there aren’t important issues to solve, because the problem is meaningless. — Xtrix

What problem?

The “physical structure”, for example, means what? — Xtrix

See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical+structure

If we simply want to play games with words, — Xtrix

What games? I brought in a definition from a standard dictionary. I also brought in another one, above. If that is what you are calling "games" or you think that consulting dictionaries to get the meaning of terms is uselsess, no wonder why you find everything meaningless!

A remote consciousness would like to raise awareness about plausible deficiencies contained within the original post. — Voidrunner

Thank you for your response to the topic.

I really can't undestand that. But even if I could, it sounds totally irrelevent to the topic and my description of it.

I also read some quotes that you brought in in your post and they are definitely not mine. Not even close. E.g. “we are only our bodies”, “obviousness”, "the identity of a human is the entirety of his mental activities", "the identity of a human is the entirety of his mental activities", ...

So I can safely conclude that this is not a reply addressed to me but to some other member!

I think I'm a body. What's wrong with that? — Pristina

Nothing. But can you please tell me why you say "I don't consider my brain ...." Can you be a body and still have a body at the same time?

Thank you for your response to the topic.

The "someone" is a product of the whole body — Bitter Crank

OK. Thank you.

don't think you can escape the dualism by merely asserting that you're not "discussing" it. — Ciceronianus

I would love to do that, but then I'm afraid it would take a few pages! :smile: And most probably no one would read them! (A couple of responders have not even read the (whole) topic!)

we don’t have any sense of what “body” means. Or material, or physical. — Xtrix

Thank you for your response to the topic.

The word "body" has a lot of meanings, of course. But its meaning here is very clear: "The physical structure, including the bones, flesh, and organs, of a person or an animal." (Oxford LEXICO)
So, I don't think we have to make a big deal out of this. There are more important issues to solve! :smile:

The second, and very obvious question is, "If you are a mind or a soul, then why do you say 'my mind or my soul', 'I have a mind or I have a soul', and so on?" You can't be a mind or a soul and have a mind or a soul at the same time, can you? — praxis

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Very good question and point! :up:
I can think of 3 reasons:
1) They don't actually believe that they are a spirit. Most probably, they don't even know what a spirit is. OK, this is simple. Nothing more to say here.
2) They have an idea about being a spirit, most probably because they read a lot about that, esp. Eastern philosophy, but they have not realized it for themselves. It has not become part of their reality.
3) They know they are a spirit but it comes out automatically, as a habit of language. (And no one reminds them! :smile:) I can say this with certainty since I did it too in the past for some time even after I realized I was a spirit and not a body. You see you can't get rid easily of some language traps like these. Also hearing often people saying "my/your/his spirit" reinforces your habit. It's contagious!
(A very common parallel example: "The sun rises"! :smile:)

And your whole OP seemed built on that error. — tim wood

How can you reject a whole topic with one such a general and unsubstantiated statement?

... Sorry, I believe you can! :smile:

The believe that they are physical
— Alkis Piskas
That seems so weird to me and I wanted to check that it is the case. How they believe they are physical? Material? Can they "touch" them or what? — dimosthenis9

I already answered that. But I can explain it a little more or better. If soemone thinks he is a body, it means that everything in him is material. Thoughts too? Yes, thoughts too. This doesn't mean that they can touch them. Neither can they touch their brain. But since they believe that thoughts are produced by and take place in the brain, they must be material, mustn't they? A neurosurgeon may then be able to find them and touch them! (What a stupid thing to say, eh? And this also shows how stupid is to believe that one is a body! Only that people usually don't go that far thinking of such things! Even if t's pure logic!)
Is this more clear now?

You aren't the only one who believes thoughts and mind aren't material. I support the same too. — dimosthenis9

Thank God! :grin: (I know, but just hearing it, makes me feel better! :smile:)

And of course we just exchange views here.That majority thinks different says nothing. — dimosthenis9

Well, I am not sure if "exchange" is a notion that is shared by most in here ...

Even in cases like this, which you can never be sure since science hasn't reached there yet. — dimosthenis9

Right! Exactly!

