I’d say the mind, and I’d most probably stay with the one who has my wife’s mind. However, more importantly, I’d hunt for the mad scientist or thoughtcaster (philosopher) who exchanged the women’s brains or minds and try to make him or her set things right again — Tristan L

So, personhood consists of both the mind/brain and body. However, as I asked one poster, one can imagine (hopefully you're a man, if not, you'll need to do some find-replace operation on the roles) that your mind/brain is swapped with that of another man, call him Y. Who would be you, then? Y with your mind/brain in it or your body with Y's mind/brain in it? Which body (yours with Y's brain/mind or Y's with your mind/brain) would you prefer had sex with your wife?

But they are propositions about categories, or rather, universals (broadthings) more generally. Specifically, they are propositions about Godhood: E is the proposition that there is an x with Godhood, that is, the proposition that Godhood has instantiatedness, and ~E is the proposition that there is no x with Godhood, that is, the proposition that Godhood doesn’t have instantiatedness. — Tristan L

If you're going to take things that way then there's no such thing as individualness, everything becomes a category...something doesn't add up.

Actually, conjunction is a bit like multiplication, whereas it is exclusive disjunction (EITHER-OR, XOR) which is a bit like addition. And like multiplication, conjunction isn’t reversible; if you multiply by zero, you always get zero, and if you AND with a false proposition, you always get a false proposition. — Tristan L

So, I got mixed up! Thanks for the clarification.

And you’re right.

But since conjunction isn’t like addition (see above), you can’t conjoin with the negation of a proposition to undo conjoining that proposition. The logical operations that work together like addition and sign-flipping are XOR and NOT, not AND and NOT — Tristan L

I feel I'm getting closer to seeing your point of view on the matter. If I understand you correctly, you're under the impression that my understanding of contradictions (p & ~p) is one that considers the conjunction of the negation of proposition with the original proposition to be an undo operation, which you think is wrong.

This makes sense to me but here's the catch - there's got to be a sense in which ~p is the opposite of p otherwise, to continue with my analogy of blank spaces E = "god exists" and ~E = "god doesn't exist" would simply occupy two different blank spaces and it would be completely ok to do so. For instance, take E = "god exists" and T = "2 is an even number". I could easily write them down in two different blank spaces as (E & T). Nothing's amiss in doing that - they're not making "opposite" claims. When it comes to E & ~E, there's this oppositeness we have to countenance. At they very least to state ~E = "god doesn't exist" requires one to erase E = "god exists" like so: (god exists) and then write (god doesn't exist).

By the way I like the way you described contradictions within the context of my analogy:

o use your metaphor, stating a contradiction isn’t like first writing “God exists” in the space and then erasing it, but rather like first writing “God exists” in the space and then writing “God doesn’t exist” over it, which makes a mess. — Tristan L

:up:

I suppose, in my blank space analogy, it boils down to:

1. Propositions about a single entity (god, water, balls, whathaveyou) that are in the same sense are restricted to a single blank space

2. A proposition and its contradiction will, according to 1 above, have to be written in the same blank space but that's impossible - one has to go i.e. one of them will have to give up its seat in a manner of speaking for the other.

In fact, the whole idea of contradictions is basically that (above). Two contradictory propositions are mutually annihilating i.e. they can't coexist.

As an attempt to find a common ground between us, I'd like to point out that while I accept that a contradiction is like overwriting a proposition with its negation ("makes a mess"), we should note that this is because the proposition concerned had/has to be erased before the negation could be written down. :chin:

Logicians refer to this as ‘anything follows from a falsehood’, which is the principle of explosion as you mentioned, but rarely explain why this is the case. — Harry Hindu

If you want to know

1. P & ~P (assume contradictions allowed)
2. P..................................1 Simp
3. P v A..........................2 Add (this is the important step because A can be any proposition at all)
4. ~P...............................1 Simp
5. A................................3, 4, DS
QED!?

We can prove anything once we allow contradictions.

Knowledge of impermanence was something of a given to whatever extent before the Buddha's enlightenment — TLCD1996

I suppose then that the Buddha's contribution is in having recognized, refined, and emphasized the profundity of the truth we call impermanence. A "casting pearls before swines" kinda thing.

Perhaps it can be inferred that since all things are subject to change, the Buddha's teachings are as well — TLCD1996

Therein, in my humble opinion, lies the rub.

Buddha's teachings and his prescribed practice therein did not speak about "evolution" or did they see change as a "good thing", — TLCD1996

I must confess this was simply me trying my hand at being Sherlock Holmes, or if you prefer the other guy, Hercule Poirot. It isn't part of the mainstream view on Buddhism. I see it as having been implied from, a necessary consequence of, impermanence. Surely, you can see it too? Between the delightful duo of recommended wisdom, and the doctrine of impermanence, there's one conclusion that stands out - change, transformation, or as I like to call it, evolution.

