Ice is just slow H20, smart guy.

Ice is just slow H20, smart guy. — praxis

Ice is ice.

Although slow water sounds pretty cool!

It makes me, my body, move slow when I'm cold.

The first, and very obvious question is, "If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on?" You can't be a body and have a body at the same time, can you?

So, a second question follows as a consequence, "If you have a body, then what are YOU?" — Alkis Piskas

You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I". The other self is the self of objective reality: a bunch of atoms and molecules forming tissues of various types an in a particular pattern as determined by one's DNA code.

Pick up a copy of cognitive scientist Doug Hofstadter's (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" fame) book, "I am a Strange Loop". Read it, ignoring all he has to say about "souledness", "levels of souledness", and morality, and you will have a fair picture of how the subjective "I", which is analogous to Freud's "Ego", develops, which is, basically, by means of continuous reanalysis of the self concept pursuant to the urgings of a continuous feedback loop of perceptions regarding interactions with objects (including other people) in the world. Professor Hofstadter has the cog sci stuff right, in my opinion (and as you would expect), but I think he gets a bit lost in trying to integrate his concepts of morality and correct behavior into his work.

of atoms and molecules forming tissues of various types an in a particular pattern as determined by one's DNA code. — Michael Zwingli

That's exactly who I am(except for my central neres, which are inside me)! The DNA though determines only proteins. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's exactly who I am(except for my central neres, which are inside me)! The DNA though determines only proteins. Nothing more and nothing less. — Thunderballs

Yes, but the subjectively reckoned "you", the "I" from your own perspective, is much more than just your body. It is the "I" which results from the constant battle between the primitive "Id" and the idealized "Superego", occurring within the continuously changing context of a feedback loop involving all of your life's experiences. That's a mouthful, is it not!? This is the "you" which, indeed, is not your body, but is so much more...

Yes, but the subjectively reckoned "you", the "I" from your own perspective, is much more than just your body. It is the "I" which results from the constant battle between the primitive "Id" and the idealized "Superego", occurring within the continuously changing context of a feedback loop involving all of your life's experiences. That's a mouthful, is it not!? This is the "you" which, indeed, is not your body, but is so much more... — Michael Zwingli

That's what you think. There is no "superego". Though every brainless body, every I, animal or human, or even bacteria-like (which are only bodies), is super!

This is the "you" which, indeed, is not your body, but is so much more... — Michael Zwingli

The so much more lays inside my brain and the outside world.

yes, this is it!

mental activity is happening in the brain. — Alkis Piskas

Sounds like outdated science.

Do you consider the brain as part of you. Or do you possess it?

You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I" — Michael Zwingli

No, I am certainly not. I have not used the terms "self" or "I" in my thesis except to quote people's reactions like "Ah, the 'I', the 'self' is an illusion ...". In fact, I don't only ignore the terms "self" and "I" but I feel that they are responsible for the whole confusion created about the nature of a human being!)

Pick up a copy of cognitive scientist Doug Hofstadter's ... — Michael Zwingli

Thanks, I'll pass. I don't have that much time (and patience!). But I'll respond to what yourself have to say ...

in my thesis — Alkis Piskas

Can you state your thesis (again...) in a concise way? Who is you?

mental activity is happening in the brain.
— Alkis Piskas
Sounds like outdated science. — Wheatley

Maybe. I don't keep up anymore!
So, what is in fashion these days? :smile:

So, what is in fashion these days? — Alkis Piskas

Ask a scientist.

Maybe. I don't keep up anymore!
So, what is in fashion these days? :smile: — Alkis Piskas

A 1000 brains.

Can you state your thesis (again...) in a concise way? Who is you? — Thunderballs

By my "thesis" I mean my "description of the topic". I used to use the latter at the beginning, but then I changed it to my "thesis" for short and because a few in here seemed to like more this term!
My bad! Anyway, now you know what I meant and you can read my description of the topic, which BTW you should have done in the first place. You see we are both wasting time because you didn't. But it's not only you. People in here like to pick up statements from responses here and there, without having read the topic to which they belong. And they ask me about things which I have already mentioned and explained in my description! How can such a thing be productive?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1

To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed. :smile:

OK. Bye.

OK. Bye. — Alkis Piskas

Is that all you have to say? People often do that after I said something. Saying goodbye.

Do you consider the brain as part of you. Or do you possess it? — Thunderballs

Hmmm... I would say that the brain is part of the "real me", of my objective self, but something that is had by my subjective self, the subjective "I".

You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I"
— Michael Zwingli
No, I am certainly not. I have not used the terms "self" or "I" in my thesis except to quote people's reactions like "Ah, the 'I', the 'self' is an illusion ...". In fact, I don't only ignore the terms "self" and "I" but I feel that they are responsible for the whole confusion created about the nature of a human being!) — Alkis Piskas

Ah, I see. It seems that I was misapprehended in my understanding of your premise. So, when you state that "a man is not his body", you are defining "a man" in the objective sense...as a real object in physical reality? If not, then how so?

I would say that the brain is part of the "real me", by my objective self, but something that is had by the subjective "I". — Michael Zwingli

So the real you is the brain and body combined? Even including the outside physical world?

So the real you is the brain and body combined? Even including the outside physical world? — Thunderballs

The brain is part of, a component of, the body, just like a nose or any other body part. Based upon all the evidence that we have, the objective human being is simply that body existing as an object within objective reality, which I usually like to call "the universe", even though the term "objective reality" also comprises (infinite?) space, and whatever may exist within space, which is as yet impossible for us to discern, outside of our universe...perhaps other distant "universes" (which would make our "universe" but one element of a "multiverse").

You can also see the whole physical universe as a part of you. Like your brain and nose. Like that you is everything. A limitation is required though. The kimits are constituted by my body, in tight and non-separable connection with the inside world (the brain( and the physical universe, the outside world.

Based upon all the evidence that we have, the objective human being is simply that body existing as an object within objective reality, which I usually like to call "the universe", even though it also comprises space, and whatever may exist within space, which is as yet impossible for us to discern, outside of our universe...perhaps other distant "universes" (which would make our "universe" but one element of a "multiverse"). — Michael Zwingli

What evidence?

What evidence? — Thunderballs

Scientific evidence. What I meant by including that clause in my post, is that we have no evidence for any part of the human being other than the body (the"soul", for instance).

we have no evidence for any part of the human being other than the body (the"soul", for instance). — Michael Zwingli

What about me seeing color, feeling emotions or love, feeling sorry for other people, or playing joyfully with my puppy dog? Aint that proof?

the objective human being is simply that body existing as an object within objective reality — Michael Zwingli

What I meant by including that clause in my post, is that we have no evidence for any part of the human being other than the body — Michael Zwingli

Wouldn’t it be the more consistent to say we have no objective evidence for any part of the human being other than the body? It is true there is no other empirical, re: objective, evidence of the human being other than the body, but the whole of the human being may not be found in the body alone. And if that is true, more than objective evidence for the whole human being would be required, wouldn’t it?

Admittedly, the subject effectively changes from “human being” to “being human”, but are we not entitled to consider that form of reality?
————

What about me seeing color, feeling emotions...... — Thunderballs

......just like that.

Admittedly, the subject effectively changes from “human being” to “being human”, — Mww

:100:

Wouldn’t it be the more consistent to say we have no objective evidence for any part of the human being other than the body? — Mww

Yes...objective evidence...nice catch!

It is true there is no other empirical, re: objective, evidence of the human being other than the body, but the whole of the human being may not be found in the body alone. — Mww

I think that this reflects the distinction that I draw between the objective homo sapiens which I am, and the subjective "I".