Always a pleasure to "talk" to with you! :smile:

A racing car driver can feel their car as an extension to their body. — apokrisis

Hi, again. Sorry about the delay but I made a long break ...
Yes, one can say that. Like a mechanic and his tools, a musician and his instrument, a painter and his brushes, a person and his loved one ... But all this is fugurative. In the example I gave, hypothetical of course, the driver can really believe the he is the car: a severe illusion and mental sickness. Madhouses though are plenty of such cases, and those are not hypothetical!

So selfhood - as something embodied and biological - is a "selfish" point of view. — apokrisis

"Selfish" like one who is concerned mainly or sometimes only about his own interests, profit or pleasure?

We fluidly construct a sense of where the limits of agency end — apokrisis

What do you mean by "agency"?

where the resistance of the world begins — apokrisis

What kind of resistance is that? Can you give an example?

It starts from the absolute necessity of being a self in the world. — apokrisis

Have you personally felt that compulsive necessity? Ot was it rather natural thinking, knowing and feeling of being a self? Is trying to know yourself using different means a "selfish" action? Is wanting to be a happy being something "selfish"?

that involves a constant running judgement about the boundary that divides the world from "us" — apokrisis

Do you indeed feel that?

So selfhood seems dualistic as it involves this constant construction of the idea of a self in its world. — apokrisis

Are you indeed preoccupied with such a thing?

If my racing car does exactly what I expect in the way its tyres give at a fast corner, then they feel part of me — apokrisis

The hypothetical example I gave about the driver was not feeling the the car is part of him but that he can really believe the he is the car, which consists a severe illusion and mental condition.

A neurobiological sense of being an intentional self in a resisting world — apokrisis

Do you feel that the worlds is resisting you? In what way? It doesn't let be yourself? Aren't you yourself at this moment?

the idea of the social and technological boundaries between what constitutes the intentional/predictable part of our experience, and what constitutes the resisting/unpredictable part - the other to ourself. — apokrisis

I consider this way too complicated as far as YOU (which is the subject) is concerned. To talk outside the box, I don't believe that all these reflect your actual life and behavior in the world. I can't believe that you cannot instead use simple reasoning about and experiencing of your existence. Because that would mean that you are more thinking about your life than actually living it!

And if he were not living? What sort of interaction could you have with his YOU? — Srap Tasmaner

Who is "he"? Well, wataver.
"In a what way he was not living?" Dead? Well, wataver.
What is "his YOU"? You mean either his body or his spirit.. Well, I personally couldn't have any interaction.
I'm not sure though if all this is a very rational discussion! :grin:

By your reasoning, we're not our minds either — TheMadFool

Thank you for your response.
Of course we are not our minds. We have a mind (which is non-physical). As we say "I have a thought, an idea, etc." (I suspect that this is just a reaction to the title of the topic since "mind" is irrelevant to my description,)

What are we then? — TheMadFool

Well, the answer is in my description of the topic. (Now I am sure you have not read the topic. Not OK!)

Your body is connected to your brain. — Gobuddygo

Thank you for your response.
But isn't the brain part of the body? Actually, is it inside the body? How can it be also connected to it? Is your heart connected to your body are does it reside in it?

give light or fire to the brains inside of us — Gobuddygo

By "us" you mean the body, right? So, we are our bodes, right?
But this is the whole topic about!

Is the theory yours? I'm not sure why you state we are not our body. — Gobuddygo

Certainly not. There are billions (not millions) of people in this planet who believe this, mostly in the East, of course.

A "self" as you are describing ( We ), is an emergent phenomena. — Pop

Thank you for your response.
I didn't use the word "self" in my description except only to give an example of people who believe that what they call the "I", the "self" is an illusion. This may happen if one considers the word "self" as a concept, as you do.
However, I am talking about "youself" and "himself" , which are totally different things. What I am talking about is YOU. Just YOU. The person I am replying to at the moment I am writing these lines. YOU is the person himself, his identity, the human being, a living unit. It is very concrete, as far as the language is concerned as well as a reality. There's no "emergent phenomena" involved!
If this is not clear for someone, I am sorry, I can't do anything more.

Ownership is an illusion. — Present awareness

Thank you for your response.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It is out of the point. When one says "my body" it is crystal clear to everyone what does that mean.

If you are not your brain, then why do you disappear when you go into a coma? — Present awareness

Disappear? Even doctors know that poeple in coma can hear and perceive other things.

