It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spiritual Reorientation 3: You are your body

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Akragon




Did you not know that by showing love to others you are in fact loving God?

the idea you're speaking of in John is basically saying don't love material possessions... its pointless because you can't take them with you


People are of the world, are they not?


that really depends on the person... Generally speaking in this age... yes

Even though within there is a part of everyone that is not of this world...

I had planed on posting one of my threads to yours that is in opposition to the concept, but decided to let your thread fly on its own... perhaps later





posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Even though within there is a part of everyone that is not of this world...


Which part would that be?


I had planed on posting one of my threads to yours that is in opposition to the concept, but decided to let your thread fly on its own... perhaps later


Please do I would love to hear it. I enjoy your writing.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon

Midicon, although you have me figured wrong, I thank you for your intention. I don't take anything you've said in the wrong way. If you've known me for 40 years, in a million guesses you would never be right. My experience has shown that to me. So that's why it's water off a ducks back.

Eckhart tolle is a Marvelous being and a gift to every one of us. Sounding like him, and talking like him, doesn't mean anything.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

C'mon buddy you know the answer...


thank you by the way... Since you asked... here it is...

Who are you Part 4: Who am I

Its a long read... but well worth the time




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

My point was I have never read Eckhart Tolle.

But dismissed him out of hand.


And I am not a fan of copying and pasting quotes. I posted those lines from Nietzsche to save you looking them up. In fact I typed them...come to think of it I never do that...I really don't need to.

Anyway it's all good.
edit on 1-5-2014 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism



Apparently there are people who don't believe they actually leave the body when having an OBE. Do you negate their experience? I don't wish to.


Certainly not. Such a conflict of information should prompt personal investigation, wouldn't you think? I mean, if someone told me the sky was Red, and another person told me the same sky was Blue, I'd just get up and look out the "window". The only reason that I wouldn't, is if I trusted their vision more than I trusted my own. Which is why I asked you 'do you not trust yourself with the experience?"

Because you seem to be dependent on what other people think and believe and what scientists theorize. And a sensible and down to earth person, like yourself, would surely investigate the matter, especially if he heard conflicting reports. Unless, you're just not that interested in it, in which case why spend time arguing with me about it? We can go on, but I think we're beating a dead horse here.

edit on 1-5-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Visitor2012

My point was I have never read Eckhart Tolle.

But dismissed him out of hand.




I got that. I really did.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

You say sorrow is the body being sorrowful. etc etc....
So there is no difference between the what and the who, in your opinion?
Do you prefer to just generalize the body, rather than address all of its components?



Implying there is a subject within the body is to objectify that person. You’ve objectified me into two objects: body and subject within. In order to remain a subject, I must be operating as one entity. I am neither one no the other.


But you're not one entity, your body is actually made up of trillions of entities - i.e cells and microorganisms- that without these little things working in concert, your body would not be.

It's also well understood that the entire body regenerates itself replacing all the cells within and without. That the physical body you had two weeks ago, two months ago, or when you were born is not the same as the one you have today. This also includes brain cells as recent discoveries are showing ... So I wonder, how do we maintain our identity when our physical body is totally different than it was, and continues to change? What would you say keeps the continuity of your identity intact?



So you agree with me.

Nope, afraid not. You think sound exists even without the proper sensory equipment (an ear and a brain) to make it a sound. That is incorrect.



Brain facts are not body facts.

The brain creates the pain.
Your consciousness allows you the experience.
You say the body creates it. While true, it's not entirely accurate.



I think you bolded the wrong part, opting for the part that states that our sense of the world is affected by emotions, memory, mood and age, because was the only sentence that fits with your solipsistic world-view.


Nope, I bolded the right part, Aphorism. And the part you bolded doesn't change the truth of the matter; which is, the outside reality that is absorbed through our senses is created and assembled by the brain. This is the fact I was highlighting. But there's more- the reality is also affected by the mindset of the person who is experiencing it. In no way does this contradict the part you bolded nor render mine incorrect. Although you seem to think it does?



Yes, experience of sound is subjective and depends on the mind, but only because the mind is the body, and like all things, we need a body to experience anything.


Well now you're just making up your own definitions. In what belief system is the mind the body?
The mind is produced by the body, I'll concede that as a gross generalization. And, even as you alluded to above, it is required for subjective experience. Yet it is an intangible thing... But your only way around it is to equate the mind as the body. If that's your take on things I won't try to change that.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


You say sorrow is the body being sorrowful. etc etc....
So there is no difference between the what and the who, in your opinion?
Do you prefer to just generalize the body, rather than address all of its components?


Yes I suppose. Indeed, we can address its individual components, without which there would be no body. But in turn, if there was no body, there would be no components. Once we remove a component, it isn’t too long before it turns to dust.


But you're not one entity, your body is actually made up of trillions of entities - i.e cells and microorganisms- that without these little things working in concert, your body would not be.

It's also well understood that the entire body regenerates itself replacing all the cells within and without. That the physical body you had two weeks ago, two months ago, or when you were born is not the same as the one you have today. This also includes brain cells as recent discoveries are showing ... So I wonder, how do we maintain our identity when our physical body is totally different than it was, and continues to change? What would you say keeps the continuity of your identity intact?


I agree with this. Perhaps we are instead the concert.

Change and regeneration is always occurring. So to does the identity. The only things that rarely change are the words used to describe it.



Nope, afraid not. You think sound exists even without the proper sensory equipment (an ear and a brain) to make it a sound. That is incorrect.


Maybe you’re thinking about the perception of sound, which wouldn’t exist without sound to perceive. You said it yourself, sound is mechanical waves and vibrations, but then you did a u-turn and said the brain produces the sound. So which is it?


The brain creates the pain.
Your consciousness allows you the experience.
You say the body creates it. While true, it's not entirely accurate.


This raises questions.

Does the brain create the wound?

How do we receive a wound if everything we touch is in the brain?

If the brain creates the pain, and sound, and touch, and sight, then does the brain create the brain as well?

When we perform brain surgery, do we perform it on someone else’s brain, or our own? If the brain we are handling and looking at is in our brain, it might be confusing to discern on who’s brain we are actually operating on.

Does the brain also create the stimulus it responds to? Or is the brain simply responding to itself?


Nope, I bolded the right part, Aphorism. And the part you bolded doesn't change the truth of the matter; which is, the outside reality that is absorbed through our senses is created and assembled by the brain. This is the fact I was highlighting. But there's more- the reality is also affected by the mindset of the person who is experiencing it. In no way does this contradict the part you bolded nor render mine incorrect. Although you seem to think it does?


I don’t think it contradicts. In fact I agree with it. I just felt the other part was conveniently left un-highlighted.


Well now you're just making up your own definitions. In what belief system is the mind the body?
The mind is produced by the body, I'll concede that as a gross generalization. And, even as you alluded to above, it is required for subjective experience. Yet it is an intangible thing... But your only way around it is to equate the mind as the body. If that's your take on things I won't try to change that.


It’s my own belief system. Here’s my reasoning:

We can remember the touch of skin on skin. How is the mind able to remember if it has no skin? We remember the sight of certain things, or a smell, or a sound. How can the mind remember them if it has no eyes, nose or ears? To use an old Platonic example, when our bodies get sick, wine tastes sour. Why would it taste sour if the mind is not the body? If we are to remember a passage in a book, how can the mind remember what was read if it didn’t pick up a book and read it? If the mind is intangible, how and why does it remain in the tangible body? Where does the body end and the mind begin?

According to definition, the mind is “the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think and to feel.” What other element besides the body allows them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think and to feel?



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
I agree with this. Perhaps we are instead the concert.

Change and regeneration is always occurring. So to does the identity. The only things that rarely change are the words used to describe it.


But you are still you. How so? In your view, what is the seat of your identity, the what it's like to be you now, that feeling of you (if all the cells in our body are constantly changing)?



Maybe you’re thinking about the perception of sound, which wouldn’t exist without sound to perceive. You said it yourself, sound is mechanical waves and vibrations, but then you did a u-turn and said the brain produces the sound. So which is it?
No u-turns, sound is the perception of the wave, the mechanical energy, the vibration that is induced by an object. The actual wave itself is not sound. Just like the electro magnetic frequency of the color red is not actually red. If there is not an ear to intercept the wave then a sound is not made. If you've ever played the outfield the sound of the baseball hitting the bat takes a second to reach your ear. You don't hear the sound at the exact moment of impact (from your position a hundred yards away) because it takes time for the wave to pass through the air to get to you. Now if an ear is not there to catch this wave from that position then the wave continues on and a sound will not be registered.


Does the brain create the wound?

No, it doesn't.



How do we receive a wound if everything we touch is in the brain?
From another object.



If the brain creates the pain, and sound, and touch, and sight, then does the brain create the brain as well?

Not that I know of.



When we perform brain surgery, do we perform it on someone else’s brain, or our own? If the brain we are handling and looking at is in our brain, it might be confusing to discern on who’s brain we are actually operating on.

Come on man.


Does the brain also create the stimulus it responds to? Or is the brain simply responding to itself?

No, it doesn't.
But there are no stupid questions, right?


I don’t think it contradicts. In fact I agree with it. I just felt the other part was conveniently left un-highlighted.
Naturally.


According to definition, the mind is “the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think and to feel.” What other element besides the body allows them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think and to feel?
Much of what you ask is not completely understood. I can't answer them thats for sure. And I have my own questions too.

When I close my eyes and visualize a pink monkey swinging on vines in a dense jungle with birds chirping, how does that world I've conjured up fit into the realm of physics? Was it real, or not? If its a tangible image in a brain or body then why can't we find it if we cut those open? Because it's not tangible. So how is this experience that appears real in my mind not tangible? And where is it? What is it?

I compare the brain to hardware of a computer. The neural activity is like software. The mind is the output on the screen. Or in other words the mind observes the actions of the brain.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect
 



But you are still you. How so? In your view, what is the seat of your identity, the what it's like to be you now, that feeling of you (if all the cells in our body are constantly changing)?


If I objectify myself and use a common term: My body, my person. It’s what gets up in the morning, speaks a certain way, thinks how it does, and calls itself “I”. That’s what is typing this right now, and I can prove it because that is what is pressing the keys. Is it in control of itself? Yes. It keeps the heart beating, it keeps the lungs breathing, and it keeps thinking, it remembers, it thinks about the past and future. It perceives it calculates and it expresses itself in certain ways. It travels and seeks adventure. It remembers and reflects and doubts and imagines. It reads, it learns, it writes, it loves its wife. It walks, it stands and feeds itself. It does what it needs to survive, and if it wanted to, it could go so far as to light itself on fire in sacrificial protest. It could end it all by its own will.

Isn’t it the seat of your identity? or is your body just a place to hang your clothes? All jokes aside, I’d be interested to read your view.


No u-turns, sound is the perception of the wave, the mechanical energy, the vibration that is induced by an object. The actual wave itself is not sound. Just like the electro magnetic frequency of the color red is not actually red. If there is not an ear to intercept the wave then a sound is not made. If you've ever played the outfield the sound of the baseball hitting the bat takes a second to reach your ear. You don't hear the sound at the exact moment of impact (from your position a hundred yards away) because it takes time for the wave to pass through the air to get to you. Now if an ear is not there to catch this wave from that position then the wave continues on and a sound will not be registered.


Ah. The old tree in the forest analogy. No one’s around to hear it so there is no sound. But come on Photon, the definition of sound is vibrations passing through air or another medium. Sound has a speed. Breaking the sound barrier doesn’t happen in the brain. The sound happens whether someone is there to hear it or not. It is indeed the perception of sound you’re thinking of, and the limited frequencies a human can hear I think you are referring to. Maybe we can compromise and call both "sound".

I mean I completely understand your argument. Mind/body dualism spans back to Descartes. The matrix, and the old Morpheus argument that what we experience is our electrical impulses, and that our experience can conceivably be controlled by ultra-intelligent beings, is a play on Descartes Evil Demon concept. The entire idea of the movie is built on the mind/body dualism philosophy. But if you get a chance, read Spinoza’s refutation of Descarte’s dualism. Here’s a brief summary:


One of the pressing questions in seventeenth century philosophy, and perhaps the most celebrated legacy of Descartes's dualism, is the problem of how two radically different substances such as mind and body enter into a union in a human being and cause effects in each other. How can the extended body causally engage the unextended mind, which is incapable of contact or motion, and “move” it, that is, cause mental effects such as pains, sensations and perceptions. Spinoza, in effect, denies that the human being is a union of two substances. The human mind and the human body are two different expressions—under Thought and under Extension—of one and the same thing: the person. And because there is no causal interaction between the mind and the body, the so-called mind-body problem does not, technically speaking, arise.

plato.stanford.edu...


I align my metaphysics with Spinoza the most.


When I close my eyes and visualize a pink monkey swinging on vines in a dense jungle with birds chirping, how does that world I've conjured up fit into the realm of physics? Was it real, or not? If its a tangible image in a brain or body then why can't we find it if we cut those open? Because it's not tangible. So how is this experience that appears real in my mind not tangible? And where is it? What is it?


Thinking about thinking is difficult, that’s for sure. Yes, even though I think of a pink monkey, I know an actual pink monkey doesn’t exist in my head. So it must be intangible. It’s strange that when we visualize something it’s always something we’ve experienced, or parts of things we have experienced jumbled together to form something stranger. We’ve both seen monkeys, and have both seen the colour pink, so we are able to visualize pink monkeys in our thoughts. But it’s impossible to picture an animal we’ve never experienced in a colour we’ve never experienced. If we were to create an animal in our minds that doesn’t exist in the real world, it will have certain characteristics, ie. horns, hooves, eyes, maybe wings, and parts of things that do exist. Out of our finite experience and memory, we can create infinite combinations of them to form “thoughts”. But yes where are they?

This is the exact reason why I have resorted to reducing thoughts to a doing, rather than objects. Maybe it’s somewhat deflationary, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Just as “sight” is simply seeing, thoughts are simply thinking. I honestly think the grammar of it has led us astray. There simply aren’t any thoughts in my head so to speak, only continuous thinking. It’s difficult to hold on to any one picture for a lengthy amount of time without sheer will power, and even so, that picture is constantly changing. So I argue that a thought is like a dance. A dance is intangible, meaning we cannot find it under a stone or hold it in our hand or put it in a bag and carry it home. It only becomes tangible when it is performed by a body. I think we may have talked about this one time before.


I compare the brain to hardware of a computer. The neural activity is like software. The mind is the output on the screen. Or in other words the mind observes the actions of the brain.


I agree that a computer is a good analogy. But in my opinion I think it would be best to turn the analogy around. If you’re interested, the computational theory of mind might be something to look into. However, it doesn’t have many followers in philosophy circles these days.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply 1 to: Aphorism


originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: PhotonEffect
 

If I objectify myself and use a common term: My body, my person. It’s what gets up in the morning, speaks a certain way, thinks how it does, and calls itself “I”. That’s what is typing this right now, and I can prove it because that is what is pressing the keys. Is it in control of itself?
Isn’t it the seat of your identity? or is your body just a place to hang your clothes? All jokes aside, I’d be interested to read your view.

Change all of the "its'" to "I's".
Here’s how I think of things- There are two versions of you: There's the experience of you, as the object, from the perspective of the outside world and how it interacts with your body. Then, there's the experience by you, as the subject, from the perspective of inside your body and how you interact with the outside world. Would you agree that these are different? If not allow me to make a case…

Now, the outside world can never experience the inside version of you and will never ever know the true you. Only you, I could argue, can know that. True, the physical inner version of you is made up of bones, organs, muscles, etc… but that’s not your identity and not what I’m talking about. No, I would argue that your thought patterns, ideas, memories, behaviors et al; these are the things that define an identity. If someone knows Jack, and then Jack one day is dead. Looking at his dead body is that still Jack? Well it is his body, so in one sense it still is Jack, objectively. But what about the subjective Jack? The funny guy that everyone loved…

It's the difference between animate and inanimate. The feeling of being alive.

The problem is that these defining principles of the subjective identity are intangible. Some associate them as mind, or mental states. To reconcile this is to say there can't be mind and body. It's just body, or as Spinoza likes, just one substance; it's our body that does the thinking or emoting. Well I’m not sure I’m convinced of that approach.

The body is a physical tangible object that can be picked up by the senses. Thoughts and ideas are not. Yet the latter contribute a great deal to who we are subjectively (to us) and objectively (to everything else). We can’t deny thoughts, ideas, emotions exist. These intangible attributes are what form the “seat of our identity”. It’s the thing (the self) that commands the brain/body what to do. To conjure up an idea. To raise my hand. To scream. To type this sentence. To climb a tree. You might say, “well that’s just the brain telling the brain what to do”. So is my identity just my brain then? Or do we completely deny identity altogether?

Are we just our physical bodies? If so then what do we do about all the non physical parts of us- our thoughts and ideas and emotions? I’d love to get your thoughts (pun intended)


The sound happens whether someone is there to hear it or not. It is indeed the perception of sound you’re thinking of, and the limited frequencies a human can hear I think you are referring to. Maybe we can compromise and call both "sound".

Work with me here, I'm really not trying to be all philosophical with this aspect of the conversation. One last go at this-- Sound waves, in their most raw form, do not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, absolutely, I'm not debating that part. But sound as the sensation (finished product) will not/ can not occur with out sensory equipment to turn that raw energy into an experience.

So I guess, yes, there are two aspects to sound. If the damn tree falls it will propagate vibrations (mechanical sound waves) through the air- YES - but until those waves interact with an ear drum or some other form of sensory equipment the actual sensation of the sound will not happen. It’s getting redundant, I know, and probably off topic at this point.
edit on 3-5-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
reply 2 to: PhotonEffect
 

But if you get a chance, read Spinoza’s refutation of Descarte’s dualism. Here’s a brief summary:

Yes, I've read some of Spinoza's philosophical musings and I'm not sure I agree with him entirely. I know Einstein liked his stuff. Maybe I don’t quite understand what he means.. for instance…


The human mind and the human body are two different expressions—under Thought and under Extension—of one and the same thing: the person. And because there is no causal interaction between the mind and the body, the so-called mind-body problem does not, technically speaking, arise.

What does he mean by the part I bolded? There’s no interaction between mind and body? So is that to say that thoughts don’t in any way affect change in the body? Or that thoughts are not the mind? I’m confused by this. Perhaps you can clarify.


But it’s impossible to picture an animal we’ve never experienced in a colour we’ve never experienced. If we were to create an animal in our minds that doesn’t exist in the real world, it will have certain characteristics, ie. horns, hooves, eyes, maybe wings, and parts of things that do exist. Out of our finite experience and memory, we can create infinite combinations of them to form “thoughts”. But yes where are they?

This may be true. But it seems to me that this implies we don’t have purely original thoughts or ideas. That all of what we think is influenced by previous experiences, whether we realize it or not. It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure I buy that.


This is the exact reason why I have resorted to reducing thoughts to a doing, rather than objects. Maybe it’s somewhat deflationary, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Just as “sight” is simply seeing, thoughts are simply thinking. I honestly think the grammar of it has led us astray.

All we have is our language and grammar to communicate our ideas. And I agree that many times we just don’t have the vocabulary to explain things well enough so we can understand. In the end though, our entire world is made up of concepts and ideas that we created. So our world is what we’ve created.
Having said that you will have to do better in explaining your position because thoughts are not a doing. Thoughts are a product of the act of thinking. As we have defined such concepts.


There simply aren’t any thoughts in my head so to speak, only continuous thinking. It’s difficult to hold on to any one picture for a lengthy amount of time without sheer will power, and even so, that picture is constantly changing.
While it might be difficult for you, it is certainly not impossible for others. This is what meditation is. Either holding one thought or none at all. If you don’t want to call the images in your mind thoughts. Then what do you want to call them? Whatever it is you can’t deny that you have them. And can’t touch them.


So I argue that a thought is like a dance. A dance is intangible,

Well there’s the idea of dance. That part is intangible. The act of bringing that idea into the physical realm makes dance very tangible.

It’s an interesting truth that we can literally create something from nothing. ( But a thought is not nothing, right?)


But in my opinion I think it would be best to turn the analogy around. If you’re interested, the computational theory of mind might be something to look into. However, it doesn’t have many followers in philosophy circles these days.

I will take a look at that theory. Thanks
edit on 3-5-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join