Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness.

After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds?
— praxis

It depends "who" would replace humans as to observe it I guess.
But I am not sure about the answer either. We, humans, name the world "physical" . But is it indeed or only what we can perceive?Our limited "reality"? And isn't " physical" just one more "human invention"? Named that way due to his limited sensations? I think that might be a discussion for another thread.

But for one thing we can be sure." Something" exists for sure!
For me, the existence of mind is the strongest evidence for humans that there is much more than we see . The way we can be so sure for our mind existence i always found it a really miracle!
That's why I think that physical (body-what we perceive) interacts with something non psychical (the whole "invisible world" that we can't perceive or we perceive it different, limited) . That interaction brings in life Mind.
Maybe Mind is Spirit after all. — dimosthenis9

Posts like this are becoming the new normal.

That's the million dollar question for me. I can't answer you that, cause I have no idea how it is done. — dimosthenis9

Or maybe it would be better to think of it in a different way. In a way, everything we experience is a simulation and both 'body' and 'spirit' are part of that simulation. Seen in this way, everything is non-physical. After all, do physical things exist in the absence of minds? I don't believe that they do, or they both do and don't exist, or however best expresses non-duality.

Your sleep should improve if you give up caffeine.

For me human brain generates/or interacts with something clearly non psychical (mind). — dimosthenis9

How can something non-physical interact with something physical?

Hint: It has to do with realization, not concepts — Alkis Piskas

Realization is a concept. I think you may mean what some refer to as trans-rationality, as opposed to rationality or irrationality, and generally speaking, the realization is that ‘spirit’, and indeed everything, is illusory.

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?"
— praxis

BTW, this is my quote. (Actually it's part of my description the topic). praxis just quoted it — Alkis Piskas

Not quite, I switched it up on ya, substituting soul for body. After asking four times you finally addressed the question by asking a question, the point of which, you pointed out, is that you can be and have a spirit because the spirit in not physical. I then explained how both body and spirit occupy the same existential footing, proving your “argument” to be every bit as nonsensical as it appears to be on the surface.

I think that is a very important point. The subjective unity of consciousness is very hard to explain in physicalist terms. One aspect is the neural binding problem, specifically that there is no identifiable neural system which integrates disparate visual data into the integrated whole we actually experience. — Wayfarer

I just finished a book on thousand brain theory that accounts for this, I believe. Take a look if it interests you.

Feel bad about the cheetah cub. Thoughts and prayers. :pray:

This is nonsensical.
— praxis

Well, examine better what the other said before coming out with criticsm. More specifically examine again the meaing of emotion. I have put time axplaing all this to you and you seem to ignore what I said.

OK. That's it for me. I'm out of this utterly failed comminication. — Alkis Piskas

You could at least try to make sense.

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?
— praxis

OK, I'm really sorry that I put into that trouble and waiting.

I will answer with another similar question: "How is consuming and having an apple different from solving and having a mental problem?" Semantically, their difference lies on physicality. One is physical and the other non-physical. Otherwise, linguistically they are parallel grammatical constructions. — Alkis Piskas

You appear to be suggesting that it's impossible to be and have a body because the body is physical and that it is possible to be and have a spirit because it is not physical. Is that right?

I think the trouble you're having is due to not realizing that both 'body' and 'spirit' are concepts. Both of these concepts refer to particular phenomena and neither of them is the thing itself. My body and spirit differ from your body and spirit. I could recognize your particular body or spirit if I knew them well enough, knew their unique characteristics.

Spirit, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular spirit and is nonphysical, right?

Body, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular body and is nonphysical, right?

Your spirit refers to your particular character, how you act and react, which are physical phenomena, right?

Your body refers to your particular body and its various unique features, which are physical phenomena, right?

Anyway, both eating an apple and solving a problem require a brain.

What the brain gives you is a physical response to an emotion. Not the emotion itself. The brain is only a stimulous-response mechanism. The vibrations you mentioned are such a response. The adrenaline you may feel in your body (they say dogs can smell it) from a strong fear is such a response. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

This is nonsensical. You say that the brain is a stimulous-response mechanism and that emotions are part of that mechanism (“The vibrations [feelings] you mentioned are such a response.”), and yet claim that the brain doesn’t produce emotion itself.

Can you please remind me exactly what that question was? — Alkis Piskas

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?

Fourth time I’ve asked.

One thing to consider is that the body continually changes, and indeed every cell is replaced every seven years, but the self maintains a sense of continuity. That is related to the issue of the unity of subjective experience - that although the body is composed of parts, indeed of billions of cells, the self is a simple unity. Which suggests that the self transcends the physical body in being able to create and maintain a sense of continuous existence, while the body itself is subject to constant change. — Wayfarer

Maybe I’m missing the point here but the concepts of ‘body’ and ‘self’ both change, are composed of parts, indeed millions of neural connections, yet have a simple unity.

Indeed Buddhism considers the spirit, the mind and the body as one enity. Also Buddhist medicine is based on a holistic view of the human being. However, the meaning and use of term "spirit" is different in Buddhism. They have another term for what in the West we call "spirit": Atman. So it's just a different word. Taosim uses the word "ghost" for we call "spirit". And so on.

Anyway, even if I agreed with your point, this would not be "opposite" of what I indicated. It would be just a case where my indication could not be applied. But this would not mean that dualism is inexistent in the whole Eastern philosophy! (E.g. Hinduism, Yoga, Taosism) — Alkis Piskas

Atman is Hindu, Anatman (not-self) is Buddhist.

So, what I can see and didn't like at all, is that you tried to find a way to totally refute my indicating of the Eastern philosophy by just mentioning Buddhism, based on the word spirit". This is unfair. Not OK! — Alkis Piskas

:brow: It’s not OKAY that you still haven’t answered my question about how being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit. This is the third time I’ve asked.

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. — Alkis Piskas

Eastern (Buddhist) philosophy is about realizing emptiness and pretty much the opposite of what you appear to be indicating.

Still don’t get how being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit, btw.

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? — Alkis Piskas

Okay, I’m not a body. 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?

You have no idea about the impact dreams and daydreams have had on the world. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, letting go has had little impact.

mind remodeling isn't the same as a body makeover. — TheMadFool

Mind and body are inextricably linked.

The core of Buddhism is about letting go. Transhumanism seems to be about grasping, in the form of daydreaming.

Transhumanism may be a viable method to sell books and crap to other daydreamers and make some money, but that’s about the extent of its value.

Wow, thanks for explaining. I was missing context, and admittedly too put-off by the image to give it more attention. I thought it was twins or trick photography or something.

There’s no point to disputing poetry.
— praxis

Are you less of a mind if you're not smelling or seeing anything? That seems easy to answer: no. Do you think the answer is yes? — RogueAI

Okay then, let’s put the poetry aside and take the question seriously, or rather, realistically. What do you think would happen to a mind if all sensory input were blocked, if it were possible to keep the body sufficiently healthy in this condition? The mind would begin to degenerate, right? Brain cells and/or their connections would atrophy. We know this is true from studying people who’ve lost senses. The mind would slowly fade away.

That which sees is the mind; that which smells is the mind; that which tastes is the mind. You recognize this at some level, for you are not less of a mind when you're not smelling anything or seeing anything.
— Bartricks

This seems indisputable. — RogueAI

There’s no point to disputing poetry.

What does that image mean to you.

My sensible body - which if it is a material thing (that is, if idealism is false - which it isn't) - is in a study, my mind is not 'in' any place, as it is not in the business of having a location. — Bartricks

Actually a good portion of your brain is devoted to mapping your body parts and keeping track of their location in relation to other objects. If you don’t actually know where you are, no worries, cell phones work in the ideal realm.

Listen Halfy, physical things can be divided. Minds can't. Therefore minds are not physical things. — Bartricks

So you’ve said, and I’ve been attempting expand your apparently rather limited concept of what a mind is. The mind is generally regarded set of faculties responsible for mental phenomena. These faculties include thought, imagination, memory, will and sensation. Much of these faculties operate subconsciously. It is not a binary process that is either all on or all off. A mind can be chipped away by degrees, just like a mug can be chipped away. Minor damage causes little loss of function or capacity. Major damage causes significant loss of function or capacity. You more than anyone should appreciate that a severely degenerated mind can still get by.

