Why Mind/Body dualism?

If I scan my memory, every thought is all interconnected and interrelated with everything I’ve ever experienced with the totality of myself—body, mind, soul and other abstractions in a combined unity. I then must ask myself—how can I arrive at, and subsequently believe in the conclusion that there is any sort of mind/body dualism without sufficient reason? I am in search of that reason.

Before we yell out “cogito ergo sum” as if we could somehow think without first existing, I would like to hear some honest and logical answers, free of the interpretations of past philosophers and faiths, of this question: Why do you think the mind is somehow separate from the body?

I don't wish to hear quotations, another's philosophy, scripture or scientific theories—only your own personal reasoning and inference.

Thanks for the help.

Because consciousness cannot be weighed and has no mass. Neither can science explain consciousness--materialistically or otherwise. It's what makes us what we are and enables us to do all we can do.

It suggests that we are but a model of some greater consciousness that transcends time and 3D space.

It seems entirely plausible that, at least a "part" of me, is not connected to the "material" world.

Originally posted by The GUT
Because consciousness cannot be weighed and has no mass. Neither can science explain consciousness--materialistically or otherwise. It's what makes us what we are and enables us to do all we can do.

It suggests that we are but a model of some greater consciousness that transcends time and 3D space.

It seems entirely plausible that, at least a "part" of me, is not connected to the "material" world.

edit on 14-10-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

There's no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'consciousness.' It's a word used to describe the state of appearing awake and conscious, nothing more. A body can be awake and conscious.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
For me there is no separation between the two, only as we discern we see that there is a difference. The same way as there is a difference between the eye and a toe nail. They all form part of the body but are not alike at all. The same I would say for the mind and body . The body is inside the mind and forms part of it. That's my own down to earth view.

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

For me there is no separation between the two, only as we discern we see that there is a difference. The same way as there is a difference between the eye and a toe nail. They all form part of the body but are not alike at all. The same I would say for the mind and body . The body is inside the mind and forms part of it. That's my own down to earth view.

Very good. Thank you. This is a logical answer. The mind must contain the entire body. I think we would have to agree that either the term 'mind' or 'body' is an abstraction of one thing. It is not mind nor body.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


When looking at the most common explication of the dualism(i.e., how does a non-corporeal substance cause a corporeal substance to act?), I'm amazed by the many complex thoughts of those brilliant philosophers! The mind/body problem remains unsolved in my view, even though I lean towards agreeing with philosophers of the early to mid-twentieth century, who find the mind/body problem to be a language problem.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

For me there is no separation between the two, only as we discern we see that there is a difference. The same way as there is a difference between the eye and a toe nail. They all form part of the body but are not alike at all. The same I would say for the mind and body . The body is inside the mind and forms part of it. That's my own down to earth view.

Very good. Thank you. This is a logical answer. The mind must contain the entire body. I think we would have to agree that either the term 'mind' or 'body' is an abstraction of one thing. It is not mind nor body.

edit on 14-10-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

Are you sure? What of those that are in a coma? Some have come out of it and claimed they didn't dream, and thought nothing while comatose. Clearly their minds weren't working, yet they still existed in the material world. Wouldn't this suggest that the mind is not body and the body is not mind?

Seeing as we cannot put a movie up on a movie screen without a running projector, wouldn't this also imply that we cannot put up a thought in our minds without a fully functional body? I propose that it is the body that creates the mind, and not the mind that creates the body.

You mentioning "Cogito ergo sum" does remind me of a joke:

Descartes goes into a coffee shop one afternoon and orders a latte.

The waitress asks him if he wants a beignet with his coffee and Descartes says, "I think not" and disappears.

S&F to the OP.

"Why do you think the mind is somehow separate from the body?"

I believe the body to be a portal, or host if you will, that allows our mind/soul to exist in this time frame. I see our "consciousness", if that is what it is, to be the sum total of all our previous experiences (be they good or bad) from this or other lives.

This may explain how learning a new language or mastering a musical instrument comes easier to some more than other...possibly because they have already mastered that task and are now remembering what has been learned before.

Once this body I have ceases to function I hope that my "consciousness" finds another to join. My two cents worth.

Namaste,
YogaGinns

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


When I was in labor with my second child, I was not progressing as desired so they would not give me an epidural. I had been in labor for hours and I was worn out and feeling a lot of pain. There was a point when my consciousness shifted to a point in the corner of the room, near the ceiling, and I was looking down on myself. It only lasted a brief few minutes, but it was a very strange experience. It gave me reason to feel that our minds are not necessarily tied to the physical body.

Could it have been a trick that my brain played on me, due to the pain, or natural endorphin release, or something? Maybe... but I'm not sure what benefit that would have produced, and I don't know how I would have come up with that perspective, and the details I noticed, looking down at myself and the back of the nurse's head, and so on.

reply to post by The GUT


lol

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

For me there is no separation between the two, only as we discern we see that there is a difference. The same way as there is a difference between the eye and a toe nail. They all form part of the body but are not alike at all. The same I would say for the mind and body . The body is inside the mind and forms part of it. That's my own down to earth view.