Thus the same is so for the Buddha's teachings. And in that case we need to ask what's surviving. — TLCD1996

In my humble opinion, the Buddha was primarily and deeply concerned about only one fact of life - suffering. To him, the person he met while out on an excursion from his palace - the one in pain from an illness - was something excruciating to behold. Fastforward to the 21st century and that person could've been successfully treated with some analgesics and, perhaps a course of antibiotics. The landscape of truth shifts with time; in short, impermanence and the Buddha, surely, would've foreseen the eventuality that his theory of life, to wit, Buddhism, would either morph or disappear (for ever).

Dispassion and release are the essence. — TLCD1996

This, again only in my humble opinion, is another addition to the list of misconceptions about the Buddha and his teachings. It's not that the Buddha advised/recommended some kind of dispassionate, emotionally sterile, state of mind always and everywhere. We can and should experience all emotions i.e. we are to be passionate but this should be done, in computer-speak, with the software of impermanence running in the background, ready to be activated as it were when the moment change occurs and what it is that one is passionate about dies, decays or is desrroyed. If not interpreted this way, Buddha would be, essentially, asking us to be passionless, and lifeless, rocks which just doesn't add up.

Changing the teachings, especially according to cultural norms which are under the influence of a variety of different intentions and outside influences, is something that is not necessarily a good thing. — TLCD1996

It is, as Agent Smith and then Neo himself says in the Matrix, inevitable. Impermanence!

I'm just weary — TLCD1996

Who isn't? We all are! However, the universe seems, sadly, indifferent to our plight!

Your philosophy is an enigma to me but as for your statement about how contradictions relate to possibility, all I can say is that once contradictions are allowed, anything, absolutely anything, goes. That's the point of ex falso quodlibet I believe.

Interesting question! I think that you seem to think of conjunction (AND, ∧) as akin to addition (PLUS, +) and of logical negation (NOT, ¬) as akin to number-negation (sign-flipping, NEGATIVE, -). If that assumption were true, saying a contradiction would indeed be like saying like nothing at all. But your assumption is flawed, I think. Unlike addition, conjunction isn’t reversible; if you have a proposition (X AND A) and want to find what the orspringly (original) proposition X was, just knowing what A is is not always enough to reconstruct X. — Tristan L

I don't recall making the claim that conjunction is like mathematical addition but I remember some Boolean logic from high school which makes that claim.

As for negation being a sign-flipping operation, I admit that's how I read it. Why would you say that's wrong? A few paragraphs below in your post you say this (very insightful I must add):

The “domain” of the negation NOT(A) of a proposition A is by definition everything that lies outside the “domain” of A, so to speak, so by definition, there is no overlap between the two. — Tristan L

You're basically talking about complements of sets, right? Your reasoning is flawless insofar as categorical logic, with its categories and their respective complements, are concerned, but E = "God exists" and ~E = "God doesn't exist" are not categorical statements.

The rest of your post is no longer relevant. However, I mean this only against the backdrop of sentential logic. If you want to discuss categorical logic, no problem but I fear it'd be going off on a tangent as, I now realize, I seem to have been talking about sentential logic. Perhaps there's a right way to extend the discussion into categorical logic. Any ideas?

Except among Episcopalians, Papists, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, animists, Scientologists and a long etcetera that adds up to a few billion human beings. If we add those who have faith in Hitler, Trump, Bolsonaro, Putin and other lesser fools, we are a handful of 'foolish' rationalists (be worth the paradox).
I think that the Age of Enlightenment is still to come... if climate change lets it. Which I doubt, to my regret. — David Mo

This, to my reckoning, is what we call cognitive dissonance or so it seems. It looks like it's not true that the various categories you mentioned above actually believe in the thing they're supposed to - it's got more to do with habit than conviction of any kind. Too, beliefs (if not habits) of such kind don't translate into monetary or other kinds of losses and so are, let's just say, tolerated by the rational side of the human psyche.

That is why axioms are only valid in formal sciences. — David Mo

What prevents them from spilling over into other domains like life and living it?

In our knowledge of facts, scientific or vulgar, rationalism demands us to question our principles. — David Mo

Last I heard there's no end insofar as "to question our principles" is concerned. Munchhausen trilemma?

When he wrote The Myth of Sisyphus Camus believed that life had no meaning, neither objective nor subjective. Not only that, but the human being lived in contradiction with the world (that is the absurd). This is the image of Sisyphus, condemned to the eternal exhausting and useless work of climbing a rock that falls as soon as it reaches the top. Both in The Stranger and in Caligula he tries to illustrate this idea and the result is an impression of permanent anguish. Camus' claim that this situation can produce some kind of happiness is unconvincing. He himself tried to counteract it in later works, but at the end of his life it reappeared in his diaries and in some stories in Exile and the Kingdom. It doesn't seem that he got rid of it completely.

