Yeah, but that may be just to dig a deeper hole. Being human can be a general objective proposition, a universal form if you’re into the Greek thing, which reduces technically to empirical anthropology insofar as it covers all of us, or, maybe (sputterchokegasp) psychology. Still, the only way to even think about it, is from being A human, which is a strictly Enlightenment thing, which reduces to proper subjective metaphysics.

Pick yer own poison, I guess, right?

An analysis/critique:

Yeah, but that may be just to dig a deeper hole. — Mww

That's what philosopphy is all about: Diggin holes.

Being human can be a general objective proposition, a universal form — Mww

It can be. To me, being human is the full realization of the potentialls Nature offers us, in the sattisfied and fulfilled knowledge (whatever that means) that the gods are quietly contemplating their creation of eternity and infinity. Being human can be universal or Solar-systematic.

if you’re into the Greek thing — Mww

I like their old ancient gods. These turned into one super monster by Xenophanes and this laying the foundations for the modern notion of one scientifically investigable reality is less sattisfactory.

empirical anthropology — Mww

Scientific culture should be subjected to it!

sputterchokegasp — Mww

Poetry!

A human, which is a strictly Enlightenment thing, which reduces to proper subjective metaphysics. — Mww

I don't agree. A human is more than a thing..

Pick yer own poison, I guess, right? — Mww

Cheers mate!

:smile:

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

Agreed, in principle. I would agree unequivocally, if you’d left off the “which I am”. Whatever “I” am, “I am” not an objective homo sapien.

Good analysis/critique. Something else philosophy is all about.

Except....there’s always one, seems like....

A human, which is a strictly Enlightenment thing, which reduces to proper subjective metaphysics.
— Mww

I don't agree. A human is more than a thing.. — Thunderballs

....”thing” here relates, albeit euphemistically, to “Enlightenment”, not a human.

The only human “thing”, is its body, as says.

. I would agree unequivocally, if you’d left off the “which I am”. Whatever “I” am, “I am” not an objective homo sapien. — Mww

:up: strike "which I am", and add "which represents my physical reality".

Perfect.

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

You said "To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed."
OK? Bye again!

It seems that I was misapprehended in my understanding of your premise — Michael Zwingli

What premise exactly?

What premise exactly? — Alkis Piskas

I had though that you premised the statement that "you are not your body" upon the "you" representing the subjective self, but apparently I was wrong. You will have to inform me of what said "you" represents within that statement, which is why I asked above:

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? — Michael Zwingli

You said "To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed."
OK? Bye again! — Alkis Piskas

But what's the change? Change in the true reality

The only human “thing”, is its body, as — Mww

Indeed! But what a thing! Neither matter neither soul. But both at the same time! Between the soul of the brain and the matter of the outside physical world! With eyes to see and cry and express, ears to hear, a mouth to speak, shout, and sing, and two hands to type you this. All informative patterns with an entropy value that expresses not much.

....”thing” here relates, albeit euphemistically, to “Enlightenment”, not a human. — Mww

But if human is an Enlightenment Thing, aint it a thing? Whats an enlightenment thing? A way of enlightened thinking (according to science and scientific ratio)? Is a human founded in enlightenment?

But both at the same time! — Thunderballs

And yet....attempts to reduce metaphysical dualism to a non-starter, continues.

Whats an enlightenment thing? A way of enlightened thinking (according to science and scientific ratio)? — Thunderballs

A way of thinking yes, but not necessarily according to science, but instead, according to the principle sapere aude.

Is a human founded in enlightenment? — Thunderballs

Hmmm. This can only be answered as a matter of opinion, and mine would be.....these days, with the current evolution of technology and empirical knowledge in general, basically he is, but practically, he may not like to admit it.

@Alkis Piskas

You might the following conversation between a caterpillar and Alice in Lewis Carroll's book Alice In Wonderland interesting:

The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the
hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice.“Who are YOU?” said the Caterpillar.This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, “I—I hardly know, Sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”

Note: Caterpillars pupate and metamorphose into butterflies

Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. — Zhuangzi

I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then. — TheMadFool

Nice! :smile:

"I don't know why I did that! ... I was not myself!"
"I am not the same person anymore. I have changed a lot!"
"What you did was very bad! I cannot recognize you anymore!"
"I thought I knew you, but I was wrong!"...
...

That's the difficulty with the modern, scientifically based view of the self, a supposed unchanging unit. It results in people looking for themselves. The self is continuously changing, as it must be in a world that is changing continuously. Only in a fixed, static world can an unchanging self exist. Its origins lay in ancient Greece. The loosely connected body parts as perceived by people back then gave way to the unity introduced by Xenophanes, to culminate in the Enlightement in the bodies as expressed in da Vinci. The Etruskian Man, to be compared with ancient amphora paintings.

It makes sense to say " I am not my body ", even if it doesn't make sense to say "He is not his body". Only by conflating the subjects of these sentences does a contradiction arise.

I think, intelligence is everywhere, our brain is just a really small point's concentrating hips of it. I think, we are conscience, in case we are anything of course.

intelligence is everywhere, — Santiago

Sounds nice, but in what form does this intelligence exist?
I would prefer, of course, "consciousness is everywhere" instead! :smile:

our brain is just a really small point's concentrating hips of it — Santiago

I don't undestand "small point's concentrating hips of it" ...

we are conscience, — Santiago

I liked that!

in case we are anything of course — Santiago

How could we not be anything? We should be something since we are aware (conscious)! Awareness (consciousness) is something. I am aware therefore I exist. (To paraphrase Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"! :smile:)

For me, this is a fun topic. One does not get up to get anything from the fridge without Believing the floor is there and will hold them. This “belief” is the motivation, the reason, is founded on many Beliefs that the “subconscious” clearly processes Before the Action seeks Agreement. This is merely how I see it but seems to be universal when searched out.