Very good. Thank you. This is a logical answer. The mind must contain the entire body. I think we would have to agree that either the term 'mind' or 'body' is an abstraction of one thing. It is not mind nor body.

edit on 14-10-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

Are you sure? What of those that are in a coma? Some have come out of it and claimed they didn't dream, and thought nothing while comatose. Clearly their minds weren't working, yet they still existed in the material world. Wouldn't this suggest that the mind is not body and the body is not mind?

Seeing as we cannot put a movie up on a movie screen without a running projector, wouldn't this also imply that we cannot put up a thought in our minds without a fully functional body? I propose that it is the body that creates the mind, and not the mind that creates the body.

I agree. I'm only trying to reconcile the two abstractions. When one hears the word 'body' in the context of describing a human, they for some reason think this excludes mind, when it is obvious that the brain and all its functions are still a part of the body. The same happens when they hear the term 'mind,' they believe it excludes the body, when bodily experience and physical existence is necessary to even fathom or support a mind.

When we discuss mind and body, we're talking about the same thing.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar


Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

But I must say, during that process, your body was supporting your mind the whole time, meaning you were still your body. This is the difficulty I'm having with this problem.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by The GUT
Because consciousness cannot be weighed and has no mass. Neither can science explain consciousness--materialistically or otherwise. It's what makes us what we are and enables us to do all we can do.

It suggests that we are but a model of some greater consciousness that transcends time and 3D space.

It seems entirely plausible that, at least a "part" of me, is not connected to the "material" world.

edit on 14-10-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

There's no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'consciousness.' It's a word used to describe the state of appearing awake and conscious, nothing more. A body can be awake and conscious.

That is to the observer. You "appear" awake to me, but looking at the you beyond the body I'd question it a bit. Self awareness is the definition of consciousness, which requires a full and complete assimilation of all the information gleaned from the reality you create. The problem for most is they assume the reality exists beyond them, outside of them, and they play in it, this is wrong, it is projected by them, and and they play in it. The measurement by machine is, at this level, impossible as the machine cannot assimilate beyond the 5 sense limitation. I have demonstrated to countless people they projection they are creating, it isn't hard to demonstrate, but only to those who have the ability to perceive, so are not there yet and, as such, cannot grasp the projection they are creating.

There is consciousness, different levels depending on your level of self awareness. If you are at the point at which you cannot perceive any consciousness in anything at all, you just aren't all that self aware. No harm, just not there yet, but to assume it does not exist because you cannot perceive it is kind of funny, like saying the noise irritating the dog does not exist because you cannot hear it.

Originally posted by crankyoldman

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by The GUT
Because consciousness cannot be weighed and has no mass. Neither can science explain consciousness--materialistically or otherwise. It's what makes us what we are and enables us to do all we can do.

It suggests that we are but a model of some greater consciousness that transcends time and 3D space.

It seems entirely plausible that, at least a "part" of me, is not connected to the "material" world.

edit on 14-10-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

There's no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'consciousness.' It's a word used to describe the state of appearing awake and conscious, nothing more. A body can be awake and conscious.

That is to the observer. You "appear" awake to me, but looking at the you beyond the body I'd question it a bit. Self awareness is the definition of consciousness, which requires a full and complete assimilation of all the information gleaned from the reality you create. The problem for most is they assume the reality exists beyond them, outside of them, and they play in it, this is wrong, it is projected by them, and and they play in it. The measurement by machine is, at this level, impossible as the machine cannot assimilate beyond the 5 sense limitation. I have demonstrated to countless people they projection they are creating, it isn't hard to demonstrate, but only to those who have the ability to perceive, so are not there yet and, as such, cannot grasp the projection they are creating.

There is consciousness, different levels depending on your level of self awareness. If you are at the point at which you cannot perceive any consciousness in anything at all, you just aren't all that self aware. No harm, just not there yet, but to assume it does not exist because you cannot perceive it is kind of funny, like saying the noise irritating the dog does not exist because you cannot hear it.

I understand the definition of consciousness, both new age and traditional. Everyone is aware of themselves—that is a given, but how does that lead them to possess something called 'consciousness?' When one becomes conscious or aware of himself and his environment, he is regaining the use of his senses and sagacity, not a thing, a substance or any mystical aether called 'consciousness.' The word doesn't work, nor does it belong.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
There's no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'consciousness.' It's a word used to describe the state of appearing awake and conscious, nothing more. A body can be awake and conscious.

"Science can't define it nor explain it, therefore it doesn't exist"...where have I heard that one before?

reply to post by crankyoldman


From my readings, I don't think "self-awareness" is the "definition of consciousness". I think it's just awareness. For example, David Hume called the mind a series of impressions and ideas, without allowing for a "self". Husserl referred to consciousness as "intentionality", while trying to locate a (self).
I believe the vagueness of "consciousness" allows for the many questions concerning other Beings, and things, having consciousness

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
There's no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'consciousness.' It's a word used to describe the state of appearing awake and conscious, nothing more. A body can be awake and conscious.

"Science can't define it nor explain it, therefore it doesn't exist"...where have I heard that one before?

You know I didn't say that. Twisting what I say? Where have I seen that before.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
You know I didn't say that. Twisting what I say? Where have I seen that before.

I'm sorry, please explain to us which branch of science has explained "Consciousness."

Especially how it sprang forth from, allegedly, inert matter. Feel free to just hit the bullet points in your explanation.