In my opinion, the image of Sisyphus' absurd work is disturbing and difficult to erase. Because I don't think any happiness can be drawn from it. At some point in our lives one feels like a little Sisyphus. And then, what do you do? — David Mo

I don't know how to respond to this or if I can whether it'll be good enough to lessen our burden. Let's, for a moment, grace the Sisyphean scene - Sisyphus himself, the rock, and the hill - with the presence of Aphrodite (beauty) at the top of the hill. In every imaginable sense, Sisyphus' task is utterly devoid of meaning but now with Aphrodite sitting at the top of the hill, gorgeous blue eyes gazing at him, pouting her ruby lips, her flowing hair hugging the contours of her graceful body, and so on, there's something different, naturally, right - there's Aphrodite. The question is: between the rock and Sisyphus, does this difference, well, make a difference? The rock, doesn't matter how big or how ponderous or how whatever, can never appreciate Aphrodite's beauty but, despite Sisyphus' eternal burden, every time he reaches the top of the hill, he'll be in the presence of beauty personified. No matter how brief this encounter is, no matter how tired Sisyphus is, no matter how devoid of aesthetic sense Sisyphus is, it's my contention that the rock that Sisyphus is condemned to roll up the hill has it worse than Sisyphus. It's no longer an issue of how meaningful something can be but how meaningless things can get. :chin:

as long as one creation is victorious a bit more than another creation, God is showing his preference — Isabel Hu

You need to give me more than that to go on. What means this "victorious a bit"? Is this some kind of a game concept, like winning 3 out of a best of 5 matches in a competition? Perhaps we need to look into what being god's favorite entails.

Let's see how the notion of having a favorite in a competition pans out in the human world. I experience vivid images of young boys and girls, men and women, at a soccer stadium cheering for their "favorite" side. What's obvious, from the faces of people, once a winner and loser becomes clear, is, depending on who one's favorite was/is, either long faces or smiles from ear to ear. If one could, at that moment, interview the fans of clubs and teams, and ask them "do you want your team/club to win all the time?", what would they say, I wonder? The essence of fan's love/preference toward his favorite team is that they hope the team they like should always win.

Take a moment now to imagine god, an omniscient, omnipotent [let's leave out the omnibenevolent (notice anything?)] being having a favorite? God would have the power to ensure eternal victory, assuming that life is a struggle among, between living things, for his favorite, whatever life-form it is. This is clearly not something we see in our world - everything going on, as of this moment, and also in the past, and probably in the future, bears the mark of a world that hasn't been subject to any divine intervention at all.

The first reason seems a bit begging the question, for you haven’t justified that the arrangement has no rules. — Isabel Hu

All I can do by way of an explanation/proof is offer, for your consideration, the sentence, "nature is red in tooth and claw". Might as well throw in, "the law of the jungle". It appears that the justification for my claim comes from actually having observed the dynamics of life - there's nothing in the way animals and humans behave that suggests, if not that there are no rules/laws, that any of them, us included, is inclined to follow rules of any kind.

If God favors all creation equally, then why different natures and characteristics are attributed to different creation? — Isabel Hu

Free will. Good can't be mandatory, otherwise it isn't for the notion of moral responsibility is foundational to it. Ergo, we must be free to do evil and everything between. Thus, we see "...different natures and characteristics..."

Therefore, I don’t think that there is no role of referee, and if you believe that morality is given by God, then it seems to be more problematic with your argument. — Isabel Hu

I'm not sure how consistent what I'm about say is with what I've already said but I feel morality needs to be looked at differently. I prefer to read morality as more of a menu of possibilities rather than a list of rules. I mean God, for reasons unknown to me, endowed us with a sense of right and wrong i.e. he provided us with a menu of possible thoughts/actions but God, because free will is so important to owning your actions as yours, wouldn't have wanted to mandate/prohibit actions i.e. God would've preferred not to create a dos and don'ts list - that, I'm afraid, from the poor quality of the work, has "human" written all over it.

Well, let's figure out what this mother of all infinity is then? That infinity that's truly, in every sense and in all dimensions, truly infinite. Such an infinity would possess an infinite colors, an infinite size, an infinite mass, an infinite of every conceivable property.

Here's the interesting bit. Every property, as implied by @Mww' post comes in pairs - opposites as it were. So, imagine this mother of all infinity - it would possess, for every property, both the positive sense of the property, infinite in "extent", and also the negative sense of the property, also infinite in "extent". So, it would be, for example, infinitely red and also infinitely not-red. You get the picture. The opposite properties would cancel each other and will, in computer parlance, return the value 0, null, void, cipher, nought. Imagine this for every single property and the same thing will happen.

It appears that, paradoxical and self-contradictory as it sounds, the mother of all infinity, the be all and the end all of infinity, the infinity of infinities, is the humble zero!

So...we haven’t experienced infinity — Mww

I'm here in my room. It was 11:00 AM when I got here. Now, the second time I look at my watch, it's 11:01 AM. Exactly 1 minute has passed. How many instances/moments of time are there between 11:00 AM and 11:01 AM? Infinite right? I then, like you and everyone else, actually experience infinity all the time. No?

