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.

In the body there is a lot to rub. What if I say that I am my body and I am in the middle of brain and physical world? The brain thinks for me. I dont think at all... — VerdammtNochMal

So, are you, are you in the middle of your brain, are you the body? If you are, you are. Nothing to discuss but I was mainly interested in how people answer, tend to that is, "no" to such questions.

So, are you, are you in the middle of your brain — TheMadFool

No. I'm between my brain and the physical brain. I am my body. I...AM...IN...BETWEEN. I let the the two (inner world and outer world) play and play along. A part of me is autonomous, luckily. The brain radiates into me (long dendrites) and the physical world has a grip too. Luckily. So who thinks? Not I!

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

I'm experiencing some memory issues.

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. — Alkis Piskas

My cat breathes. My body breathes. I breathe. Notice the difference and the similarity? When you use "my" you are not the same as that which is yours.

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. — Alkis Piskas

You're begging the question. How can you say you're conversing with me when I made it clear to you I don't know who me is? :chin:

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

What's the difference? Sorry about the previous remark.

No. I'm between my brain and the physical brain. I am my body. I...AM...IN...BETWEEN. I let the the two (inner world and outer world) play and play along. A part of me is autonomous, luckily. The brain radiates into me (long dendrites) and the physical world has a grip too. Luckily. So who thinks? Not I! — VerdammtNochMal

Good luck!

Good luck! — TheMadFool

Thanks!

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:

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

This topic was simply about YOU, not the "self"..... — Alkis Piskas

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. — Alkis Piskas

Doesn’t simple logic suggest any “you” represents a “self”? Seems logical that when the topic is about some arbitrary YOU, it can be nothing but a topic about some abstract yet validly represented self. The statement “the topic was simply about YOU, not the “self”, seems then, not to so much contradict itself, as to be a misnomer. Any YOU is a “self” without equivocation, but any YOU is the “self” is equivocal from perspective.

Am I not forced to trust the conceptual validity of a disconnected yet validly represented self, given from my own thinking alone, from the very impossibility of having the ability to experience it?

While I agree with the proposition, “YOU are not your body”, declaring the certainty of a negation does not warrant any affirmation related to it. What affirmation would I gain from being informed “how simple YOU is”?

They stop existing too. But what exactly does that prove?

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. — Alkis Piskas

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

I maybe off the mark but here's the deal.

Just like you think there's someone you're conversing with, I too am under the impression that there's a someone I refer to with the pronoun "I".

What could this "I" be? That, my friend, is the critical question.

Since, from our discussions on how we use the word "my" it seems, at the end of the day, we're very uncertain as to what the "I" is.

Let's be systematic.

I could be,
1. The body (includes the brain).
2. The mind, the consciousness.
3. A soul.
Last but not the least,
4. Practically anything.

However, at the risk of repeating myself, we say things like,
5. My body (you mentioned this)
6. My mind
7. My soul

Therefore, the "I" can't be the body or the mind or the soul. Have I left anything out? Doesn't look like I have.

Option 4 above is just there to ensure we've exhausted all possibilities - clearly ( :chin: ), I'm not my pet dog, or my neighbor's cat, or my neighbor, or the stone in your garden (I'm sure you live in a pretty house), or the mountain I see when I look out the window, you get the idea.

In essence, we've, like Cantor did with infinities, checked each and every thing the "I" could refer to and, luckily or not, none are a match.

The "I" is an illusion! It doesn't refer to anything at all. Thus, the someone that's chatting with you is ???

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. — Alkis Piskas

Your account of the matter/issue ignores the simplicity and glosses over the complexity that inheres therein.

They stop existing too. But what exactly does that prove? — dimosthenis9

Oh, I don't know that anyone's proving anything here...

It does seem to me though that my voice is a property of me; is it conceivable that I could still have this property after I have died?

No it isn't. And you won't have it. But that says nothing. Mind requires brain and body for sure. But that doesn't also mean that mind is brain/body. You can't jump to that conclusion.

Mind requires brain and body for sure. But that doesn't also mean that mind is brain/body. You can't jump to that conclusion. — dimosthenis9

Wouldn't dream of it. Brain and body are, as you say, necessary but not sufficient conditions for mind. Is something else necessary? Will I have a mind after I have died?

I answered you already. No you won't. But I m not sure I got your point here.

What is the difference between having a brain and a body but no mind, and having a brain and a body and a mind?

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)

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 — Alkis Piskas

Not quite, I switched it up on ya, substituting soul for body. After asking four times you finally addressed the question by asking a question, the point of which, you pointed out, is that you can be and have a spirit because the spirit in not physical. I then explained how both body and spirit occupy the same existential footing, proving your “argument” to be every bit as nonsensical as it appears to be on the surface.

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!

Pick any one you like. I could have added a lot more.

Hint: It has to do with realization, not concepts — Alkis Piskas

Realization is a concept. I think you may mean what some refer to as trans-rationality, as opposed to rationality or irrationality, and generally speaking, the realization is that ‘spirit’, and indeed everything, is illusory.

What is the difference between having a brain and a body but no mind, and having a brain and a body and a mind? — Srap Tasmaner

Well the obvious. Mind.
But my point is that most people from the statement (mind requires brain as to exist) which I also find true. Jump to the conclusion "so mind is brain". That doesn't make sense. It's a logical gap.
For me human brain generates/or interacts with something clearly non psychical (mind). I find it more logical than considering mind, thoughts etc as something material and physical. Thoughts being physical and material seem outrageous to me.
But yet, it's only my opinion and nothing more.

For me human brain generates/or interacts with something clearly non psychical (mind). — dimosthenis9

How can something non-physical interact with something physical?

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.

That's the million dollar question for me. I can't answer you that, cause I have no idea how it is done.

@Alkis Piskas
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.

And your right,it's not to do with thinking. It's obvious and Intuitive.
All true artists and dancers know the material body is not the spirit!
Never trust scientists on these matters!
Trust your instincts only!

when the topic is about some arbitrary YOU
— Mww
Do you consider youself, a person a human being something arbitrary? — Alkis Piskas

These do not relate to each other.

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) — Alkis Piskas

This only works if realization does not involve understanding. If you can’t inform me of how simple YOU is, because it is that which is only given through realization, perhaps you can inform me how realization is possible without the understanding which necessarily accompanies it.

Even granting that realization without concepts is epiphany, that still couldn’t inform me of how simple YOU is, if I didn’t subsequently transpose such epiphany into the representations, in this case the concepts, made explicit by the contents of it.

If “more than I can think of”, indicates that which is beyond the capacities of my thinking, or, which is the same thing, that of which the conceivability is either not immediately present or altogether impossible, then all that is necessarily beyond my comprehension. If how simple YOU is, is a realization more than I can think of.....how in the hell would I ever be informed by it? Here we would have an unintelligible epiphany, which is, of course, a contradiction.

All that to say this: one can force his intelligence to deflect only to a certain point, after which it becomes deniable by an observer.

That's the million dollar question for me. I can't answer you that, cause I have no idea how it is done. — dimosthenis9

Or maybe it would be better to think of it in a different way. In a way, everything we experience is a simulation and both 'body' and 'spirit' are part of that simulation. Seen in this way, everything is non-physical. After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds? I don't believe that they do, or they both do and don't exist, or however best expresses non-duality.

After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds? — praxis

It depends "who" would replace humans as to observe it I guess.
But I am not sure about the answer either. We, humans, name the world "physical" . But is it indeed or only what we can perceive?Our limited "reality"? And isn't " physical" just one more "human invention"? Named that way due to his limited sensations? I think that might be a discussion for another thread.

But for one thing we can be sure." Something" exists for sure!
For me, the existence of mind is the strongest evidence for humans that there is much more than we see . The way we can be so sure for our mind existence i always found it a really miracle!
That's why I think that physical (body-what we perceive) interacts with something non psychical (the whole "invisible world" that we can't perceive or we perceive it different, limited) . That interaction brings in life Mind.
Maybe Mind is Spirit after all.

Nonsense. You don't experience inside your brain.
What about your feet?

Feel what?
Panpsychism is compromise materialism. Half hearted waffle.