be created, from all the related processes, available to the universe. But no 'controller,' no god behind this. All processes in the Universe came from random action until the emergence of sentient lifeforms.
Is that which is YOU at this moment, who does this and that, YOU who have grown up from a baby and did all these things in your life, YOU who was a good student, YOU who have won medals in athletics and prizes in contests, YOU who got married and had children, 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? That is, YOU don't exist and have never existed?"
I do not agree at all with the posits that "I" does not exist or that individual free will or individual consciousness is not real.
Do people who communicate with you feel that they communicate with a brain or with a person?
With a person, I hope
Right this person, is YOU. YOU, as a human being, the same YOU since you were born, not your body, which is in constant change. You can trace YOURSELF in your mind since you were a child to this moment. It is always ONE thing. You may have felt millions of different emotions, various injuries and sickness since you were a child, but it is still, always YOU who have been subjected to all that.
Yes Its me but my body is just part of my interface and it allows me to interact with my environment.
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.
I came into existence because the possibility of doing so happened. I am alive and I can contribute/detract from objective goals such as giving meaning/significance to the universe. I think that's my primary function. I will die and disassemble (no soul/spirit/life after death in my opinion), adding to the raw materials available for producing new humans. In this sense, all lifeforms are connected.
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. Yes, like a robot in science-fiction movies! Which made me think of another question regarfing the impossibility of the idea that the person is his body: In that case sience could clone persons, not just their body, but every trait of their personality, their behavioral characteristics, their medical history, all their memories, in short the whole package! Well, good luck with it!
Yeah a bit dystopic but lots of possibilities in what you state. I think aspects of cloning and use of technology (the cyborg concept) could be very useful in the future to help enhance longevity of human lifespan. The Universe is a very big place. More planets than grains of sand on Earth. 8 billion humans is a very small number in that sense. We could have a billion planets each and that would just be a splash. If we are going to see it all and add to its significance in pursuit of meaning then we need longevity, until we get bored to continue living and decide to become raw materials again. Its the cumulative effect of human lives on the Universe that is the most important aspect of all of this. What will be the final result? Maybe at some point, the pantheist/cosmopsychist position will prove accurate, if the result is that the Universe itself becomes self-aware.
My intention was only to prove that the belief of "We are out bodies" is nonsensical and unsubstantiated.
I don't understand 'we are out bodies.' I assume you were meant to suggest that the idea of the mind existing outside of the body is nonsense and if that was your intention here then I agree.
And I'm really surprised that most people in here prefer to stick to such a belief than, not to believe
This can only be understood on the basis of whether or not I am correct about what you meant by 'we are out bodies', so I won't comment on it further.
but, just leaving another door open to the explanation of the mind-body connection. I can understand that this is not Science's task, since for it only material things exist, but for independent philosophical thinkers?
again, a bit dependent on my assumption above but I agree that the Scientific approach to these issues is more restrictive compared to the 'pure conjecture' and 'pure opinion' on offer to a philosophical epistemology. — Alkis Piskas
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.