We can't be located in the brain, as the body is located in the outer world. Even if you said "I am my brain" you still wouldn't be saying "I'm in my brain." The brain would be in the body, not inside the brain.

And yet, part of us is inside the brain. If you can't take away any part without destroying the whole, it's also sensible to say that we are inside of electrical impulses, as well as being electrical impulses.

We have this annoying habit of dissecting everything into its constituent parts, though.

Matter could very well just be how mind happens to seem, but it gets confusing if you look at it in terms of linear time. Linear time should be thrown out the window, as it isn't really real. The truth is that mind has always existed, and "before" and "after" are ridiculous concepts.

And, as far as dissection goes, and everything's codependency, there's no reason to assume that the entirety of the universe could exist in the absence of any part.

So, in my opinion, we are the body, and every atom of the body...every electron, as well as the action of electrons jumping orbits...and part-in-partial to every last photon of the universe as well.

So, we can't be located, and "YOU" or "ME" is something we cling to out of sheer terror. But matter and time are not as they seem.

The Earth itself (and the Sun) are hurtling through the galaxy. If we could get another perspective of ourselves, all we would see is a blur, like a car going by at 29,000 miles per hour on the highway.

It's been determined that location and velocity can't ever be precisely measured. And what you're really left with is a phantasm. And the truth, as I see it, is that we are spirits living in a spiritual world that becomes mundane to us through familiarity.

There are really limitless directions to travel through time, though, which has dimensions, just as traveling through space is traveling through time.

Nuff said, but, really, as far as scientific understanding goes, I doubt we've scratched the tip of the iceberg.

I think that in one sense you are correct. If by "body" you have in mind what we commonly refer to as human bodies, meaning your limbs, your stomach, your legs and so on, then of course it doesn't make sense. It leaves out the notion of person. And a body (in this sense) is not a person. One can go to a morgue and see many bodies but no persons.

In a more strict sense, we don't know what bodies are. Or where bodies stop being bodies. I have yet to see a person existing absent a body. And my mind is part of my body.

But the main thrust of your argument is sensible.

Do keep up! I'm not a materialist. Try reading closely.

@Daarzo
Panpsychism is a wishy washy half materialist theory.
Be brave,go full spiritual non materialist!

Bravo!
Now please disguise your accounts or you will get banned again!

What are you getting banned for?

Sorry,I'm Married to the best Woman on the planet with two Beautiful Children.
Good luck anyway.

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 — Ambrosia

Where were you hiding all that time? :grin:
I need that kind of support. More precisely, to raise my hopes! :smile:

And your right,it's not to do with thinking. It's obvious and Intuitive. — Ambrosia

Well, you are one in a million! (Actually, one among the ~25 people who responded to the topic! :smile:)

Never trust scientists on these matters! — Ambrosia

Of course not. I never stop saying that (in different words!)

Always good to touch base with a kindred spirit who rejects the materialist mindset,yet doesn't run to descartes nonsense or platonism either!

Do you consider youself, a person a human being something arbitrary?
— Alkis Piskas
These do not relate to each other. — Mww

Isn't yourself, the person I communicate with, the human being, ... all one? Aren't these things YOU? If not what else are they?

This only works if realization does not involve understanding. — Mww

Right. It doesn't.
("Realization": "An act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact." (Oxford LEXICO))

If you can’t inform me of how simple YOU is ... — Mww

As it looks, I can't (because I tried). Realization can sometimes happen with information --that's why I tried-- but it most often occurs at some usually unexpected moment.

When you will realize it --and I really hope you will at some point-- you will see why I say "simple".

I think that in one sense you are correct. — Manuel

OK, but can you also quote where does this refer to? Thanks.

If by "body" you have in mind what we commonly refer to as human bodies — Manuel

What else could I have in mind? :smile:

In a more strict sense, we don't know what bodies are. — Manuel

What could a more strict sense be and how else can you think of bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else?

I have yet to see a person existing absent a body. — Manuel

Of course you can't. You connect the body to the person. Even a dead body is still considered a person by the great majority of people. And even when a dead body is burried and it is eaten by worms and becomes just bones, or it is cremated, people still believe that these are the person himself. Do you think this is rational?

(BTW, have you heard women say "I want that you like me for my mind not my body!" ? :grin:)

But the main thrust of your argument is sensible. — Manuel

OK, thanks.

Ha, ha! Nicely said! :smile:

Panpsychism — Ambrosia

All things are full of gods. — Thales (first philosopher, first scientist)

Are you, by any chance, saying Thales is wrong!?

:joke:

Animism is different from panpsychism.
Do keep up old boy.

Animism is different from panpsychism.
Do keep up old boy — Ambrosia

:smile:

I just read that back on those days, according to Xenophanes of Colophon, there really was no difference between gods and humans. Thus, Xenophanes' monotheism.

This piece of information is still fresh in my mind (I came by it just an hour or so ago). What do you make of it?

Animism has always been the primary religion of mankind,still is but in an occluded way.

Some crafty animists made the gods/ancestors into one and then reified that "god" into an abstract concept or principle. But one that has effects. "The laws of nature".
The "grand theory of everything".

Xenophones was a rascal and bullshitter.
Initially of course gods were humans,animals,the earth,and ancestors.

Still are! Today they are called doctors,lawyers,politicians priests and the supreme fake monotheistic God is the "Laws of nature".

Animism has always been the primary religion of mankind,still is but in an occluded way. — Ambrosia

How? Care to flesh that out for me? Thanks.

Some crafty animists made the gods/ancestors into one and then reified that "god" into an abstract concept or principle. But one that has effects. "The laws of nature".
The "grand theory of everything". — Ambrosia

Ok and there's got to be a good reason for doing that. What could it be?

Xenophones was a rascal and bullshitter. — Ambrosia

First natural theologian who found out about how we anthropomorphize god. Not nice!

Today they are called doctors,lawyers,politicians priests and the supreme fake monotheistic God is the "Laws of nature". — Ambrosia

You have a point. I always was intrigued by the fact that God's supposed to oversee our well-being (health, justice, and so on) and yet, we have hospitals and courts.

Animism is the belief there is agency behind phenomenon,which is true.

Before it was gods,spirits,demons,nowadays its DNA,quarks,evolutionary selection,laws of nature,all animism/agency in disguise.

The reason for monotheism and a grand theory is simple,maximum political control. Monoplisation of narrative. Great for political empires and nation states.

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. — dimosthenis9

Posts like this are becoming the new normal.

OK, but can you also quote where does this refer to? Thanks. — Alkis Piskas

When you say:

"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."

I think that's correct. That's the idea of a self as distinct from a body, as I understand it.

What could a more strict sense be and how else can you think of a bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, mostly physics. We have our intuition of what bodies are then there's the more in depth study of them. In our intuitive sense, it makes no sense to say that we are our bodies, anymore than it makes sense to say that we love or laugh with our brains. Or walking with our legs.

People do these things, not individual organs.

Even a dead body is still considered a person by the great majority of people. — Alkis Piskas

We treat them as such, especially following death, such as funeral and the like. But I don't think if you ask any of them is that thing in the casket an actual person, any of them would say that it is a person.

It never was the general notion contained in your thesis to which I took exception. I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, which is technically unsound for lack of critical thinking.

You begin with “YOU are not your body”, followed by “YOU is unanalyzable”. Even if you were merely trying to relieve some folks of a particular belief, you can’t do that by telling them the subject of the belief can’t be given due diligence. Not to mention the obvious occasion of forcing yourself into a contradiction, in that if YOU is unanalyzable, what ground is there for saying anything at all about it, especially in asserting what it is NOT?

And, no, you couldn’t inform me of how simple YOU is, for the very reason that it is unanalyzable. By asking you to inform me, you presupposed I didn’t already realize what your response would have to be. Analysis of “I” is possible; analysis of “you” is not. The former is a rational deduction with an intrinsic certainty, the latter, if susceptible to any kind of informal comprehension, is a mere empirical inference contingent on supposition from reason that does not belong to it. Hardly analytic, I must say.

Anyway.....enough of this. If I made my point, fine. If I didn’t, that’s fine too. The point being.....in case it’s buried too deep.... “iff it is true that an “I” is not the body in which it resides, then it is also true that all iterations of “I” are not the body in which it resides”. Now it should be clear no YOU is or needs be involved. Conflicts with realizations, analysis and inferences are eliminated, and everybody can go home, confident in that he speaks only for himself.

When you say:
"Right this person, is YOU. YOU, as a human being, the same YOU since you were born, ..."
I think that's correct. That's the idea of a self as distinct from a body, as I understand it. — Manuel

Right!

