No I would not press a button. Ethics is at the individual level. People's consent must be obtained.. If not for an individual, then ethics means nothing but aggregate averaged out utility.. It is at the individual level of POV that experience is carried out and it is there where ethics must be considered. — schopenhauer1

I am primarily concerned of human suffering simply because we are deliberative beings that can make choices, but I do care about animal welfare, yes. — schopenhauer1

Sure I'll say there might be.. And if there is.. if they can deliberate like we can, they can make the same AN choices, if there is "suffering" which certainly there is for them as us — schopenhauer1

Humans can learn from suffering. However, to create suffering so people can learn is wrong I think — schopenhauer1

Then you will have no trouble identifying for us the temporal elements in propositional calculus — Banno

Then you will have no trouble identifying for us the temporal elements in propositional calculus — Banno

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 think that basic lesson in physics, the one on working with errors, should be compulsory.
universeness, to the day will do. — Banno

Good. Thanks. :smile: Thanks god, I have been justified, at least partly! :smile: (Really, now. I'm not a theist. Note the small "g" again ... — Alkis Piskas

I don't know if you realized ... We have completely destroyed this topic! — Alkis Piskas

Why should a theist have a problem with this? I'm one but I have no problem with it. Is it playing god somehow? — Raymond

Ahoy Scotsman! Why do you think that non-linear time is associated with multiple time dimensions? Time can be circular in one dimension. On the microscale virtual particles states in the vacuum are represented by a circle, a vacuum bubble. Virtual photons or virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, are represented by closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. In a sense such a particle rotates in spacetime and it can be released from it's closed periodic prison by real particles, like an electron and a positron can excite the closed photon loop, giving two real photons (which is called the annihilation of an electron by a positron), and two photons can excite the virtual electron loop to create an electron and a positron (or another pair). It were these loops that were the only material presence at the singularity. Time went back and forth. Then... bang! Freedom!

Ahoy Earther!

Because the meaning of the word linear, in the mathematical sense, is one dimensional, lineland,
just like 2D space is notionally called flatland
You cannot get a 1D circle, a circle is 2D.
If space and time are not separable then it follows that in a 1D spacetime you cannot have 2D time.
— Raymond

Closed time loops are a possibility in general relativity. — Raymond

On the microscale virtual particles states in the vacuum are represented by a circle, a vacuum bubble. — Raymond

Virtual photons or virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, are represented by closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. — Raymond

By the way, there are two books Brian Greene wrote. I think the story about the rotating bucket is written in The Fabric. — Raymond

Don't worry about spoiling Agent Smith's (not Banno's) topic — Alkis Piskas

... It was with a small "g" ... — Alkis Piskas

I am a retired programmer too, well among other retirements! — Alkis Piskas

In my language, saying "This is nonsense" is clearly impolite, if said publicly or between two people who are not familiar with each other. I believe this is true for most countries.
One can always say "This makes no sense", which is perfectly OK. But if he choses to say "nonsense" instead, he does it on purpose. See? It's the intention that counts — Alkis Piskas

For godssake — Alkis Piskas

it wasn't so serious to report it and call the attention of the moderators — Alkis Piskas

And it certainly didn't have to take such dimensions — Alkis Piskas

Anyway, there's enough rudeness going on in this place already that overshadows this case — Alkis Piskas

Well, as far our physical part (our body) is concered. But there's also a non-physical part ... (Well, this for some other time, though — Alkis Piskas