Also, what about Zeno's Achilles' and the tortoise paradox?

for any conception its negation is given immediately — Mww

This, for me, is a key insight into the nature of our world, also our mind if the distinction must be made. If there's a something then, necessarily its negation, the not-something. Ergo, finite, necessarily infinite.

Also, it seems you didn't quite understand my take on the issue. I meant to say that infinity, by definition, is endless which, in other words, means it can't be completed; it, infinity, is necessarily incomplete. Hence, the idea of an actual infinity is...well...something doesn't add up. If an actual infinity is self-contradictory, as it is, then your argument that it has to be experienced is asking for the impossible. It's like saying valhalla must be experienced despite knowing full well it doesn't exist.

Hm. I never meant or said that. 1) I made a distinction about the REASONS one would be reluctant (and in one case unwilling) to have sex. It is not the same kind of reluctance. In one my attraction would likely still be there for the body of my wife, but since I know (have an idea) it would be my sister experiencing sex with me, I don't want that to happen. In the other case I am seeing my sister's body, so even though it is my wife, I have lived all my life with this as a taboo, being attracted to that body is a taboo (this all seems very familiar to me, but I'll write it again.) One of these two, for me could change. I could over time deal with my wife's essence being in a body that was my sisters. I would NEVER get over knowing that inside what before was my wife's body there is my sister experiencing through it. I would never have sex with that body. — Coben

So, your reason for not having sex with your wife's body is because your sister's mind/brain is in it and you wouldn't have sex with your sister's body even if your wife's mind/brain is in it because it's your sister's body. Well, that's the puzzle. Who/what is your wife/sister and by extension you.

Let's add another layer of complexity to the issue. Suppose you and another man, Y, swap brains/minds. Is Y now with your mind/brain you or is your body with Y's mind/brain you? Would you let your body with Y's mind/brain in it have sex with your wife or would you insist that your brain/mind in Y's body is you? :chin:

minds are not just our brains — Coben

Expand on this will you?

Oh, but it does. You are confusing 'a placebo' with a sugar pill. A placebo is an act including something like a sugar pill. The patient is told they are getting a medicine for their illness and they get a pill. That is a placebo. You drop a sugar pill in their drink and don't say you did it and that it's a medicine...that is not a placebo — Coben

Thank you for the clarification. We're on the same page.

Perhaps I should have added that Art Therapy affects the emotions, I thought you were working on that assumption in the OP. — Coben

I'm mainly concerned with the physical aspects of emotions - the accompanying entourage of bodily phenomena.

if a placebo can be effective then art therapy, which is much more directly attuned to the individual and is vastly more nuanced and also gives the patient/client room to express feelings seems even more likely to be effective. — Coben

My contention is this: there are physical changes that follow in the wake of emotions that are evoked by art. Art comes in many forms but those that are of particular interest to me are music and paintings - in the broadest sense of those words. This raises the possibility that we can, in principle. induce physical changes in the body with art given that we figure out the ins and outs of how all this works. If so, art can be truly therapeutic in that it can actually cure illnesses of all kinds.

As for placebos, they're neither truly therapeutic nor do they actually cure illnesses. In other words, art therapy, insofar as my theory is concerned, isn't[/] a placebo.

The "problem" simply has more to do with sexuality than anything else, as I said, you've chosen a poor example. I don't care to go into that topic. — Judaka

Good point! However, I feel my thought experiment does the job of exposing the heart of the issue insofar as personhood is concerned, especially the contradictory character of our intuitions on the matter. You might think of your own story so long as it captures the essence of the problem.

I talked a bit about dhammavinaya here and there in the thread, but basically it's what the Buddha called his dispensation: dhammavinaya, teaching/doctrine and discipline. The teachings being the four noble truths, khandhas, three characteristics, ependent origination, etc., and the discipline being that which comes as both cause for and result of understanding doctrine. In the vinaya you have rules against violence and killing, among other things, and these disciplinary constraints are deemed essential for the refinement of virtue (particularly the 5 precepts) which is in turn deemed essential for the development of concentration and wisdom. Thus the dhammavinaya is a threefold training in virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and it's something of a feedback loop where wisdom nourishes virtue and so fourth. Maybe one could call it a discipline built on an acceptance (but not an absolute or incontrovertible acceptance) of the teachings. — TLCD1996

Thanks for informative post. I'm going to read it in the context of the OP if that's ok with you. First is the notion of dependent origination which I surmise leads to the doctrine of impermanence and that gibes with the last line in your post viz. "...but not an absolute incontrovertible acceptance of teachings". Since the Buddha is no longer with us, all we can do, at this moment, is connect the dots, add two and two together so to speak, and my guesstimate is that the Buddha intended his system (Buddhism) to be Darwinian in character i.e. it was intended to evolve over time even if it meant that his theory about the world would be scrunched up into a ball and flung into the trash can. This will make more sense if you read the paragraph that follows.

Second is the presence of the words "concentration and wisdom" - I'm familiar with them in a philosophical setting. It's as if Buddhism wants us to, well, think and not just think but to think well. This exhortation to use one's brains is completely absent in other religions and needs to be emphasized without hesitation of any kind. To add, the entire edifice of Buddhism appears to me as an axiomatic system that begins with what was then incontrovertible truths viz. the four noble truths and the doctrine of impermanence. In short, Buddhism is a theory of life built up from known facts with the primary objective of teaching us how the good life must be lived and that completely within a rational framework.

Third, Buddhism has, in the course of its history, rubbed shoulders with other true religions and that has, inevitably in my opinion, led to a one-sided relationship that shows - Buddhists eventually deifying the Buddha, developing rituals and practices that are probably meant to reinforce Buddhist precepts, sanctification of certain important historical sites, and so on but Buddhism itself failed to make an impact on other religions in a similar way. This inter-religious event in Buddhism's past, present and probably the future has upended the spirit of Buddhism as a fluid, dynamic, evolving theory of life and the world and morphed it into a rigid and fixed dogmatic system of beliefs. Thankfully, in my humble opinion, this isn't something that can't be reversed - all it takes realize the true character of Buddhism is some thought, just as I've done here.

In summary, Buddhism has too much reason in it to be clubbed with other religions and too much ritual in it not to be.

Are you saying that the intention is to try and illustrate how Buddhism can shift (or has shifted) from Philosophy to Religion — TLCD1996

Read the above.

A person is not their body but a person is not their mind either, they are their consciousness — Judaka

This must make sense at some level. What's the difference between mind and consciousness?

If somehow my consciousness was swapped to another body with a new brain, let's say this new brain is genius and I attain their mental capabilities rather than that of my old brain, "I" would still refer to the consciousness, "I" have gained a new body and "I" have gained a new mind. — Judaka

This blew my mind. Can I substitiute soul for consciousness? Very, very, very interesting.

This however doesn't solve the problem. Just open this document, find-replace "mind" with "consciousness" and the problem still remains intact, unsolved.

Just wondering about a certain inconsistency that's bothering me. In all likelihood, it's a failure on my part and not in the rationale behind the distinction, actual and potential infinity. If infinity can be viewed as potential there must be a reason to it; my personal view is that 1) infinity is, by definition, endless 2) something endless can't be completed, obviously.

How then the notion of an actual infinity, completed as it must be?

What clash? I think that ↪Pfhorrest is right, and that our everyday intuition tells us that both your sister’s mind and your sister’s body are parts of your sister. By the way, there’s a rather funny story about the basic idea of the topic at hand in Fifth Contact concerning the characters Bannon and Vree — Tristan L

Yes, both the mind and body go toward a person's identity. That's only reasonable option.

My initital story, if that's the right word for it, actually had three women. Midway through my post, I suddenly realized that I'd forgotten why there had to be 3 women. I remember now. So, let me extend this tale of, now 3, instead of 2, women and you.

Woman no. 3 = X = unrelated to you.

Imagine now, that your wife's brain/mind and X's brain/mind has been interchanged. The question is this: if you now had to choose whom to live with, do you opt to stay with your wife's body with X's brain/mind in it or would you rather stay with X's body with your wife's brain/mind in it? Is it mind/brain OR body that defines a person?

So, it's just a matter of time before you start having sex with both your sister and your wife then? You speak of emotional aspects which I'll take to mean, all things considered, just the process of, as people say, getting used to the the cards that were dealt to you. That's all I could gather from your post.

A placebo can help cure illnesses — Coben

This seems like an oxymoron for the simple reason that a placebo doesn't cure anything, that's why it's a placebo. I wonder though how all this makes any sense. A placebo has some "curative" effect; if it didn't then it wouldn't be a placebo. Then, it's said, a placebo doesn't actually have a "curative" effect. I suppose the point is that it's not the placebo that's doing anything, it's actually the belief that one is being given medication that's causing improvement. I see an opportunity here, diabolical as it may seem. Why don't all the pharmaceutical companies hold a secret meeting and publicly announce the discovery of drugs for all diseases but, of course, it would be a lie. Then, they flood the market with placebos. No one would know and if the placebo effect is true, treatments for all illnesses would be, is it ok to say, successful. If they ask me for advice, :smile: I'd suggest they start with cancer medicine. I wonder... :chin: I see a sci-fi short story in the making.

By the way, I fail to see how the notion of placebos is relevant to my theory. Do you mean to say that we wouldn't be able to tell whether art therapy is actually the placebo effect? I'm sure scientists will figure out a way to solve that problem.

You have got a discussion going on art therapy anyway whereas I ended up writing one on sex, drugs, rock,'n,'roll etc. yesterday and so far no one is interested in the latter. — Jack Cummins

These don't seem to be mutually exclusive although I'm not sure whether it's because art is so expansive or if sex, drugs, rock-n-roll are true art?