I mean is a point is concentrating lots of thinking, by electromagnetic transmission between neurons. I preferred like you conscience is everywhere. Beyond that may there not be much more once we pass away. So our conscience maybe is the only thing remaining. So in case we misestimate it and don't cultivate it, then maybe there will be nothing left?

I couldn't be bothered reading through the 10 pages of responses to find out if the comments I put here have already been said but I also wanted to 'respect' your request to look at this thread. So, I decided to simply respond to your own original questions. At the outset, I would include myself in the 'you exist only within your own brain' grouping. One of the majority you suggest. I have put the questions you ask, and I want to address, in bold

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?

I am not a body, I have a body, yes. Body parts can be replaced, ultimately I could become a brain in a box.

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

I am a human mind, created through human procreation and my existence became possible due to the evolution of the universe and the consequential availability of the required raw materials.
My individuality/awareness/consciousness etc are examples of possible phenomena that can occur when an immense diversity, manifests by combination. In less flowery rhetoric, I am a random human mind created from all the possible human minds that could be created, from all the related processes, available to the universe. But no 'controller,' no god behind this. All processes in the Universe came from random action until the emergence of sentient lifeforms.

Is that which is YOU at this moment, who does this and that, YOU who have grown up from a baby and did all these things in your life, YOU who was a good student, YOU who have won medals in athletics and prizes in contests, YOU who got married and had children, YOU who became a president of a company, YOU whom will still be in the memories of people who knew YOU, after you pass away, YOU ... Is all that an illusion? That is, YOU don't exist and have never existed?"

I do not agree at all with the posits that "I" does not exist or that individual free will or individual consciousness is not real.

Do people who communicate with you feel that they communicate with a brain or with a person?

With a person, I hope

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. You may have felt millions of different emotions, various injuries and sickness since you were a child, but it is still, always YOU who have been subjected to all that.

Yes Its me but my body is just part of my interface and it allows me to interact with my environment.

So, what is this YOU? It is the spirit, soul, elan vital and other names people have given to the vital princeple, the animating force and the identity itself of the human being.

I came into existence because the possibility of doing so happened. I am alive and I can contribute/detract from objective goals such as giving meaning/significance to the universe. I think that's my primary function. I will die and disassemble (no soul/spirit/life after death in my opinion), adding to the raw materials available for producing new humans. In this sense, all lifeforms are connected.

Thinking that you are your body is like a car driver who gives so much importance to his car (he can't live without it, etc.) that he eventual believes he is that car! On a higher level, the driver knows he is separate from his car but he still believes that his body drives the car. Yes, like a robot in science-fiction movies! Which made me think of another question regarfing the impossibility of the idea that the person is his body: In that case sience could clone persons, not just their body, but every trait of their personality, their behavioral characteristics, their medical history, all their memories, in short the whole package! Well, good luck with it!

Yeah a bit dystopic but lots of possibilities in what you state. I think aspects of cloning and use of technology (the cyborg concept) could be very useful in the future to help enhance longevity of human lifespan. The Universe is a very big place. More planets than grains of sand on Earth. 8 billion humans is a very small number in that sense. We could have a billion planets each and that would just be a splash. If we are going to see it all and add to its significance in pursuit of meaning then we need longevity, until we get bored to continue living and decide to become raw materials again. Its the cumulative effect of human lives on the Universe that is the most important aspect of all of this. What will be the final result? Maybe at some point, the pantheist/cosmopsychist position will prove accurate, if the result is that the Universe itself becomes self-aware.

My intention was only to prove that the belief of "We are out bodies" is nonsensical and unsubstantiated.

I don't understand 'we are out bodies.' I assume you were meant to suggest that the idea of the mind existing outside of the body is nonsense and if that was your intention here then I agree.

And I'm really surprised that most people in here prefer to stick to such a belief than, not to believe

This can only be understood on the basis of whether or not I am correct about what you meant by 'we are out bodies', so I won't comment on it further.

but, just leaving another door open to the explanation of the mind-body connection. I can understand that this is not Science's task, since for it only material things exist, but for independent philosophical thinkers?

again, a bit dependent on my assumption above but I agree that the Scientific approach to these issues is more restrictive compared to the 'pure conjecture' and 'pure opinion' on offer to a philosophical epistemology. — Alkis Piskas

I will reply to your last 3 messages in a while, using private messaging ...

Ok

Not only are "you are not your body", you are not even "you" (vide Buddha ... Hume ... Metzinger).

(deleted)

Yes, I know about this kind of interpretations. I was once (a very long time ago) involved deeply in Eastern philosophy ...

Thats just a viewpoint held by you and some others and not one I subscribe to.

:roll:

When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. His body could be a figment of his thoughts. There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of one's body. You only have to stub your toe or fall asleep involuntarily for your body to make its existence plain. Whether one's consciousness can exist outside the body, is something else that has yet to be plainly demonstrated.

A knife is not you, you can hurt/kill with a knife.

You can hurt/kill with your body (punch/kick/with a weapon). So, you are not your body.

Your body is (your mind's) (a) tool cum weapon.