The Human Conclusion: The Physical Brain

Anonymys

The human crisis

The human crisis consists of a simple, yet controversial conversation. Some may call it identity, others may call it your inner being. For the purposes of this wisdom gathering processional, I shall be calling it “who you are” or “WA" for short. So, who are you? Are you a physical being? Are you an emotional being? How do you exist? What is your true potential? I will only be touching on the simple physical and emotional portion of this, however.
Brain
The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster was a “tangible” thought)
Thoughts?

Allthephilosophersaretaken

Hmm theres alot of good stuff in this

Then comes your emotional being, which allows you to feel emotion, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the transcending of social life

I would argue that our emotional being does not transcend social life, social life is founded upon or emotions, love, sorrow, freindship, acceptance and unfortunately negative emotions are also prevalent in social life, fear, rejection, jealosy, hate and fustration. Perhaps we could say that our emotional being is mutually exclusive, you cannot have the two seperatly. So i would not say that our emotional being transcends or physical being. Maybe some examples are needed

-Depression can be caused by chemicals in the brain
-Sex is a meld of physical pleasure and love (hopefully)
-When one stubbs their toe it is immediately followed by fustration
-When one is nervous they feel sick in the stomach

However arguments could perhaps be made that our rational being can indeed transcend our physical and emotional being equally arguments can also be made that the rational being is as much inter conected as the other two forms of being

I might also advocate that wisdom can transcend even reason itself but this does not mean i am advocating religous transcendance

Last thing: i noticed some dualism present in your argument but i am not familiar with the arguments agaisnt dualism perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself might help me in this regard.

Wayfarer

Some may call it identity, others may call it your inner being. — Anonymys

In which case, they're talking about different things. The identity is the persona, taken from the Greek word for the dramatis personae, the mask actors wore during drama:

Depresi%25C3%25B3n.jpg

The 'inner being' is not these - which is why it is called 'inner'!

I guess you're a drive-by, so I'll leave it at that.

Anonymys

↪Wayfarer

I suppose I should have been more clear, but I was just generalizing. When I stated " Some may call it identity, others may call it your inner being." I was simply saying that your identity is something that is there when others are not, who you truely are, or, your inner self. Not just how you appear to be.

But since you are a prestigious member of the community, I shall leave it at that as to not waste your precious time.

Anonymys

↪Allthephilosophersaretaken

Thank you phil, I appreciate and recognize your explanation, and perhaps because of the late night, or the fact that I was so excited to get this posted, I hadn't realized that I used a word, not fitting my needs. I have changed that in my short essay and have replaced it with a more fitting explanation

Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life — Anonymys

Thank you again.
-A

Rich

Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds and feelings of food and sex (intimacy) . — Anonymys

This is where we immediately experience life differently. Having practiced the arts, dance, singing, sports, alternative health practices, and Eastern meditative practices (e.g.Tai Chi), I have found that the mind extends throughout the body and beyond. At most the brain is one aspect of a holistic nervous system that interacts. Far too much is made of the brain on current philosophy and science. It is just a tool.

The TV (the ) is not the source of all creative work that's we watch, it is merely a mechanism. The source is the thousands of creative minds that produce the programming.

Anonymys

When you say

The source is the thousands of creative minds that produce the programming. — Rich

are you saying that we are made up of all that is around us? Or that there is another dimention in which are realities lie? For instance, in your exlpanation of a TV, there is a central database where the information is sent to your TV. In the case of the brain, what is the database that is sending our vast emotional "programming"?

Rich

↪Anonymys

Yes, I am saying that the process of creation is all around us, everywhere just as we are surrounded by TV broadcasting waves. The brain just tunes as does a TV.