The soul dies with the body then?
— praxis

We do not fully understand body, spirit, or death — Gregory

In that case it’s best to go with what we do know rather than baseless speculation or superstitions, right?

Matter formed at conception is the soul. I don't subscribe to dualism. Humanity is the form but it is not separate from matter. The soul is all through the body and the body is all through the soul. We speak of them as two and must but I think they are really one. — Gregory

The soul dies with the body then?

That's half a brain. — Bartricks

Which is similar to half a mug. Half a mug is a diminished (loss of capacity & function) mug, right? Half a brain is a diminished (loss of capacity & function) mind, is it not?

The implication is that it’s not really about the sanctity of life, because if it were the concern would not immediately disappear after delivery.

It grants rights to whole process, not a slow growth of rights. — Gregory

Curiously, there’s strong evidence that when abortion is prohibited poverty and crime significantly increases years later, so in effect granting rights too early can eventually result in severely diminished rights later in life, as when incarcerated.

If a person attacks a pregnant woman and a fetus dies, they can be charged with murder.
If a doctor removes a fetus and it dies (abortion) there are no consequences. — Rxspence

Notably, in the latter example all parties directly involved are in agreement, and not so much in the former example.

Life must be assumed to have rights.
— Gregory

What does this even mean? — tim wood

It means that capital punishment, slaughtering animals, etc, should be illegal.

The concept of a mug is not a mug. — Bartricks

I have a good mental representation of a mug, if I may say so myself, and I can assure you that it’s a mug and not a piano or whatever.

Have you tried pouring tea into it yet? — Bartricks

I’ve imagined it, just as you are now imagining it.

Be clear: do you think minds can be divided? — Bartricks

You talk about half a mind and a divided mind. Split-brains, to my mind, are a good example of a divided mind. It just so happens that there are also people with half a brain.



Going back to your mug, if I cut it in half horizontally the bottom half will still be a functional mug, though it will have half the capacity and the handle won’t work so great.

Ehipassiko. — Wayfarer

Exactamundo. :razz:

Think of a mug. That thought is an idea. It's not a mug. If you don't believe me, try and pour some tea in it. — Bartricks

If my concept of a mug is not a mug then how can I reliably recognize mugs? I assure you I’m quite good at recognizing mugs. Maybe you don’t think I can tell the difference between a mug and an idea? Or perhaps you’re confusing my mental representation of a mug with my mental representation of an idea?

do you think minds can be divided? — Bartricks

I can appreciate Lizzie Schechter’s conclusion about split-brains, that “The impression that a split-brain subject has two minds is correct”, because I don’t think that a mind requires human self-awareness and identity. Please don’t ask me to repeat this again.

I don't think Buddhism is necessarily grounded in a mythological narrative but on an insight into a fact about the nature of existence. — Wayfarer

What’s the insight into a fact about the nature of existence? If you cannot say then perhaps it is incompatible with science, and that would suggest Buddhism, like all religions, is necessarily based in unverifiable metaphysics.

We have the idea of a mug. But the mug itself is not an idea. — Bartricks

Correct, the “mug itself” is not a mug without the idea of a mug.

minds are not ideas — Bartricks

I wrote that ‘mind’ is a concept.

Again, what the hell do you mean by half a mind? — Bartricks

I didn’t say anything about half a mind.

You'd sense or in some other way acquire information about the world through both. But there's still one 'you' right. — Bartricks

That’s about it, apparently. You seem to believe that a mind is only a mind if it possesses human self-awareness and identity.

I mean, here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say I owe you $1m. I then go and have half my brain removed and destroyed. Do I now owe you half a million? — Bartricks

Under the circumstances $500k seems fair to me.

It cannot because if science could explain things like karma and rebirth then it would deprive religious authorities of their authority and the puppet strings would fall, putting an end to the whole puppet show.

If mind and matter are mutually dependent then it is a completely arbitrary distinction to claim that one is cause and the other reacts to that cause.