I said I do not think it's a fact. You can speak of you eating atoms, or seeing them, or feeling them. That's a particular from of description.

You could also say that your are eating and feeling cells as well. Or even the quantum vacuum, which as far as is known, is the the deepest thing postulated in physics that I'm aware of.

I don't think my nails are conscious, nor my stomach, nor most of my body unless something hurts or tickles.

I think physical stuff is all there is. Including thoughts, imagination, etc. If certain configurations of physical stuff lead to mind, then physical stuff is richer than we initially think.

I think physical stuff is all there is. Including thoughts, imagination, etc. If certain configurations of physical stuff lead to mind, then physical stuff is richer than we initially think. — Manuel

But what's the true nature of physical stuff? Why should a huge collection of interacting almost pointlike particles see, hear and feel and see dreams and thoughts?

If I'm honest I'd say I don't know.

Then again why should anything in the universe be able to think at all? It seems to be the case that for the overwhelming majority of the universe's history, there was zero thinking of any kind. And then, in a fraction of a second, there is thought.

So, the only thing I can say, other than I don't really know, is that physical stuff has exquisite malleability given certain parameters.

So, the only thing I can say, other than I don't really know, is that physical stuff has exquisite malleability given certain parameters. — Manuel

That malleability is true. But I can imagine that all organisms, if matter doesn't possess something "extra", all life operates in the dark, so to speak. A face expressing fear would be very strange in that case.

I'm not understanding. I'm saying matter can be conscious: we are conscious matter. Matter has inherently as a potential of (by way of a specific configuration) giving rise to experience.

So if it's already a potential in matter, why postulate something "extra"?

So if it's already a potential in matter, why postulate something "extra — Manuel

If the potential is the extra then there's no need.

Ok, I am not my body. Let us say I am just a sum total of all experiences up to some point time. The brain is just the collector, organizer, and repository of those experiences. The brain along with the body can use language to communicate with other brains and bodies these experiences. Maybe some day we can transfer these experiences in some computer and this can do the collecting, organizing and storing. And communicate to other brains/computers such experiences. You could call this the “I” or the “soul”, if you like. And that is the solution to such a philosophical puzzle, call it what you like, and see if someone will go along with it.

I have in mind our ordinary commonsense intuitions in which we think of ourselves as having a mind and a body. — Manuel

1) Intuition has nothing to do with common sense. Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
2) OK about the mind, but do you need intuition or even thinking to just observe your body and be aware of the fact that you have a body and of your body itself?

This is very closely related to one's beliefs. — Manuel

But it is exactly about belief that I'm talking. And what I discribed shows a big conflict in one's beliefs: a body w/o spirit and then spirit leaving the body. We don't know which belief of the two is stronger. This is not important. What is important is that there is a possibility they actually believe there's a spirit which is connected to a body. Isn't that right?

this is a way of coping and behaving — Manuel

This might also be the case, i.e. the belief about the spirit leaving the body is not real or strong, but it is just an emotional reaction to the loss. Yet, this doesn't change what I am describing above and have also described earlier.

Much like I don't think a person is anywhere before they are born. — Manuel

This is quite reasonable, since we have no sound evidences about the truth of that.
Anyway, this is another story! :smile:

Ok, I am not my body. — Richard B

But you are. How can you have a mind (if you are your body you can), and be your mind (in which case you don't have a mind)? What's so important about your mind that you wanna be it? Who do you see in the mirror? Your mind?

I don’t see any profit in repeating anything. — Mww

I see. So, you are just spreading venom with your baseless criticism and also in wasting people's time.

I am done with you. :meh:

What's so bad about being your body (you put an exclamation mark behind your statement that we're not our body!)?

What's so bad about being your body (you put an exclamation mark behind your statement that we're not our body!)? — Thunderballs

Nothing. An exclamation mark can indicate a lot of things other than "bad"!
One example is the exclamation mark in the above sentence! And in the previous sentence! And in this one!
(Wow! I think I have overdone it! :grin:)

(Wow! I think I have overdone it! — Alkis Piskas

!!!!! !. :grin: It is there to pay attention? It must mean something... !

It is there to pay attention? — Thunderballs

Yes, you can say that. Something like "Linsten guys!" ... But not as if I was dictating it or something. It is so evident to me that I am not a body that I tried to pass this belief to others who believe they are bodies. But this has a story behind it.