Consciousness is aware of thoughts, emotions, memories, input from the five sense organs and constructs a hologram of what it considers to be YOU at this moment. Who you were and who you might be, exists within this hologram as well, but nowhere else. — Present awareness

Nice description. :up:

The million dollar question is where and how does this consciousness arise in the first place? — Present awareness

Good point. I will let you know when I a hear something about that. I personally don't try to find this out, because I wonder who is going to pay me this million dollars?! :grin:

Just point to yourself and see whether your finger lands on mind or body. — NOS4A2

Thank you for your response.
Do you mean, point to my body! :smile:
But my whole point and its description showing that YOU are not your body and that "yourself" is something else! Have you read anything of all that? Or you just reacted to the title of the topic? (Very bad if you did that ...)

Thank you for your response.
Wow! This is quite long and I have to "study" it before I reply to it. So, let me come back soon, after I reply to other members who have also responded to the topic. Thanks.

Someone who has a body. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for your response.
OK. Then who or what is that "someone"?

Complex animals with complex central nervous systems. Muscles, blood, skin, bones, brains, minds. — Bitter Crank

But all this is "body" (except "mind", but this is not the issue). Where is that "someone" involved in all this?

of course I am not merely, or identical with, "my" body. "I am", in fact, the emergent, recursively continuous, output of this body's interactions with its environment. — 180 Proof

Thank you for your response.
Quite interesting view! (On some other occasion, I would like to know more about it!)

Do most people here on TPF agree that thoughts, ideas etc (mind in general) is non psychical? Or the majority believes it belongs to psychical world(material) — dimosthenis9

Thank you for your response, dimosthenes9.
I didn't say that they "agree that thoughts, ideas etc (mind in general) is non psychical." Actually, the opposite. The believe that they are physical. Although I expressed that in a different way: I said that they "believe that all mental activity is happening in the brain." And, of course, brain is physical. OK?

From the responses you got from all the 3 threads you opened about that issue what you got? — dimosthenis9

1) The poll I launched ("Does thinking take place in the human brain?") showed that 82% believe that thinking takes place in the brain.
As we have already had some good exchanges in the past, allow me to comment that I find this outrageous for philosophically thinking people. I can accept materialism as something followed by a lot of such people, but here we are talking about the overwhelming majority! But this would not be so upsetting as the lack of critical thinking that whould characterize such people, only it doesn't!
I will tell you only this. This fact alone, makes me think that I do not belong here! However, I can ignore this because I am here to express my views and exchange views with other thinkers. This pleases me a lot.
2) From my other topic "If the brain can't think, what does?" the great majority of the responses I recieved were characterized by lack of thinking and reasoning: they were just reactions that didn't mean actually anything. Fortunately, I had about 5 responses that either contained just a philosophical; questioning on the subect or a view of a non-physical nature. And I had one that it was an analysis why thinking takes place in the brain. It was welcome as well. See, I totally respect different and even opposite to mine views. What I don't respect is evident lack of thinking/reasoning and, even worse, impertinence and vulgar language.

I counted 90 TPF active members in the last week (don't ask me how, I am a programmer! :smile:). 22 only of them answered the poll. (It's not even a representative sample!) I wonder why? Don't they have a viewpoint on the subject? Have they found the subject too unimportant to respond? They are not certain about what to vote? I hope the last case prevails, because it shows at least that they cannot say for certain that thinking takes place in the brain! This is good for me! :smile:

So you don't accept that dualism? — Ciceronianus

Thank you for your response.
Of course I accept it! Why else should I have brought it up? I only said that "this [discussing it] is not in my plan." Besides that, my whole description was about showing that the body is something separate from YOU. Even the statement of this topic itself indicates that.
(I didn't want to involve the term "mind" in all this, for not complicating things. Of course, the mind is non-physical and thus separate from the body.)

Are you neither your body or your mind, but something which is neither? — Ciceronianus

I have said what I am, using the second person (Re: "What is this YOU?")
I have a body and I have a mind.

You are nothing but your body. — Laguercina

Thank you for your response.
I respect your position, of course. But I would prefer that you responded to my position and bring pro or con arguments about it against my own arguments. Actually, I feel that you have totally ignored my position. You don't discuss a position by ignoring its arguments and presenting your own position.

