I use "phenomena" to refer to any occurrences, especially as they appear or would appear experientially.

We are a very sophisticated creation that it is hard even for ourselves to comprehend. Humans evolved from single-celled organisms who adapted to external stimuli and eventually evolved. If you study anatomy and physiology you will realise that products of the outside environment (e.g. electricity, oxygen) are also present within are bodies and are vital for the continuation of life. Therefore, our existence is not self-dependent but hinges on the surrounding matter.
The mind is the body, they both matter and are co-dependent. Oversimplified, the conscious mind can be seen as an evolved mechanism for survival and optimal living that utilises the decision making process. It will take a long time for science to clearly explain how consciousness works but it is clear that our psychological state is linked to our physiology (psychophysiology).
Even if science explains our behaviour and the process of evolution, this doesn’t mean that our existence is meaningless. It is rational to look for a reason to serve the world when the world gives you suffering. The real question should be does life have any positive meaning? Do you really get something out of your efforts? In most cases, suffering is the consequence of malevolence and this may suggest that malevolence should be ameliorated in order for life to have a positive meaning. To ameliorate malevolence, we must voluntarily take responsibility for our own being and the suffering that comes with it. We must live a life that manifests itself as meaningful and to do that we need to discover goals that bring us joy.
“Arguments like what difference is it going to make 10 billion years in the future when the Earth is destroyed, aren’t hyper-rational objections to the nature of being itself but hyper-rationalistic excuses for failing to bear the responsibility of living properly moment to moment, hour to hour.”

There is no mind without a body. Nor is there any spirit without flesh.

What are you? — Anirudh Sharma

WHAT ARE WE? We are some configuration of energy. We call us human beings, for now. Anyway, as far as we are aware, part of how that energy expresses itself is the body, and another is the mind. There may be other expressions, more or less, largely depending on characterisation of what is recognised.
We don't seem to have a problem characterising the body but we seem a bit unsure as to what the mind is. I would explain it as the faculty of reason, and which employs certain mechanisms/means to organise and direct certain energies according to logic (nature's laws) or as best as possible. It is a faculty in a manner akin to perception, or even emotions, in that, it is not separate from the physical counterpart and works in conjunct with it.

On a personal note, I've been (for a while) working on a theory where the mind is a faculty or mechanism which operates within another faculty or mechanism. It is analogous to software which operates within hardware. And while the software is not material, the processes of its creation, management, operation, etc, are material and thus sensible (impacts the senses) and even empirical. I believe the same applies to mind.

Neither the body nor the mind can be distinct and separate from what we refer to as a human being. Therefore, they are defined by their relation to the human energies and the activities they manifest. The same also applies to spirit, consciousness, ego, etc.

If people didn't have such thick skulls, we would be able to hear each other's mental voice very clearly. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I think I read something close to that. The idea is that, when the voice in our head (our constant monologue and maybe even conscience) is active (talking), they are accompanied by corresponding micro-vibrations in our voice-box. So perhaps if we were attuned to hearing higher rates of vibrations (much higher than animals), other peoples 'consciences' could carry to our ears and thus hear what they were thinking.

Conscious Experience is not explained by Physical Brain Activity. Take for example the Conscious Experience of the Redness of Red. This Redness is in your Conscious Mind. What is it? How does it happen? Seems to be something that Science cannot now explain. Seems like it's not a Physical World Phenomenon but rather some yet to be discovered Conscious World Phenomenon. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Neuroscience has been trying to work out the intricate mechanism of thinking, but we haven't quite grasped it, not to say that it won't be explained in the next few decades. — Anirudh Sharma

All neuroscience can show is that there is a correlation between brain activity and thought. But correlation is not causation. The brain is involved with thought but that does not mean the brain is the source of thought. The analogy of the television is often used. The sound and vision from the tv are processed by the television's components and those components are certainly correlated with the film on view. But does that mean the television is the source of the film? That the television created the script and the music score? These are broadcast to the tv from a remote station. Likewise with the brain, it processes thought but that does not mean it creates thought.

I think it would be hard to argue one is only a mind or a body. But putting the context into a more philisophical sense I often see a theoretical premise argued but could use the same evidence to support either hypothesis.

E.G. I am particularly interested in the idea of phantom limbs, that is a severed limb having a 'sense' of being there. This has been used by materialist proponents to argue the illusion of consciousness and self whilst more idealist proponents have used it to argue for their own position as well. I am a bigger fan of the computational and informational theory model of biology coming out that more or less assumes phenomenal experience is physically contingent. I have plenty of evidence for this like being blind removes conscious experience of vision and dementia makes one very much less conscious. This burden of proof of a 1:1 correlation is just bogus.

The question of the reducibility of consciousness to pure materialism can be equally applied to a piece of paper with words on it, wherein one must argue there is discreet information written on it let's say "the cat sat on the mat" purely in terms of the atoms with paper and ink. Below I put a link highlighting the difference in terms of 'phantom limbs' that elucidates that I think framed in the right way means we could argue the self is a reference for an internalized information system of self-regulation produced by our biology. In that sense, we have an integral dimension of the psyche, conscious processes, non-conscious processes, and physical biology that within the experience of a phenomenon and our environment.

Below I put a ted talk which talks about the advanced prosthesis but the lecture hints at two different types of amputation, one with the nerve endings severed and one without and the differentiated results.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hugh_herr_how_we_ll_become_cyborgs_and_extend_human_potential

We are more than a body or sack of billions of cells. We are souls with mental, spiritual, and physical abilities, and with a free will.