I launched this topic after I saw the disappointing (for me, always) results of my poll "Does thinking take place in the human brain?" a few days before. About 80% of the people who voted and/or responded to it thought they where just bodies with a brain. So, you can also take my exlcamation mark as a kind of protest! :grin: (Of course, they too protested back, "But we ARE bodies!" :grin: )

Only the three B's are needed. And we are just our bodies, without brains!

I knew a guy once, maybe 30-40 years before you were even born, got all pissy over something I said, did an abrupt about-face, yanked the door open with a major flourish......and walked right into it. Funniest damned thing I ever saw. Felt sorry for the dumbass, though, like to broke his nose. After I got over my hysteria and he got over his tantrum, we burned a doobie, went about our business, never saw each other again.

(Sigh) I see petulance is still comical, after all these years.

I knew a guy once, maybe 30-40 years before you were even born, — Mww

Are you a 100 years young then? I mean, Piskas has 40. Plus 40 is eighty. Plus about 20 gives 100.

OK about the mind, but do you need intuition or even thinking to just observe your body and be aware of the fact that you have a body and of your body itself? — Alkis Piskas

Probably. But it's hard to say with much confidence.

What is important is that there is a possibility they actually believe there's a spirit which is connected to a body. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

They may actually believe that. I don't see any reason to suppose it's true. As to why it is important, that would be connected with how much comfort or solace this gives each person. But beyond that, I don't see any substantial issue, unless someone wants to speak of dualism, which is fine.

beyond that, I don't see any substantial issue, unless someone wants to speak of dualism, which is fine. — Manuel

I agree. There's certainly no substantial issue, since people live with the same beliefs confortably for eons! Lucky ones, they don't care about philosophical issues! :grin:

What is important is that there is a possibility they actually believe there's a spirit which is connected to a body. — Alkis Piskas

I'm curious what you think of Buddhism and other Eastern belief systems, which have existed for thousands of years, and its doctrine of no-self. They believe that this intuition that you hold so highly is the primary cause of all human suffering. Are the millions who've held such a belief throughout history all deluded fools or are they on to something important?

and its doctrine of no-self. — praxis

A convoluted topic. There is good reason to affirm that anatta does not deny the self, at the very least in early Buddhism. But, maybe more importantly, anatta signifies an absence of unchanging essence in any phenomena … much including bodies. Hence, to the same degree one were to interpret anatta to signify absence of selves, one would likewise need to affirm an absence of bodies, this so as to be consistent. Thereby implying the Eastern notion of emptiness. As in "form is emptiness".

To affirm “you are your body” can thereby be as contrary to anatta as something like “you are your soul”. As to bodies not having an unchanging essence, neither do selves (or even souls) require an existentially unchanging essence in order to be.

As to bodies not having an unchanging essence, neither do selves (or even souls) require an existentially unchanging essence in order to be — javra

I have the conviction I'm nothing more than my centralnervoussystemless body. The butterfly tattoe on my left arm is a pretty unchanging essence.

The butterfly tattoe on my left arm is a pretty unchanging essence. — Thunderballs

Unless the tattoo is brand new, it has faded a bit over time, hasn't it? Hence, it has changed. You may be referring to the tattoos overall form, but given sufficient time that too will change.

I wrote you at exactly the same time in anothercthread! Youre right about the tattoo!

I’m pretty sure that most Buddhists don’t claim to be their bodies.

I’m pretty sure that most Buddhists don’t claim to be their bodies. — praxis

Such an astute observation … like point out that water is not dry. And what does this have to do with what I've written?

But for the record, nor have I yet encountered any Buddhist who claims that they are inexistent. If you’ve come across any such in your readings, please point them out to me.

You may be referring to the tattoos overall form, but given sufficient time that too will change. — javra

Also the butterfly will get wrinkled one day. The one on my arm that is. Unless I die premature...

… like pointing out that water is not dry. — javra

Except when it's not (as when frozen), of course. :razz:

No-self is just a common term in the enlightenment biz and nothing to get especially excited about. Empty doesn't mean non-existent, or rather it means both existent and non-existent, and neither existent nor non-existent... and I've gone crosseyed. Anyway, I'm still curious about what @Alkis Piskas thinks about all this emptiness boloney.

Except when it's not (as when frozen), of course. :razz: — praxis

Frozen water is called ice. :smile:

Fair enough. :wink: