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.

 

Philosophy of the Body

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I suppose that which supposes could suppose that mind/spirit/soul are the terms used to describe that most subtle aspect of the body. Unless sufficiently argued, I feel it must be admitted, that there is an aspect of 'that which thinks/that which sees/that which knows/that which controls' the body, is the least material aspect of the body... I know that seems silly, but perhaps I mean to say it is the least materially stable, or its physicality, or the means in which it exists are constantly fleeting, or at the very least, changing? I believe it is that realm of mind, which the people you directly or indirectly are exclaiming towards, who after peering from their bodies at the harsh, cruel material world, are frightened and overwhelmed, so they take sanctuary in their imaginations, they need intellectual distractions from the truth of the visceral nature of their true selves. The subtle nature of their minds is just as true, and by supposing, via ignorance, or choice, that because it is just as true, as wood is true and stone is true, they chose to make their homes out of mind, while neglecting their bodies. (lots of supposing going on, but) I suppose the most perfect possible human, and maybe what evolution/progression is heading towards, ideally, is the conglomerate of the highest possible qualities of mind and body. Perfect physical health and fitness, along with of course perfect mental health and fitness, but also the sharp abilities of the intellect. And as we see, this is what civilization has been. Evolution of the mind and body, as yes, I understand your entire point is to point out their oneness, it also can be seen however that after comprehending their oneness, if anything a distinction can be made, as the body is autonomous, parts of the mind are autonomous, but the majority of the mind is the controller, which is us. The controller controls the outside world, the inside mind world, via the body. And yes, the inside mind world is the body, but not a muscle you make strong with weights.

But it seems there have always been those natural prodded into a life path of utilizing their physicality, and others who utilize their mentalities, and of course some who utilize both. If humanity was a being, I suppose these represent the body and mind of civilization, the muscle and the more subtle.

Anyway you look at it, a human, cannot live without a mind or body, because thats what a human is.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




No, I mean to say that the borders of your body don't begin and end where you think they do. There are parts of human nature, of which we are mostly unaware, that reach outside of our skin. This is of course a testable empirical claim I am making here, and the outcome, either way, has an impact on metaphysics.


Would you provide an example? Maybe an aura or magnetic field?

I mean all the dust we see in our houses is from our body, yet I wouldn't call it our body.



I'll provide two examples for my worthy foe!


Suppose you go to a college campus, and perform a large experiment on the student body. The experiment will test the power of belief, and the power of the human mind.

So you go around from class to class giving out questionnaires to students that asks, among other things, whether they believed in ESP. Then you give them all ESP tests guessing at concealed cards or something.

That's what experimental psychologist Gertrude Schmeidler did back in the 40s.

"The data convinced me. Repeatedly, average ESP scores of subjects who rejected any possibility of ESP success (whom I called goats) were lower than average ESP scores of all other subjects (whom I called sheep). This was inexplicable by the physical laws we knew; it implied unexplored processes in the universe, an exciting new field for research. From then on, naturally, my primary research interest was parapsychology." -Gertrude Schmeidler

I'm sure you're smart enough to grasp the stunning implications of that. Lesser philosophers might flee from contemplating the implications, but I'm sure you won't.

Part of us that we are usually unaware of can reach out of the body and alter probability, so that events unfold in a way that accords with our beliefs. This effect has been replicated many times in many labs over the years. It is especially problematic when it's the experimenter himself altering his own experiment.

And then there is anomalous anticipatory response, or presentiment. Part of our nature scans the near future, and begins to prepare our nervous system for shocking or arousing stimuli up to ten seconds before it happens.

There is a part of our nature that can reach through spacetime and scan it, and brace the body for future trauma. Or even prevent it, in order to protect our precious beliefs.

"The sheep thought they could do it, they got “good” scores, they were happy. The goats knew there was no ESP, nothing to get, they got poor scores, they were happy, that “proved” their belief. These were not people who were sophisticated enough about statistics to know that scoring below chance could be significant….

Many other experimenters replicated this effect over the years.