This topic is about a specific position: "You are not a body". It does not ask "Are you a body?"

the issue is not so much how we feel about the issue but what the evidence is — Tom Storm

Thank you for your response.
Of course, we can't expect physical evidence for something that is not physical. Otherwise, if we had such en evidence, the issue would have been resolved a long time agao ans we wouldn't have to discuss it! :smile:
So, what can replace physical evidence? Logic (reasoning) and experience. And from them realization, cognition, (own, personal) reality. These would be more than enough, I think. And knowing that one is not a body makes a huge difference with believing that one is.

I don't think of the idea of self as solid but more as an insubstantial — Tom Storm

Does this mean you don't believe that YOU exist and that YOU are reading this message? Are these not solid thoughts? Is believing that YOU are an illusion a more solid thought for you?

the scope may go beyond into the outer regions beyond the limits of the physical aspects which arise in brain as the physical hardware of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Thank you, Jack, for your eresponse.
Fortunately, I agree with your position, which is very nicely expressed. (I say "fortunately", because my eye has been scared by the overwhelming physicalism (if not materialism) that characterizes this place! :smile:)

And not proven by being caught in the infelicitous quicksand of felicitous language — tim wood

Thank you for your response.
However, I can't undestand this "poetic" passage. But certainly there are no arguments in it.

to get to substance you have to break through language — tim wood

Of course that would be ideal. Should we arrange for a live meeting to show you in action what I tried to express in words? :smile:

Well, next time, besides only eloquent stuff and criticism, which offer only for displeasure, bring in also some arguments against or in favour of my position so that there can be some discussion. :smile:

My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. — Mark Nyquist

In what way does brain support mental content, i.e. mind? Is mind a product of and contained in the brain? Or does the brain react to stimuli created by the mind, which is independent of, separate from it?

Philosophy might have something to add as far as insights into troubleshooting psychosis. Maybe just a little off topic. — Mark Nyquist

Sorry about the delay of my response. Philosophy of mind has certainly a lot to say about all mental illnesses! It's only off-topic because the subject here is the brain.

Begs the question: Where is a human brain? — Constance

That's a very good start, Constance! For one thing, it shows thinking! :smile: (Most responses I read to this topic lacked such a thing! :smile:)

If thinking "takes place" in it, it must be somewhere, but to be somehere presupposes meaningful spatial designations — Constance

So, at the level of philosophical assumptions, the "in the human brain" is spatially indeterminate — Constance

Of course.

But this does raise the quesiton of infinity's indeterminacy. Is it? — Constance

In a way yes. But I wouldn't involve the concepts of 'infinity' and indeterminacy in this. They are too abstract, and we have already other abstract concepts like 'thought', 'mind' etc.! :smile:

thought being "in" something loses its meaning. — Constance

In physical terms, you are right. Thought cannot be within something physical. But we must not involve physicality here, otherwise we get back to the spongy brain, with its neurons and all.
On the other hand, that the thinking process takes place is something certain, isn't it? So, if it cannot take place in the physical universe. as we have established, i.e. its location is indeterminate, as you correctly said, this must be done in a different way.

I have presented my views on the subject at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700.
I don't want to repeat things here but only to state that although thought is not part of the physical universe, its functions and characteristics can be explained and understood.

***

BTW, I added your response to the topic in the list of worth mentioning responses that I have created at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/590743

There is no downside to death, if one does not see it coming and there is no suffering involved, whether psychological or physical suffering. — boagie

Suffering occurs in life, not death. With death, life ends. And with it, suffering. There's neither a downside or advantages in death for the deceased. Besides, good or bad, it happens anyway!

In death, it is the persons who loved the deceased who suffer. So, from that viewpoint, there is a downside to death.

Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? — schopenhauer1

Well, it's not the only option ... You might also think that you were predestined to write this reply and what exactly to write! :grin:

You talk too much! :smile:

Well, you still didn't burst my bubble and it was still not hard! (Or maybe, did it turn as a boomerang against yourself? :smile:)

For me, this is just a discussion, which, besides other things, makes me know you better! :smile:

demonstrate how silly this sounds — Derrick Huestis

Calling something "silly" instead of explaining why it is not true, is not a responsible attitude and certainly it does not behove this place. You should just explain why your saying "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" is not actually a belief of yours. If you can't, you can simply admit it. Or just ignore it. Anyway, that would be much better than producing a "demonstration" that is totally incongruous with my point.

