1.Look at a loved one, but with a little honesty this time. Though your gaze can only bounce off her surface, the rest of the senses can help to realize the entirety—the warmth of a hug, the weight of the head as it leans on your shoulder, the movement of the pulse, the scent of a sweet breath, the sound of an ever-beating heart. Notice her grace and power as her form rises and pushes back against gravity. See the muscles tense beneath the skin, as she stands tall and statuesque on a scaffolding and frame of mere bone. In regards to that loved one, all that you need, all that you’ve known, and all that you’ve ever loved, is present and accounted for.
2.If human history was a book, we would find on the cover beneath a grandiose title the subtle and nondescript text “based a true story”. We the people, of course, would be its authors. Besides being populated by a host of well-known truisms, platitudes, maxims and the popular metaphysics and spirituality of the time, the book would undoubtedly be overflowing with metaphor, half-truths and cloudy obfuscation, where we were most ignorant.
3.We can observe the human body very easily. We can open it up to see its parts; we can analyze its functions; we can experiment with it. We can watch it be born, we can watch it age and we can watch it die. We can watch it be sick and watch it be healthy, and even better, it can speak and tell us how it is feeling. We can watch it perform relatively amazing feats of endurance, strength, love, compassion, violence, hatred, stupidity etc. But, for some reason this isn’t good enough.
4.I notice two extreme ideas being held about the body in philosophy: that being the idealistic urge to exaggerate it, and the materialistic urge to understate it. To the idealist, the body is like a homeless man in need of a makeover, and it is dressed up beyond all rational recognition so that it no longer offends us with the very sight of it. To the materialist, the body is reduced to a brain, or an aggregate of atoms as in an attempt to use the mathematical models of physics to explain biological phenomena, or perhaps the body is something akin to a machine, with so much disregarded as it is mentally eviscerated, pulverized and liquified to a mere substance.
5.The character of the body in our lore has been both protagonist and antagonist, a supporting character and a cameo with only a walk on role. What it does not mention is that it is the author.
When we're young the physical aspect is the most important to us. I know it was for me and I think I did a good job at being one of most fit people of those in my circle, age group and social class. My physical attributes may not be the same as 20 years ago (whose is?), but my stamina is definitely alive and well. When we get older gravity starts to have it's way with us. Things start to sag and go south. Literally. When this happens people either try to fight nature to make the unsightly things go away and spend a lot of time, money and other resources to do so, or they are strong enough to admit that they will never win that fight and concentrate on improving their minds.
The body is ultimately a construct of consciousness, comprised of ultimately the primordial consciousness. Thats who YOU are, the primordial consciousness who kind a created this game to experience itself through its own creation at infinite data points, simultaneously.
Close your eyes and picture a cat. Now, tell me what's looking at the cat?
Sure, the mind generated the cat, but what's viewing it?
originally posted by: Aphorism
Yes the body can function without the feet. However, just like the body can no longer feel where there were once feet, it can no longer think there as well. The “mind” cannot develop new feet memories. It can no longer learn through where the feet once were. The mind cannot believe it still has feet, and will not believe that it can wear a shoe where the feet once were. This isn’t because the mind is no longer with feet. Only the body knows it is without feet.
How do you know the body cannot function without a mind? How can you rightfully doubt that a body cannot function without a mind? What evidence are you comparing this claim to? What empirical examples do we have of bodies no longer functioning once a mind leaves? There is no one in the history of the world whose body stopped functioning once the mind has gone. The idea that it is necessary for a body to have a mind in order to function is completely without merit, as there is nothing to support this claim. In other words, you can only wrongfully doubt that a body cannot function without a mind, as there is nothing at all that shows it is right.
It isn’t at all difficult to understand the nature of consciousness when it is considered that “consciousness”, “mind” and “body” are one and the same. There is no rational, empirical and logical way to assume anything besides the body, nor is it at all necessary. We know that manipulating the body manipulates consciousness. In other words, manipulating the body is only ever manipulating the body and how it functions. How something functions is entirely dependent on what it is that functions. That which functions in this case is not something called consciousness or mind, but the body, the only thing we can manipulate as such.
originally posted by: Aphorism
The only “thing”, mechanism, process that occurs constantly, that allows you to be you is your body. As for your woo woo voodoo idea that something other than the body senses, makes decisions, remembers and is aware, there is no empirical, rational nor logical reason to believe it, and I would have to ask you to provide some convincing information before appealing to authority or cultural dogma. Try to find me something other than the body that controls the body. What will you find? Only the body controls the body. There is no other mechanism or process capable of performing such a task.
Separating the body into various mechanisms for intellectual understanding and documentation is necessary, but happens only in abstraco. There is no separation otherwise possible without the whole collapsing. Though some of it can be lost, ie. losing limbs etc., the entire process of the body is able to continue. Though it is obvious some areas of the body feature more complex makeup and functions, and thus are easily disrupted, they are not one without the other.
Realize that anything inside of the body is also the body. None of these mechanisms or processes are possible without every other process working concurrently; and each system, ie. digestion, circulation, metabolism etc. – all of which rely on each other to function and operate – do not start nor end anywhere but at the surface of the skin, the boundary, where the body meets the rest of the universe.
Metabolism, circulation, digestion, the skeleton, tendons, muscles, skin etc. – all of it allows us the ability to learn and think and recollect, and the entire process of thinking is dependent on the far too complex relationship between body and rest of the universe, with no mind ever making an appearance or affecting this relationship.
A psychologist does not analyze anything called a mind, nor do they examine the brain when they wish to understand what someone is thinking. They only analyze the vocabulary of the body, what it speaks, its gestures, its movements.
Imagine a mind being born without a body. Though the idea is absurd, it might serve as a thought experiment. What would be the contents of that mind? What could it learn? What would its thoughts be? What would it imagine? What would it express? Absolutely nothing.
Nonsense. Yes, it is an embodied statement, we are embodied. However something is looking at the cat. Body generates mind and mind generates cat. But what is viewing the mentally generated cat? What is the observer?
Well evidence would be, watching a sleeping person, the rule of the sleeping person, not the exception to the rule, which would be a sleep walker. Observing a person in a coma. Observing a person who is brain dead. Observing a person with their head chopped off.
Saying a body exists, is not sufficient enough to describe everything about a body. Saying, a body exists, says nothing of the nervous system, bones, blood, thousands of different types of cells, DNA, food relationship, a tongue, digestive system, the heart, tendons, muscles, and the brain.
You generally are correct, by stating, 'a body is a body', but I am generally correct, by stating everything I have said in the post you are responding to, to summarize; there is an aspect, a detail, of the body, that is inherently different from other aspects and details of the body, and that is the system, which 'you' the listener and understander of these words, functions as. Yes, 'you are the body, the whole body and nothing but the body'. I dont know why this is so hard to explain to you...
information of the outside world comes through the eyes, and it is not sent to the fingers, and the fingers then do not compute this information, and the fingers do not tell the feet to start walking towards a ball, because the fingers really want to hold the ball. I know this, because a person can chop off all their fingers, and still compute vast amounts of information about balls.
...what I am saying is more correct, and congruent with what exists in reality.
You see, you are arguing determinism vs. free will, is what you are really doing. You are saying, the 'you' I am speaking to, with my information, to see what 'you', when you resort to your compiled internal information, will 'inform' me about, you are saying there is no 'you' I am speaking too, that 'looks at information you have compiled', to then 'take this information I give you', so that you may use it with your compiled information, to then give me new information, that you think is truth... you are saying, that is not what occurs, you are saying, there is no 'me' or 'you', there are only 2 bodies, and there is 'no one' responsible for what the bodies are doing, 'no one is in control', of the body. The body is just doing what the body MUST do. Are you happy with your argument and reasoning?