Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness

A remote consciousness would like to raise awareness about plausible deficiencies contained within the original post. — Voidrunner

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I really can't undestand that. But even if I could, it sounds totally irrelevent to the topic and my description of it.

I also read some quotes that you brought in in your post and they are definitely not mine. Not even close. E.g. “we are only our bodies”, “obviousness”, "the identity of a human is the entirety of his mental activities", "the identity of a human is the entirety of his mental activities", ...

So I can safely conclude that this is not a reply addressed to me but to some other member!

It's a pity to hear that, since I aimed at a logically coherent depiction of the physicalists you're debating and the soundness of your argumentation against those. To be honest, I'm curious whether others share your stance on my critique.

there aren’t important issues to solve, because the problem is meaningless. — Xtrix

What problem?

The “physical structure”, for example, means what? — Xtrix

See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical+structure

If we simply want to play games with words, — Xtrix

What games? I brought in a definition from a standard dictionary. I also brought in another one, above. If that is what you are calling "games" or you think that consulting dictionaries to get the meaning of terms is uselsess, no wonder why you find everything meaningless!

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 ...

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! — Alkis Piskas

Are you one of the crazy guys? :smile: No, seriously: what do you think is matter? There are quantum fields of (nearly) point particles and these fields interact by means of gauge fields. This interaction is needed. Otherwise the fields waver out into infinity (or to a point, in auxiliary momentum space representation). The fields can form global and local patterns and on our neural network virtually ALL processes and forms can be present.

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!

To be honest, I'm curious whether others share your stance on my critique. — Voidrunner

I thought your critique was excellent. I spent some time admiring your reason and evenhandedness.
Welcome to the forum. :up:

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. — Alkis Piskas

An agency is that possessing agents. I am an agent and at the same time I am an agency as I possess my body. My brain and the physical world are necessary. I (my body) can't do without them and kuckily I'm tied to both. The brain is my (and your is your) inner world, an expressing of the non-material aspect of stuff) and the outer world is the expression of stuff's material side. What is matter? More than matter! It's magic stuff. Outside you can see the difference and inside you can feel the difference..

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?

The sense of agency (SA), or sense of control, is the subjective awareness of initiating, executing, and controlling one's own volitional actions in the world.[1] It is the pre-reflective awareness or implicit sense that it is I who is executing bodily movement(s) or thinking thoughts. In non-pathological experience, the SA is tightly integrated with one's "sense of ownership" (SO), which is the pre-reflective awareness or implicit sense that one is the owner of an action, movement or thought. If someone else were to move your arm (while you remained passive) you would certainly have sensed that it were your arm that moved and thus a sense of ownership (SO) for that movement. However, you would not have felt that you were the author of the movement; you would not have a sense of agency (SA).[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_agency

The body, me or you or anyone, is the agent. Brains and the physical world are aids for us to live. How beautiful creation is! Rejoyce! Hallejuhuha!

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!

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?

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:

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? — Alkis Piskas

I can see the physical world too. But I don't consider it as a part of me. I interact with the world outside and that of my brain. Both interact with me too. They form each other. My brain is not an essential part of me. It serves to give me ideas and feelings and thoughts. To make me live!

Well the issue is not so much how we feel about the issue but what the evidence is — Tom Storm

One thing to consider is that the body continually changes, and indeed every cell is replaced every seven years, but the self maintains a sense of continuity. That is related to the issue of the unity of subjective experience - that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change.

That is related to the issue of the unity of subjective experience — Wayfarer

No. It's related to the simple fact that replaced cells are almost identical to the new cells. The telomeres in the DNA of the new ones are a bit shorter.

that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

Really interesting approach.

Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

The self is the body (but without the brain).

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?

Where does "too" refer to? — Alkis Piskas

To seeing the brain on a scan.

How is this done? How is your brain giving you ideas and feelins? Can you give me one or two examples? — Alkis Piskas

It makes my body feel pain or an itch. It gives me fantasies about quantum fields and curved spacetime. I can litterally see with the eyes turned inward.

Also, I don't know how many people in here know about that term/expression. — Alkis Piskas

Roughly, everyone except you.

Roughly, everyone except you. — Srap Tasmaner

:grin:

Roughly, everyone except you. — Srap Tasmaner

I knew I was special! :grin:

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?

Pain and itch are sensations, not feelings! Feelings refer to emotions! — Alkis Piskas

Well, my brain gives me emotions too! Im feeling good vibes right now. A gift from the brain inside. A massively parallel neuron concert that plays for me. ☺

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) — Alkis Piskas

Atman is Hindu, Anatman (not-self) is Buddhist.

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! — Alkis Piskas

:brow: It’s not OKAY that you still haven’t answered my question about how being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit. This is the third time I’ve asked.

One thing to consider is that the body continually changes, and indeed every cell is replaced every seven years, but the self maintains a sense of continuity. That is related to the issue of the unity of subjective experience - that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

Maybe I’m missing the point here but the concepts of ‘body’ and ‘self’ both change, are composed of parts, indeed millions of neural connections, yet have a simple unity.