Of course, all this is what I believe. I admit it! :smile:

Two points:
1. Skepticism (Are you sure?)
2. Plato's allegory of the cave (Who is normal?) — TheMadFool

How do these points answer my question "Should I be in a constant doubt of my senses"? Sould I doubt that I see a tree in front of me? Should I doubt about the existence of these exact words I am writing just now? I can't make it simpler than that. Sorry.

***

Re "Skepticism (Are you sure?)": Wouldn't that get into an endless questioning: "Are you sure you are sure?", "Are you sure you are sure you are sure?" ... :grin:

Re Plato's allegory: A very good allegory indeed. But Socrates talks here about higher levels of reality. The persons in the cave use the senses they have. They don't have other ones to chose from. That's all they have. To trust them or not makes absolutely no sense. (All of us have jumped to a lot of levels of reality in our life. But in each new level, and for the period it lasts, that's all we have. We can't do otherwise. Except continuing our way up to higher levels ... )

BTW, both your points, esp. skepticism, refer to knowlegde, in general. Nothing to do with senses, which is our subject! (This is what can happen when one gets trapped into a position that he cannot defend anymore: he changes subject! And, honestly, I don't like that. It's not fair, esp. for thinking people and in philosophical discussions.)

Same response as to James Riley. — schopenhauer1

OK, I read that reply of yours. Not much illuminating, but it's OK.
The bottom line / question is ... "Do you have a free will or not?"

TheMadFool makes a good point and they can all happen to an entirely healthy person — Mark Nyquist

Certainly they can. But then, these indicate an abnormal condition, as I said. And certainly, one cannot trust his senses in such a condition. (I have already explained all that. Most probably you have not read my whole post ...)

ll your life you've depended on your senses, never doubted them — TheMadFool

Of course. What else could I do? These were and are my senses. What's the use or purpose doubting them? What could I gain from such a thing? In fact, if I did such a thing, on a constant basis, I wouldn't be able to write these lines, or any lines, for that matter. I would be living in an asylum! :smile:

normal mental state
— Alkis Piskas
How do we know that we are normal? — TheMadFool

What's there not to undestand?
Normal = "Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected" (Oxford LEXICO)
And I talked about our normal state, not normal state in general. Our personality, the basic characteristics of our behaviour and all that depend on and are dictated by our mental state. Which, i a sane person, is stable in general and under normal conditions. Not only ourselves but also others can recognize it. (I warn you: Don't ask me what do I mean by "normal conditions" because I won't answer it! :grin:)

Honestly, I would call a painless death an ideal suicide. — I love Chom-choms

I would call a painless death an ideal death! :smile:

I don't mean to burst your bubble — TheMadFool

No problem, go ahead please, you cannot "burst my bubble"! :smile:

and I know this is hard — TheMadFool

No, you really don't! :smile:

Hallucination, mirage, optical/auditory/tactile Illusion, ... You can bring dozens of such states. They all have this in common: they are abnormal and refer to physical or mental sickness.
But don't go that far! Having some drinks can be enough to make you behave abnormally and alter your perception.
And you don't even have to go that far: Anger, fear, grief and all sort of negative emotions can all alter your perception.
And you don't even have to go that far: Just beign absent-minded, lost in some thoght, imagination and other temporary things related to mental states can alter your perception.

When one knows well what is his normal mental state (under healthy condictions), he can differentiate it from states he may get in after being influenced by one or more of the above mentioned conditions. Only a madman does not know he is mad. (Well, figuratively speaking, of course.)

See? You shouldn't have worried. You didn't burst my bubble and nothing of all that was the least hard for me! :grin:

Yes, I'm revising my position. — TheMadFool

Fair enough.

the brain could be an illusion — TheMadFool

Come again? :smile: Are you talking about that spongy organ inside the skull?

anything we perceive with our senses is, according to Cartesian skepticism, unreliable — TheMadFool

It might well be so. But I still trust my senses! :grin: