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: ImaFungi
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?
originally posted by: Aphorism
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.
originally posted by: Aphorism
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.
originally posted by: Aphorism
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.
There are a lot of philosophical queries which struggle to think about these sorts of things, like im trying to think how information may be stored in the brain, and the fact that position/orientation can be a factor of meaning, and how well something works, yet position or orientation, is that a physical quality? If an apple has one big black spot on it, and the black spot is facing you, is it physically different then when it is not facing you? Or is that an immaterial distinction, certainly since the apple, and black dot is physical, because that is what is used to describe any difference at all, the difference is material, but the object itself is exactly the same as it ever was, the only difference is relative orientation, is motion material? Certainly material is required for the concept of motion to exist. Perhaps motion is required for the existence of material. But is motion itself material? Just some non sequitur thoughts I couldnt help but to have.