Anonymys

↪Rich

I am going to add on my point, as well as yours, because your statement above helped me think through this.
Meditation teaches you to be aware of the multi dimensions of the brain, it is the silencing of the rational brain, which we so loudly acknowledge in this society. Because it is in control and makes irrational decisions, by shutting down the rational brain you give space for the other aspects of the brain: realities, emotions, and feelings. Stick a knife in the brain and you have no more awareness, no more thought.
Meditation brings awareness to the body, it comes from your mind. Sure, your brain reaches out to your body and makes connections and further helps interpret those connections to your being.
Whether the brain extends throughout the body and beyond, it is the brain the allows, controls, and navigates all the data you receive as well as the "beyond" that you are going to. (This is especially seen in the spiritual realm of the brain I mentioned. I do not however believe that the brain is reduced to intellect, it is not just one function. I concur with you that the brain is just a tool, it just happens to be the tool that interprets you who you are. In saying that I am stating that the brain is the navigator of all the realities you are becoming aware of. Unlike modern humanistic theories that revolve around intellectualism, I, like you, see the brain as as a multi-functioning tool whether it be through the arts, meditation, or other, as relevant and or equal interpreters of reality. However it is the physical brain that interprets this, not an external source.

Rich

↪Anonymys

For me it is less about the brain and more about the mind that creates and uses it.

Anonymys

↪Rich

Creates and uses what?
In my original "essay" I was simply stating about the physical connections of the brain, not the complexity of the mind, which in itself, is another monster alltogether

Anonymys

Would you agree with me that human condition is not one of the physical brain, but the mental one?

WISDOMfromPO-MO

When I stated " Some may call it identity, others may call it your inner being." I was simply saying that your identity is something that is there when others are not, who you truely are, or, your inner self. Not just how you appear to be. — Anonymys

Reminds me a little of Ken Wilber's concept of interiority.

Anonymys

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ill look that up and come back to you

Anonymys

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

In what way does my statement above remind you of interiority concept? From what I've read, his concept revolves around transcending the rational world and entering a divine one. Maybe I'm reading the wrong book, but that's what I'm getting so far.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

In what way does my statement above remind you of interiority concept? From what I've read, his concept revolves around transcending the rational world and entering a divine one. Maybe I'm reading the wrong book, but that's what I'm getting so far. — Anonymys

From this interview:

"At this point, you enter the philosophy of science, and the argument is endless. Is there nothing but physical stuff in the universe? Or is there some sort of interiority? We’re not talking about ghosts and goblins and souls and all that kind of stuff. Just: Is there interiority? Is there an inside to the universe? And if there is interiority, then that is where consciousness resides. You can’t see it, but it’s real. This is the claim that phenomenology makes.

For example, you and I are attempting to reach mutual understanding right now. And we say, aha, I understand what you’re saying. But you can’t point to that understanding. Where does it exist? But if you take a phenomenology of our interior states, then you look at them as being real in themselves. And that’s where values lie and meaning lies. If you try to reduce those to matter, you not only lose all those distinctions, but you can’t even make the claim that some are right and some are wrong..."

Anonymys

Ok

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

, I see what you're getting at, I read the article and am currently digesting what I read... pretty impressive, I might go a little deeper into this substance at a later time

Michael Ossipoff

And if there is interiority, then that is where consciousness resides. You can’t see it, but it’s real. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not only invisible, but it's completely unnecessary (and therefore unparsimonious) for explaining our experience.

Real? So you imagine....and overactive imagination is what we're talking about here.

For example, you and I are attempting to reach mutual understanding right now. And we say, aha, I understand what you’re saying. But you can’t point to that understanding. Where does it exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

In your imagination, if you're referring to some imaginary Mind entity separate from the body.

The animal is unitary, and needn't be unparsimoniously divided into body and Consciousness..

Michael Ossipoff

WISDOMfromPO-MO

And if there is interiority, then that is where consciousness resides. You can’t see it, but it’s real. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Not only invisible, but it's completely unnecessary (and therefore unparsimonious) for explaining our experience.

Real? So you imagine....and overactive imagination is what we're talking about here.

For example, you and I are attempting to reach mutual understanding right now. And we say, aha, I understand what you’re saying. But you can’t point to that understanding. Where does it exist? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
In your imagination, if you're referring to some imaginary Mind entity separate from the body.

The animal is unitary, and needn't be unparsimoniously divided into body and mind. — Michael Ossipoff

You are responding to Ken Wilber's words, not my words.

Michael Ossipoff

My apologies then. You didn't say it.

Michael Ossipoff

The Human Conclusion: The Physical Brain

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions