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.
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?
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
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.
originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Visitor2012
My point was I have never read Eckhart Tolle.
But dismissed him out of hand.
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.
So you agree with me.
Brain facts are not body facts.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
The brain creates the pain.
Your consciousness allows you the experience.
You say the body creates it. While true, it's not entirely accurate.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Does the brain create the wound?
From another object.
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?
Naturally.
I don’t think it contradicts. In fact I agree with it. I just felt the other part was conveniently left un-highlighted.
Much of what you ask is not completely understood. I can't answer them thats for sure. And I have my own questions too.
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?
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)?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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".
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:
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.