I was serious about making art and the need to produce 'good' quality art got in the way. I am not sure that the tension between therapy and making quality art has to exist — Jack Cummins

I'm sure this isn't something out of the ordinary. After all, even if one relaxes the standards of art for personal reasons (to see yourself as an artist), there's a limit to how much the rules can be bent/broken, and you simply wouldn't/couldn't say that your handiwork was/is art even when you lower the bar so much that it's, well, literally sitting on the floor.

Just saying...

The word 'reason' means two different things:
a) The cause or motive for something to have happened.
b) The ability to reach valid conclusions according to the facts and logic. — David Mo

Nice! :100:

That is why I can say without redundancy that the reason for having done something (in the first sense) is reason (in the second sense). — David Mo

This induces bafflement. I presume the distinction was necessary. So, why not stick to your guns instead of trying to have a foot in both camps?

It would be clearer if we talk about motives and rational arguments. — David Mo

:ok:

I suppose I have a fairly good grasp of what it is that you want to convey. I concur with you on all points you've made so far except those that've I stated seem a bit off to me.

It's true that the word "reason" is more nuanced than I realized. I'm especially indebted to you for pointing out how it can mean both a cause in re biological motivation and a premise as in rational motivation.

You mentioned something else in our conversation:

Faith is a kind of emotional motivation — David Mo

What's "emotional motivation"?

Staying on topic, how does all that you've said and faith hang together?

For my money, I'm going to run with the conventional reading of what faith is - it's the practice of believing something sans evidence/proof. We know, from experience, that people are, generally, reluctant to believe on faith alone. If this were not true, entire nations should be in the grips of con artists, right? So, it's settled, faith isn't all that popular.

Having said that, we shouldn't forget to factor in the many times when con artists did succeed in defrauding people. These, if nothing else, suggests that faith is alive and kicking in the general population even if in the wrong places.

In line with your thoughts then, it's patently clear, people are actually investing belief on faith. This means there are certain, to borrow your word, "motivations", for practising this mode of belief acquisition (faith). What these are in actuality is anyone's guess.

To not get distracted from the main issue - faith and religion - I suggest we focus our attention on the motivations for faith alone unless a you feel a detour is germane to the OP.

Too, in my humble opinion, you should take a look at @Philosophim's take on the issue - your theory of motivations sounds very much like his theory that if people offer a "reason" when their faith is challenged it turns out to be a case of rationalization. Perhaps it's just a superficial resemblance, I'm not sure.

As for what I've said, about the reasonableness of making a choice between two equally unjustified claims, I suppose it boils down to rationalization or your theory of motivations.

Nonetheless, to offer something in my defense, I would like to cite so-called axiomatic systems - a very small aspect of ratiocination of course - wherein you simply assume the truth of certain propositions and see what it leads to. Such systems don't seem to fit into your theory of motivations, neither does Philosophim's theory of rationalization explain it very well for the simple reason that there are no reasons that determine one's choice of axioms. Axioms, by definition, lack reasons for belief.

Art therapy is nonsense in terms of significance because best practice psychiatry is so superior combined with action to resolve problems in life, I find. — DrOlsnesLea

The applications of art therapy, as herein outlined, includes but is not limited to psychiatry. You surely didn't fail to notice I was going for the physical aspect of arth therapy. Another poster but in another thread was all praises for art therapy in re psychiatric illnesses as fae seems to have experienced an improvement.

:ok:

Very well put I'm not writing anything tonight I don't think going to bed But I will try to write a lecture here when I can — Dan Hall

Sarcasm? No problem. Thanks :up:

You have to believe that your thoughts are electrical chemical signals in your brain that's it that's what you are with some muscle memory which is your brain so when you dream is it possible it's someone else's chemical reactions from another lifetime what makes your thoughts unique what makes it yours so emotions a nerve reactions in the process crazy right — Dan Hall

If it doesn't lead to a contradiction, it's possible. I don't see any as of this moment but I can do what everyone does - ask for evidence for this theory of yours?

In my most stressful times, art therapy healed my pain. — healing-anger

That's a point in favor of my theory. Can you provide any details if it's not too personal?

The music begins. Molecules of dopamine and serotonin are emitted, circulated, received, and up took. Perhaps you are with your partner, both hearing the music; you kiss, cuddle, and canoodle and some oxytocin is added to the mix. Warm moist rose colored light suffuses all. Lovely.

If you think emotional experiences were purely physical, would administering the proper dose of dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin produce the same experience for you, sitting alone in cool, sterile lab room? I would think not. Chemicals do not make the music resonate with you, and kissing and cuddling a plastic mannequin would not be a warm fuzzy experience. There's too much content missing.

It seems like what neurotransmitters do is to actualize the emotions arising out of experiences, memory, or Imagination. If spiders frighten you, it isn't cortisol that will cause fear. Cortisol will enable you to get away (or to attack the room-sized arachnid).

Contrary to the preceding, when people experience psychotic mania, perhaps the chemicals come first, stimulate all sorts of wild thoughts (hallucinations, paranoia, intense fear, anxiety, anger, etc.) In this abnormal situation, the chemicals cause the experience of emotions in a very crude way, — Bitter Crank

Good point, well said although this isn't what I really want to discuss but, very interesting thoughts on the matter I must say and so, let's discuss it anyway.

Your vivid description of an intimate moment between two people and contextualizing it in a biochemical setting is very important as far as I'm concerned.

First, it raises the issue of whether hedonism makes sense or not. One, as you so rightly pointed out, it appears impossible to evoke the same emotions I have when I'm with my lover just by injecting myself/ingesting the putative chemicals that are believed to evoke those emotions. The sterile lab you mentioned, the lab where I experiment on myself doesn't seem capable of giving me the same experience. Doesn't this mean that, pace hedonism, it's not just the feeling of pleasure/happiness that counts? I'm afraid this is a puzzle whose solution is beyond my ken. I remember asking myself the questions:

1. Does a thing have value because it makes us happy?

or

2. Does a thing make us happy because it has value?

If it's 1 then, hedonism is true but then what you said doesn't make sense. A person should be completely satisfied to experience the same emotions fae experiences with a lover by simply injecting faerself or ingesting the putative chemicals. This, you've said, and I concur, isn't possible. Is it?

This means it's 2 - happiness is secondary to value in the sense that first comes value and happiness is simply a response to that value. The problem I see with this can be clarified with a thought experiment. Imagine that 2 is the case and that there's a person X who sees value in an object Y and that makes him happy. If, for some reason, it so happens that Y begins to make X unhappy/sad, the most plausible outcome of this seems to be that the value of Y will diminish in X's eyes.

Does this mean, it's both 1 and 2? Maybe neither? God knows.

I seek your counsel...

:up: In that case, I don't have much wisdom — Noble Dust

As a champion you must choose your battles. You can't waste time on every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses your path. :up:

I'm emotionally driven myself, so I'm probably at a bit of a disadvantage in philosophical discussions of emotion, but one thing that stands out is this: emotional triggers are not strictly physical in the first place. The harm that art therapy aims to heal is generally emotional harm that can be a result of physical trauma (abuse), but can just as easily be the result of non-physical abuse (verbal, psychological). So, fundamentally, if a cause of emotional trauma is non-physical (verbal, psychological), and you then measure physiological changes in the body of the person experiencing that trauma, why would you then assume that emotion itself on a philosophical (metaphysical) level is strictly physical? It doesn't follow. This is a bit of another one of my class dunce moments, apologies. I may be over simplifying here — Noble Dust

I'm not saying that emotions can be completely reduced to the physical. This is entirely my fault as I wanted to keep the OP short and so failed to make the necessary clarifications that would prevent misinterpretations of the gist of my theory.

All that matters is this: whatever it is that triggers emotions and whatever it is that emotions are, they go hand in hand with physical changes like pupils dilating, a cold sweat on the brow, palpitations, heavy breathing, etc. I'm inquiring as to how deep this connection, the connection between emotions and bodily changes, is and whether it can be manipulated to do things like curing infections, cancers, other kinds of maladies.

Well I think that would be very neglectful for any philosophy to involve generalities such as a flood being evil without giving it parameters to test but perhaps it has caused an evil or evil perspective but if we take that statement of " the earthquake was evil it killed my mom" I think most rational members of society would not accept that as fact . — Dan Hall

I'm simply working with the official position on the issue - natural evil?!

By the way, evil as causes of suffering doesn't actually cut it since punishment for criminal behavior counts as causing suffering but no one would treat that as evil. Another poster made a mention of this. Hopefully, fae sees this post.

How can you possibly demonstrate that the measurable physiological response of emotion is equal to the subjective experience of emotion? — Noble Dust

That's an entirely different issue. I get the impression that you want to introduce qualia into the discussion and switch the topic to one about the hard problem of consciousness but, as of this moment, you'd be preaching to choir.

Anyway...I'm not denying the subjective nature of emotions. All that matters is there are accompanying physical changes which I consider as an opening for, a gateway to, some kind of actual treatment modalities for both physical and mental illnesses.

Again, on a philosophical level, what are the grounds you're standing on that lead you to conclude that the physical mechanics of emotion are emotion itself? — Noble Dust

I thought I clarified that point: no smoke without fire. A heuristic that led me to the conclusion that emotions are physical. After all, the entire pharmacological industry, even if not specifically, at least in a general sense, is predicated on the receptor theory of biochemistry. It's hard to ignore such good evidence, right?

To reiterate, given that both agencies, humans, and non-agencies, like earthquakes, floods, etc. are generally considered as evil, it makes sense, doesn't it? that evil boils down to causes of suffering. There's no other way, no common thread in them, to refer to all of the above mentioned as evil.

That said, there's this feeling of uncertainty, a sense that something's off, in defining evil as simply causes of suffering. I mean when an agency, a person for example, is evil it implies this person is inclined to, has a propensity for, maybe even prefers/likes being, evil but the same can't be said of an earhquake or flood or a tornado.

I'll leave it at that.

What's to say that it's not the other way around? Philosophically, how do you explain that the physical mechanics of emotion are the emotion? It's a sweeping metaphysical claim, one that goes unchecked pretty rampantly. — Noble Dust

:chin: I don't think the physiologists in the many institutes around the world have made a habit of talking out of their hat. No smoke without fire, right!?

And, just curious, after what you said, what am I supposed to be thinking next?

Uh, I know how the victims of any said incident would feel lol. That's the thing about insults and put-me-downs. They either have a basis in reality, some merit, or remind you of an area in your life/attitude you need work on or they don't — Outlander

:100: :up:

but a life with no suffering, angst, or worry is hardly a life at all. — Outlander

:100:

My take on that is: if you're not in love with someone/something then, your life would be one with "no suffering, angst, or worry" unless you're an incorrigible narcissist in love with yourself but...the catch is...in my humble opinion, all suffering is contingent. It has to be otherwise, if I may be vague but not to the extent that you miss the point, the idea of heaven or, if you're irreligious, utopia, is nonsense.

it all comes down to the limitations of words — Jack Cummins

I guess so. Language is not exactly the perfect mode of communication. Telepathy would, in my opinion, be the closest thing to being a perfect language unless it too depends on language. After all, telepathy is just reading minds, right?

This relates back to the art psychotherapy course which I was doing which looked at images because art therapy is about art making. This basis of art therapy is about the level of visual processing in the brain and how in some cases healing can exist at that level, beyond the limits of words. — Jack Cummins

:ok: I'm starting another thread on this topic. One of my wild ideas. Probably hogwash but I'll put it out there for feedback.

So, what I am saying is that there are depths of experience reality which are not always about words, the tool of the philosophers. — Jack Cummins

:ok: I think you're off the mark but only by a bit. While 9 out of 10 times philosophy is bound to linguistics in the sense that philosophical discourse takes place within the bounds of ordinary language, tweaked for precision of course, there's the 1 out of 10 times, it (philosophy) has made forays into the ineffable, the world beyond words. I don't know how successful an enterprise that was/is.

How would a person feel if for instance fae was a through and through Islamic fundamentalist, having even participated in some terrorist activities, then reformed after having met the "right people", but still being called a "muslim fanatic"? Change is a universal truth - I see nothing in the suffering-life couple that isn't ever going to change [for the better]. That's all.

It is impossible to know, which makes it irrational to ask how I know. — Mww

:ok:

I'd just like to run something by you for your views:

What's the difference between an actual infinity and a potential infinity? I got the impression that you were headed in that direction.

Thank you for the definitions of religion and philosophy.

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements and so you could say it's both (though some people may really be insistent on placing it under one label and sticking with it) — TLCD1996

I think you're spot on. What is intriguing here is that no religion, save Buddhism, shares this quality, the quality of being, in one sense, a religion, and in another sense, a philosophy.

Dhammavinaya — TLCD1996

What's that?

I'm wondering what would be the intention behind such a categorization, though; it seems like that would play a role in coming to something of a conclusion. Why are we stuck on these two terms if they both seem to be inadequate? — TLCD1996

My intent here is twofold:

1. Answer the question that I posed in the OP viz. is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? This so that we can clear up the misconception that people have regarding Buddhism that shows in attitudes captured by statements like, "Buddhism is just another religion." or "Buddhism is my religion", etc. Buddhism is so much more, a conclusion you, yourself seems to have arrived at in our discussion.

2. By acheiving 1, to expose, perhaps "reveal" is a better word, the, now, patent, truth that philosophies that are geared toward answering one of the top questions in philosophy viz. "what is the good life?" eventually become religions, religions in the sense of the definition you provided. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that what are actually philosophies get lumped in with what are true theistic traditions, mainly the Abrahamic triad. This is a grievous error with what are truly horrible consequences - for instance Buddhism can become, has been, both a perpetrator and a victim of religious violence. The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean.

Only a child or fool doesn't. — Outlander

Which one am I? A child or a fool? Or am I both? I'm not kidding. An answer will mean a lot to me.

Well the good news is 2,000 years later we at least managed air conditioning. — Outlander

This contradicts your previous statement.

The cycle of life is to be born, survive, reproduce, and then die. — existentialcrisis

I prefer to look at it as: nonexistence [unknown duration], existence [briefly], and then, nonexistence [eternally].

Emotion is what makes our lives 'matter'. — existentialcrisis

I'm not sure about this but I've always looked at emotions as reactions and being reactions, value precedes them.

suffering as part of life — healing-anger

"Suffering as a [contingent] part of life."

What would a Stoic do — healing-anger

A stoic thinks of "suffering as a [necessary] part of life."

Stoics are dead wrong but it's not their fault...I would've come to the exact same conclusion had I been living 2000 years ago - poor sanitation, rampant disease, ineffective medicine, wars, plagues, corruption, and, for people like me, no air conditioning.