From the OP:

Another thing that pushes me towards thinking we are, indeed just a body is things like OCD (Obsessive compulsive disorder), where one isn't in complete control of their thoughts, due to some difference in the structure of the brain. — Anirudh Sharma

A side-point, which is worth mentioning but not debating here, in this topic (IMO :smile: ), is that no-one is in "complete control of their thoughts". Much of our mental activity takes place unconsciously; out of our own awareness. It is not in our control.

I, a stranger and afraid. In a world I never made.

:sweat:

I suspect you are much more than that. (Or much little? :halo: )

But that is true with all living beings and all of them have cells. Isn't there more than just that? (interesting as that physical dimension view is). Are you also not your conscious experience or your mind?

I too doubt that the brain controls all the cells of the body. I think many cells must work independently and not everything is controlled by the central nervous system, no?. Perhaps many organs. But every individual cell? I'm guessing there are many cells (if not most?) that function through genetic information only and not rely on signals from the brain to do their job.

So the question is, is that involuntary part of your body "you"?
If no, then that begs the question are your vital organs you? You don't have direct control over them and they just do their complex set of tasks without you even knowing about it most of the time.
If yes, then are you a combination of your body, the part of your mind that you're unconscious about but has important jobs (like the part which instructs your heart to beat or liver to work), and the part of your mind that is conscious of the world through its senses and memory? What about your natural instincts and your habits? Are they you or not?
Or are they "part of you"?
Something being you and something being part of you are different things.
The cat tore the newspaper, not the paws of the cat tore the newspaper.
Ron knocked the door, not Ron's knuckles knocked the door.
But your heart started beating faster, not you started beating your heart faster.
Your hair grows fast, not you grow your hair fast.

What are you? A body made up of cells that is somehow able to 'think' ?
A mind that creates the illusion of a body, and everything around it, which raises a lot of questions of course.
Or a body with a mind?
The third one seems the most compelling to most people, but is it true? — Anirudh Sharma

I'm not sure these three items are mutually exclusive alternatives, at least the way you've framed them here.

To all appearances, I am a human animal, and a human animal is a sort of living thing, a sort of sentient thing, a sort of cultural thing, and a sort of discursive thing.

I have some idea what it means to say a sentient animal "has a mind". But I'm not sure what it might mean to say a sentient animal "is a mind", or in what discursive contexts I should be inclined to speak accordingly.

Likewise, I see no reason to suppose the thing we call "my mind" can exist apart from some physical system in which mental operations are instantiated, as they are grounded in the body of this animal here.

Neuroscience has been trying to work out the intricate mechanism of thinking, but we haven't quite grasped it, not to say that it won't be explained in the next few decades.This to many, is a scary thought. — Anirudh Sharma

What is the scary thought here? That it may take more than a few decades to explain some things?

I see no reason to expect there's a determinate end to explanation. Explanation will continue, as long as we continue.

I may find this thought hopeful, not frightening.

It means that I am just a collection of cells, and nothing more, which means I am insignificant! — Anirudh Sharma

How does a delay in pending empirical knowledge imply anything about what sort of thing you are? I suppose it implies you are thing complex enough to require more than a few decades to sort out.

Doesn't this strike you as another rosy outlook? And so much for your claims of insignificance -- you baffler of 21st century science!

This does not scare me though, because if we are a collection of cells, and nothing matters, then how does this matter? — Anirudh Sharma

I admire your courage. Nevertheless, I hope you'll agree, there's nothing here to fear.

To say that I am a collection of cells is not to say I am "merely" a collection of cells. Some biological organisms are sentient biological organisms.

It seems a great many things matter to sentient animals like us, whether we want them to or not. There is no escape from meaning and significance in this life.

None of us is a blank slate.

Another thing that pushes me towards thinking we are, indeed just a body is things like OCD (Obsessive compulsive disorder), where one isn't in complete control of their thoughts, due to some difference in the structure of the brain. — Anirudh Sharma

Perhaps you anticipate that I see no problem here. For on the sort of account I favor, the mind of the animal is rooted in the body.

I suspect you are much more than that. (Or much little? :halo: ) — Frotunes

Much more (or less) than what?

"A side-point, which is worth mentioning but not debating here, in this topic (IMO :smile: ), is that no-one is in "complete control of their thoughts". Much of our mental activity takes place unconsciously; out of our own awareness. It is not in our control."

Definitely worth mentioning. I'd also point out, that in terms of what we can know is true about ourselves, the only real difference between those with say an OCD or Autism diagnosis: Is that some people have sat in front of a psychiatrist and been open and honest about how they think and feel. People who have not done this are operating under what I call The Fallacy of Normality. Even with an autism diagnosis it can feel as if you are normal whilst everyone else is disordered. I don't think people want to hear the argument that with neurological diversity, it is entirely possible that not even all humans have minds while some do. Some impulsive psychopaths, particularly the rare breed that is born with no Amygdala at all have been theorised to have no internal dialogue, only impulses, no way to differentiate between friend or foe, no self reflection what so ever. However, I think the ethical ramifications for espousing this view are to dangerous to warrant arguing for it really.

Cohen with his modern interpretation of Logic, would probably say that mind logically exists as an abstraction in the very least. The concept definitely exists on paper as a word and exists as a phenomenon. Finding the true sentence meaning of mind however is difficult.