...how else can you think of a bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else?
— Alkis Piskas
Yes, mostly physics. — Manuel

OK.

We have our intuition of what bodies are then there's the more in depth study of them. — Manuel

Do you mean how the body and organism works?

I don't think if you ask any of them is that thing in the casket an actual person, any of them would say that it is a person. — Manuel

I don't believe that either. But I can't say what exactly each one feels after a loved person has gone. One moment you can hear them saying e.g. "He/she is now in heaven", etc. and the other moment speaking to them over the grave on their visits to the cemetery. Why do they need to go there? Can't they speak to them from any place?

This subject brings in something else quite interesting: While persons are alive people believe that they are bodies and treat them as such, but after they die, and their body is burried or cremated, they believe that they continue to "live" and exist somewhere (as spirits, souls, etc.)? Do you think that this has someting to tell us? :chin:

...how else can you think of a bodies? The kind of objects considered in Physics? Or something else? — Manuel

Something else than pure matter. Pure matter, near-point-particles, is an abstraction. Something is missing. Panpsychism?

I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, — Mww

OK, fair enough.

I took exception only with the argument sustaining it, which is technically unsound for lack of critical thinking. — Mww

1) Which argument specifically is this? (I have said a lot of things and brought in quite a few arguments to support my thesis.)
2) How it lacks critical thinking? (Direct and general statements like this are no good. Esp. when counter-argumentation is missing!)

I know that you go on with a general analysis and argumentation, and I'm certainly willing to respond to it, but I would like to answer that first because it sounds important ...

“iff it is true that an “I” is not the body in which it resides, then it is also true that all iterations of “I” are not the body in which it resides”. — Mww

That's the whole point it is examined here. Why to make such a fuss about definitions since you also clearly got what he meant from the start??

Not that I disagree with the things you mention but I think that "word definition" game that many TPF members play each time, it is exhausting and many times it turns into ridiculous.

You don't do that often as I have noticed so that goes in general, not for you.
With that way imo we miss totally the purpose of the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I find definitions extremely important but what I find more important is Wording. Express yourself in all ways as to make someone realize what are you talking about. Even if you don't use definitions perfect, express everything that will make your general point here.

I didn't find Akis all definitions of You properly either. But I didn't care at all since at the end I got right what he refers to when he says "body" and "you".

Do you mean how the body and organism works? — Alkis Piskas

No, I mean I have in mind our ordinary commonsense intuitions in which we think of ourselves as having a mind and a body. This includes the current perspective in which a woman isn't her body or the idea that he hurt his body (but not his mind), etc.

This subject brings in something else quite interesting: While persons are alive people believe that they are bodies and treat them as such, but after they die, and their body is burried or cremated, they believe that they continue to "live" and exist somewhere (as spirits, souls, etc.)? Do you think that this has someting to tell us? — Alkis Piskas

This is very closely related to one's beliefs. If someone is religious, they may think that. Heck, even a non-believer (like me) thinks about X as if they were somewhere. But this is a way of coping and behaving, it's not as if I think they are anywhere once they're gone. Much like I don't think a person is anywhere before they are born.

So I don't think this tells us much outside a persons' belief.



I believe I was quoting Alkis Piskas there, not my own words. Panpsychism is an interesting view, I don't think it's correct, but it's worth thinking about and pursuing.

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that we simply cannot shake off the folk-psychological idea of matter as "dead an stupid". But I think matter is way, way richer than our initial intuitions may say about it.

So "pure matter" includes thoughts, desires, wishes, dreams, visions, etc., etc. Quite a fascinating phenomenon, it seems to me.

Panpsychism is an interesting view, I don't think it's correct, but it's worth thinking about and pursuing. — Manuel

It is a fact. How else can the hard problem of consciousness be solved?

I don't think it's a fact, it's a belief. You cannot show that atoms are conscious or experience something minimal. They may or they may not.

How to solve the so called hard problem? I don't think it has a solution. Like many other issues, it'll remain a problem.

I don’t see any profit in repeating anything. If there’s something new, related but different.....fine. Bring it on.

I don't think it's a fact, it's a belief. You cannot show that atoms are conscious or experience something minimal. They may or they may not — Manuel

You think it's a fact? What about me eating atoms? They will enter my brain. I feel my brain. Doesn't that mean the atoms contain something more than pure matter?