The only way I’ve ever been able to understand it is to think that the goats occasionally used ESP, but on an unconscious level, to know what the next card was and then their unconscious, acting in the service of their conscious belief system, influenced them to call anything but the correct one.

The goats used a “miracle” to support their belief that there were no such things as miracles….

Talk about living in samsara, in a state of illusion!" -Charles Tart

The power of belief!

You just need to do a little tweaking to make room for a transcendent function of the body. Let's see if you can guess which comic-book superhero I will use to symbolize this transcendent function, Kal-el.



"I have always seen parapsychology as the "earthing" of the spiritual. In our experiments we explore the psychic in a very logical, rational, exoteric manner. We assign clearly demonstrable proof ratings to the different variables. In such a manner we have inadvertently confirmed many spiritual teachings, for example that one's attitude or belief about something may actually affect the occurrence of that particular matter. Faith, it used to be called, although now it is "the sheep-goat effect," was said to be able to move mountains. Jesus spoke quite extensively on the incredible effect of faith, which has now become transmuted into attitude, and the Hindus have a spiritual path centered around faith called Bhakti Yoga. Our modern terms are more applicable to our present society, but underneath the change in terminology the concept lives on.

Another example of the "earthing of a religious concept" occurs when doing a ganzfeld or other free-response experiment. The first thing the participant is taught to do is to become aware of the content of their mind. This action is what the Christians call contemplation and the Buddhists call mindfulness, and it is the first step in meditation, the first step in learning how to develop one's mind. The state of consciousness that the ganzfeld induces is to be found in quite a number of different religions as well, albeit induced in radically different methods, such as getting up and chanting at 3 a.m. The point in common with all these methods is the aim to create a state of consciousness whereby the conscious mind is stopped, thus allowing one to access material from the collective unconscious."

-Serena Roney-Dougal


edit on 130FridayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

In potential the Placebo Effect implies that what is fundamentally subjective about us, is objective.

In that it is capable of objective tasks.

Any thoughts?

edit on 11-7-2014 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi
In potential the Placebo Effect implies that what is fundamentally subjective about us, is objective.


Any thoughts?


Yes. You just contradicted yourself.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Well said. I concur. And it raises an intriguing question: is the human species defined more by its biology, or its psychology?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Actually with respect to spontaneous remission it is you who have contradicted yourself.

Given the fact that humans spontaneously remit from Cancer, presents that somehow, Consciousness has the capacity to affect DNA.

In effect, interfere with the Tumors structure.

How do you think that is possible in relation to a belief?
edit on 11-7-2014 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

I think perhaps you put too much stock into the illusion of permanence these atoms and cells that make the body up create.

What is the body composed of? What are those elements composed of? What is the most elementary 'solid' component of the elements which make up the body?

What is energy?

Yes, there needs to be touch of a thing to the sensory media of the body for mental formations and therefore thought constructs which if looked at in constant flow create a consciousness.

Life != body. Life is not equal to body, the body is born of life. Light is life...

"For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is" Albert Einstein



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
A very good contemplation indeed

Death is just a transition of energy, especially when dealing with the body, so does it live on? in the rocks? in the soil? the water, the air, the fish and the animals of the land?

The body is an expression of life, and life has many expressions and many bodies. It is a holy temple, a place where true happiness can be found. With it we can do good work here in the physical, we can hold each other, help each other up, give gifts to each other and experience things together. Life are the notes, and the body is the song playing in harmony or disharmony, whichever you prefer.

When one speaks of the works of the 'flesh' one is speaking about the natural tendencies present in the monkey mind, the evolutionary mind of survival. This mind does not think how even YOU are thinking, but tends towards the selfish, towards the easily habitual, with little reference to the outside world and its inhabitants. Be careful how one interprets the words of other men. After all, they are just words... but in these words entire ways of life, of thinking, of philosophy can be born, and nature is not fundamentalist, it is co-evolutionary.

One must understand the invisible thread which ties all pieces of knowledge together, it is like a web, and there are correlations... but there can definitely be misinterpretations, and with a mind born into delusion, these misinterpretations can become points of suffering created.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ImaFungi

Well said. I concur. And it raises an intriguing question: is the human species defined more by its biology, or its psychology?


I assume it is a pyramid, from the most mass, bulk, to the most subtle, until it gets to the information contained in bursts of electricity enforced to occur by the arrangement of much extremely organized material, and I would assume as far as terms go, that 'biology' and 'psychology', the terms make more of an extreme distancing as far as separating and lengthening then there really is, the total information regarding our biology and the biology beyond is has such an imprint on psychology, and it is even seen to much more of a rule than exception, the regularity of successful human psychology for the most regards, the psychology can only over ride the material, autonomous, law abiding, as all things are, biology so much, and evolution and human progression are what that is, the constructing of psychologies that can interact with biologies,



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Mind and thought creations does not equal awareness, and both can be loosely labeled consciousness, but there is a difference.

Have you looked into OrchOR? This posits that the fundamental space-time geometry is what gives rise to 'consciousness'

for, before you were, all the beings of the earth were, and before them, all the elementary particles creating the earth, and before them, the great stars forming the bits and pieces that will later become us. It is all information systems, and as we can see in evolution, it isn't so much random as it is orchestrated, with purpose. What is the awareness which guided these systems into their co-evolutionary forms?

Speaking about consciousness outside the mind and body, have you never read of people who have lost total functioning of brain and body systems, dead for hours, be able to recall what happened to them while their body was in a state of death? Even more interesting are the ones born BLIND, which never developed the parts in their brains to see the world as we see it, die, and come back telling a story of how they were able to see things for the first time ever.

What is the real reason you deny the spirit and fight for the belief in only the body and physical?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Response to ImaFungi

a reply to: ImaFungi

Greatly put.

But as you know, many assumptions were made, namely: 1. that there is a mind, 2. that we cannot live without one, 3. that the body has “subtle aspects”, 4. that there is a place people retreat to intellectually and imaginatively, 5. that something controls the body. They are all very intuitive assumptions, and most of common sense understanding agrees with you. Yet, it was once an intuitive and common-sense understanding that the universe revolved around the earth, and that it stood still. So let’s look at these assumptions and try to peek beyond our intuitive biases with some counter arguments. This will be a long read.

1. That there is a mind

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, no mind has ever been studied outside of what is articulated by the body and the mannerisms of the body. Psychologists do not study any sort of mind qua mind, but strictly what is spoken by a patient, his symptoms, and his behavior—all performances of a body. What they speak about in regards to “mind” is actually the thinking body, the only “element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel” (Mind - Oxford English Dictionary). If you can name another element besides the body that does any of this, we’ll grab it, examine it and speak about it. But no such thing has ever been witnessed, and no theoretical, nor mathematical model or framework has been properly devised about any other such element. There is no empirical nor rational evidence of any mind, and any property available in its regard can only be found within a body of knowledge written about what we feel to be there. Beyond the literature, it possesses no other reality.

2. That we cannot live without a mind

Again, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, if the mind possesses no reality beyond what we feel to be there, rather than what is actually there (the body), then it would appear that we do not live with minds nor ever have already, and that the body can indeed live without minds. What we are certain of is that we cannot live without bodies.

3. That mind is a fleeting or non-material

I agree in an abstract sense that the body may exude “subtle aspects”, though not as near-immaterial substances, but subtle actions.

(This is theoretical) Take the inner-monologue for instance. Try reading my words, but also pay attention to the subtle movement and vibrations within your throat, vocal chords, mouth, and breathing. Now think to yourself in your own inner-monologue. Close your eyes and create a sentence or paragraph in your head. Notice the subtle vibrations in your vocal chords and the subtle shifts in breathing. This is subvocalization. You are not thinking to yourself, you are speaking to yourself. The vocal chords, the breath, the tongue, the mouth have a lot to do with thinking.

Now close your eyes, imagine yourself on a beach, but hold your breath and sustain it for as long as you can. You might notice it is difficult to maintain the thought without a little practice. This is because breathing is a large part of thinking, and this is why meditation and breathing exercise have been known to strengthen focus. Good breathing has a correlation to good thinking, which implies the lungs and breathing have a lot to do with mind.

We burn calories when we think. Thinking generates heat. These aren’t brain calories or mind calories, but the calories delivered by the digestive system, stored in fat and utilized by the cells of the body. Without this component, no mind, no body would be possible.

Close your eyes and think about yourself on the beach for two seconds, after the two seconds, open your eyes and maintain the thought. Repeat the process a few times while maintaing that thought. It is difficult to maintain the thought without a little practice, because the eyes have a lot to do with focus, memory, imagination and mind.

We can see people’s minds by viewing subtle brain activity. We can see more of it when we step back and view the body.

When we are healthy, wine tastes sweet. When we are sick, wine tastes sour. What we eat, what we drink, our bones, our organs, our blood, our bile, and every single cell is the mind.

Anyways, my point is, subtle action rather than a subtle material is what we call the mind. These actions, of course, are performed by the body.

4. There is a place known as the imagination where people retreat to in times of need.

When I think about it from my viewpoint, I’m not sure anyone retreats anywhere but into the inaction of their own body, perhaps like a form of hibernation like day-dreaming or reading or playing video-games or writing. It seems more a restraint of imagination than anything else rather than a retreat into it.

There was a study recently that showed people would rather shock themselves rather than be alone with their thoughts. In other words, they chose pain over imagination, stimulus over thinking.

When one plays a video game, reads a book, watches a television, their imagination is led by a narrative that isn’t their own., and their body is occupied by mere stimulus. This isn’t imagination, but the suppression of it.

Real imagination involves work, and, as I said earlier, caloric intake. So these people you speak of are not overly imaginative or retreat into the imagination, rather, it is simply another act of suppressing the bodily faculties for the sake of comfort.

5. That something controls the body.

Any “fleeting material” would be hard-pressed to manipulate and control real material. This is the crux of the mind/body problem, and even Descartes thought it impossible to rationalize. If the circulation, the immune system, the digestive system and metabolism are autonomous, then we can rationally conclude, with I believe enough evidence, that the mental faculties, the will, choice and decision, not only arises from and within the body, but is governed by the body, and all decisions, willful actions and the like, are bodily decisions. This doesn’t imply that we are robots or machines, but that the whole is simply smarter than we can imagine, that all capacities and functions working together are smarter, more intelligent and more wise than any single one of them on their own.

edit on 12-7-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I understand your advocacy of parapsychology. I don't wish to belittle it. And yes, if such mind-suff is found and properly researched, something like that would have to be added to the set of the body.

But I fear the "on average" results of such experiments simply aren't good enough to prove anything to me. "On average" means it didn't happen in all cases, and some goats got it right, and some sheep got it wrong. That sounds like random chance to me. I cannot deny it outright but it is only because I am unsure of what I am denying in the first place.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: preludefanguy




What is the real reason you deny the spirit and fight for the belief in only the body and physical?


I am unable to deny what isn't there, for something must first exist in order to deny it. What does exist in the case of spirit is the lore surrounding the idea. That I can deny, and I do so because there is no rational nor evidential reason to accept it on purely emotional grounds or because the idea is satisfying. I don't feel it, sense it, nor can intuitively grasp it. Lastly, I do not need it.

I think it is simply that your conception of spirit is different than mine. That you speak of a soul, a "higher self", perhaps at the disparagement of your "lower self", an "essence". I prefer the first notions of spirit, back before they were perverted by church scholasticism, that the spirit is the actions of the body and life.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

I understand your advocacy of parapsychology. I don't wish to belittle it. And yes, if such mind-suff is found and properly researched, something like that would have to be added to the set of the body.


I think the main difference between your monism and mine, is that I have added something like that to mine, which makes mine either a neutral monism or a mental monism. Either of those can accomodate everything that your monism can, and more. That enables me to follow the evidence. And my big blue nose enables me to sniff it out.


But I fear the "on average" results of such experiments simply aren't good enough to prove anything to me. "On average" means it didn't happen in all cases, and some goats got it right, and some sheep got it wrong. That sounds like random chance to me. I cannot deny it outright but it is only because I am unsure of what I am denying in the first place.


That's a respectable position.

“I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.”

-Carl Jung

You avoid denying it outright, which I salute you for. But you also avoid drinking deeply of the parapsychological literature, and I submit that you avoid it because unconsciously you know it is your Achilles heel. Your body wants to maintain its current idea of itself, because time and effort and emotion have been invested into it. So you rationalize reasons to avoid it.

With a little time and effort, you could see the advantages of a more neutral monism that is more accomodating of the evidence. Not to mention, a bit more fair to Superman. :p

Have you heard of Sean Harribance? I would be surprised if you have.

International Journal of Neuroscience
“Neurobehavioral and Neurometabolic (SPECT) Correlates of Paranormal Information: Involvement of the Right Hemisphere and its Sensitivity to Weak Complex Magnetic Fields” by Dr. Roll, Dr. Persinger, Dr. Webster, Tiller, Cook, Vol 112, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 197-224.


Abstract
Experiments were designed to help elucidate the neurophysiological correlates for the experiences reported by Sean Harribance. For most of his life he has routinely experienced "flashes of images" of objects that were hidden and of accurate personal information concerning people with whom he was not familiar. The specificity of details for target pictures of people was correlated positively with the proportion of occipital alpha activity.

Results from a complete neuropsychological assessment, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), and screening electroencephalography suggested that his experiences were associated with increased activity within the parietal lobe and occipital regions of the right hemisphere. Sensed presences (subjectively localized to his left side) were evoked when weak, magnetic fields, whose temporal structure simulated long-term potentiation in the hippocampus, were applied over his right temporoparietal lobes.

These results suggest that the phenomena attributed to paranormal or "extrasensory" processes are correlated quantitatively with morphological and functional anomalies involving the right parietotemporal cortices (or its thalamic inputs) and the hippocampal formation.


I'm sure you're smart enough to grasp the implications so I won't bother pointing them out. I'll just say this and everything else you have seen thusfar is a tiny sample of the undiscovered country waiting for you.

When all is said and done, the flavor of monism you prefer doesn't really matter. What matters is, can it accomodate the available evidence without resorting to fancy gymnastics?


edit on 824SaturdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluSaturdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


I think the main difference between your monism and mine, is that I have added something like that to mine, which makes mine either a neutral monism or a mental monism. Either of those can accomodate everything that your monism can, and more. That enables me to follow the evidence.


I don’t quite have a metaphysics nailed down yet, so I wouldn’t say I subscribe to any monism. But I think I can give you a taste.

As you know, I have chosen to start from my own common senses, apart from philosophy papers or religious texts. I can only speak of the things we can all observe and reason about, for those are what I care for, and I choose to look at the world that way rather than through a mathematical model, a myth or an electron microscope.

I agree that if I cannot detect something through the common senses it doesn’t mean it isn’t there, but in my eyes, if we are unable to detect it through the common senses then we are unable to touch, feel, see, smell, reason about, nor use them whatsoever, and then, who really cares?

I agree with Plato’s conception of being—being is the power to affect or be affected. But there is a gradation of being because there is a gradation of power. In that sense I am an ontological pluralist – there are many ways and possibilities of being. Nothing stops moving. Dynamics. These dynamics come together to form something more dynamic, a “thing”, more or less dynamic than other things, and can affect or be affected by other things. I believe these things have boundaries and surfaces.

So far, that is what I rest my ideas upon, but instead of a foundation, it is turbulent waters.

By those standards, I have nothing to work with in psi. Unless psi can show its power, and thus its existence beyond the literature and postulates of men, I will forever doubt it.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Turbulent waters, aye! No doubt you've been sailing them for a long time. You are on a hero journey.

You say you have nothing to work with in psi. I assume you mean, other than the evidence that has been accumulating for decades.

OK, well what if I could give you something? WHat if I could give you a very simple way to work with psi that anyone can do in moments with minimal effort? Would you take it? Temba, his arms wide.

Perhaps you are at the point of your hero journey that Campbell would call 'supernatural aid'.




edit on 914SaturdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluSaturdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ImaFungi

Well said. I concur. And it raises an intriguing question: is the human species defined more by its biology, or its psychology?


I assume it is a pyramid, from the most mass, bulk, to the most subtle, until it gets to the information contained in bursts of electricity enforced to occur by the arrangement of much extremely organized material, and I would assume as far as terms go, that 'biology' and 'psychology', the terms make more of an extreme distancing as far as separating and lengthening then there really is, the total information regarding our biology and the biology beyond is has such an imprint on psychology, and it is even seen to much more of a rule than exception, the regularity of successful human psychology for the most regards, the psychology can only over ride the material, autonomous, law abiding, as all things are, biology so much, and evolution and human progression are what that is, the constructing of psychologies that can interact with biologies,


Biology compels that we kill animals in order to nourish ourselves. Psychology compels that we throw ourselves in front of a bullet to save someone else.

There's a big difference.
edit on 12-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ImaFungi

Well said. I concur. And it raises an intriguing question: is the human species defined more by its biology, or its psychology?


I assume it is a pyramid, from the most mass, bulk, to the most subtle, until it gets to the information contained in bursts of electricity enforced to occur by the arrangement of much extremely organized material, and I would assume as far as terms go, that 'biology' and 'psychology', the terms make more of an extreme distancing as far as separating and lengthening then there really is, the total information regarding our biology and the biology beyond is has such an imprint on psychology, and it is even seen to much more of a rule than exception, the regularity of successful human psychology for the most regards, the psychology can only over ride the material, autonomous, law abiding, as all things are, biology so much, and evolution and human progression are what that is, the constructing of psychologies that can interact with biologies,


Biology compels that we kill animals in order to nourish ourselves. Psychology compels that we throw ourselves in front of a bullet to save someone else.

There's a big difference.


Its easier for us to program and reprogram our psychology, and more and more difficult to do so as 'what that psychology is, how it works, what its composed of' physically approaches nearer and nearer to a more hardwared biology. Psychology is a program of symbols, language, code, that our minds are programmed with from baby onwards, and that is how we process our thoughts, our feelings, our memories, the outer world. The exact needs of biology have their impressions on psychology, but the psychology also creates its own impressions and desires, but they are always drawn from the outer and inner, physical, biological, world.

Psychology does a lot of things, this is why I related it to, as a muscle, 'how strong someones will is, or mind, or drive'. Some people will, with their programmed, force themselves to throw themselves in front of a bullet, others will not, some will wish they did, or could, but wont, or cant, some try, and fail, some try harder and fail, some try less, and succeed, some dont try at all, some have weird fetishes, some eat weird foods, some are capable of amazing art, others amazing feats of conquering danger. There must be something about the mind which is constantly self referencing, something to maintain continuity, the remembrance of the past, memory, most people when they wake up they are right back into it, they have familiarity of their room, they know their family or friends, they know countless details about them, and all sorts of things about the world and their life, and potential things they want to achieve in the future, they know how to get dressed and shower, and eat, and walk out the door, and drive a car, and know the way to work, you can say at the base of all things it the rules of biology that has forced the state of man to come to this, but I wouldnt deny the spark in the human, that must be present, to force itself to carry out every single act it does. There is no hardcore law that says every human cannot sit down at once and wait to die, the pain and biology strongly urges this to not occur, but the human it seems, is possible to enjoy existence, and though you may be attempting to, and successfully saying, biology is close to a case of determinism, the human within the realm of laws and determinations, has their free will, their psychology, their spark, with which they may navigate the world, and themselves.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism


1. That there is a mind

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, no mind has ever been studied outside of what is articulated by the body and the mannerisms of the body. Psychologists do not study any sort of mind qua mind, but strictly what is spoken by a patient, his symptoms, and his behavior—all performances of a body. What they speak about in regards to “mind” is actually the thinking body, the only “element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel” (Mind - Oxford English Dictionary). If you can name another element besides the body that does any of this, we’ll grab it, examine it and speak about it. But no such thing has ever been witnessed, and no theoretical, nor mathematical model or framework has been properly devised about any other such element. There is no empirical nor rational evidence of any mind, and any property available in its regard can only be found within a body of knowledge written about what we feel to be there. Beyond the literature, it possesses no other reality.


Do you really not think it most probable that the brain is the organ responsible for thought?

I will give you that the whole body may be seen of as a single brain. That the immediacy, especially when dealing of our senses transmitted at speeds most likely over half the speed of light, the body is a relatively small system, and information, in the form of electrical impulse, can travel throughout it very quickly. One could say because my fingers feel sensation so immediately, so...at all times, that there can hardly be said to be a difference between the touch, the finger, and the feel. But, I believe that located in the brain is the 'central intelligence agency', the 'motherboard' maybe, I dont know computer terms, the hub (?), the main component that receives all the senses to...make sense of them. Like how in old days of phones and maybe telegraphs there was a switch board. The signals had to be sent to a common center to be received, interpreted, and made sense of, and then sent back on their way. If you believe that your entire body is your brain or mind, and given this recent finger or hand example, we then cut off your hand, and placed in on the table, could you still feel/sense that table with your hand? Is your brain or mind still in that hand? Oh, an accurate point for you, is the sensation of that hand still in your brain/mind?

Well besides the absence of that area of sensation, I would argue the brain/mind would still function as it was always able to. I would argue one could cut off the arms and legs, and the body, the mind/brain of that body, would still be able to process thoughts as it always had, just with a few fewer 'instruments of detection' sprawled out into the surrounding world.

One can do the same sort of arguments with the eyes, and ears, and nose. Which may be even more important, especially the eyes, as they are one of the greater, and potentially most majestic, sensory apparatus we own/are and it helps us a great deal receiving information about the external world. Which no doubt has left its imprint, like all sensory information we receive does, on our inner realm, which organizes, and 'makes sense' of the information our bodies receive. The eyes being so close to the brain, and so connected, as all sensory organs are ultimate hooked up to the brain, as as I have postulated, and as most do, the brain is where 'the information is stored and processed'.

The mind, is merely a term used to describe 'what a brain does', as perhaps brain is to stomach as mind is to digestion.

I am thinking of these words right now and choosing to say them, I know many words, I am choosing to select these ones right now, is the brain doing this, am I doing this? is my body doing this? I am doing this, I being my body? I being my fingers? If I dont choose words, my fingers dont do anything, but I need my fingers to tell you, when I have choosed a word to write. Tell me what is choosing these words; Butterfly, dragon lawn tarantula waffle cone bread basket sling shot turkey wing jamboree donkey kong fling flong happy wagon song tide riding dip cycle circle board porch swing tire rocking wild looly pool man jumping like a ding dong flame baby slipping slide happy clipped clapping carpet bagging bling wearing bring baggies to the big daddy taddle station.

Your argument is there is no separating parts, to saying "this does this, this does that", you can only look at the human as one whole system? That all the parts are so interdependent that you cant give one, like the brain, precedent over another? Or say, the brain is responsible for this, though, if it doesnt receive that, it cant do what its responsible for.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

2. That we cannot live without a mind

Again, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, if the mind possesses no reality beyond what we feel to be there, rather than what is actually there (the body), then it would appear that we do not live with minds nor ever have already, and that the body can indeed live without minds. What we are certain of is that we cannot live without bodies.


When you say 'what WE are certain of is that we cannot live without bodies', if you are defining 'WE' as "bodies', then that is quite the obvious statement. When I say you, I am speaking of your body, you. But the culmination of your body, is the 'you' that chooses to speak, and chooses to get food to maintain 'your' body, maintain you, and it is that 'you', that 'we', that I am speaking to, not your foot or arm, the chooser, the controller of the foot or arm. What controls your arm? You do? What are you? Your body? So your arm controls your arm? Arm controls arm? Where does the action/command start? Arm just always does what it wants? It has a mind of its own?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join