The Mind-Finger Problem.

The Mind-Finger Problem

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zm4ff87846.jpg[/atsimg]

When one loses a finger, is he is that much less conscious? Since he is no longer able to feel, interact and form percepts with that finger; and since he no longer exists where his finger once was; is it safe to conclude his consciousness or soul is now without a finger?

Definition

From the oxford online dictionary:

consciousness Pronunciation: /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/
noun
1 [mass noun] the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings:
she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later
2a person’s awareness or perception of something:
her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world:
consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

I think we already know the answer.

"Phantom Limbs"

"A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.[1][2][3] Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful." - Wikipedia

Losing a digit doesn't make a person "less conscious". Quantum physics has also proven that even when an object is separated, there is a bond that remains in place between the now "two objects".

is it safe to conclude his consciousness or soul is now without a finger?

That's implying that our souls have human attributes. I tend not to agree with this notion that the "image of man" is the come all and be all of existence.

Maybe we're beings of light? Maybe reuniting with your loved ones means to finally be absorbed back into the source light from which we came?

Originally posted by BoyMeetsWorldATS
I think we already know the answer.

"Phantom Limbs"

"A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.[1][2][3] Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful." - Wikipedia

Losing a digit doesn't make a person "less conscious". Quantum physics has also proven that even when an object is separated, there is a bond that remains in place between the now "two objects".

So can you still form percepts with that finger then? Can you build upon your own ideas with that finger that is now missing?

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

Consciousness isn't measured at all. But if you look at the definition I just edited into the OP. You will see that without the finger, your "soul" is less conscious. Your entire being is less conscious.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

Consciousness isn't measured at all. But if you look at the definition I just edited into the OP. You will see that without the finger, your "soul" is less conscious. Your entire being is less conscious.

It seems like a contradiction for you to say that "consciousness isn't measured at all", but then you say "less conscious". I would think one couldn't be less conscious, but rather conscious of something different.

I think consciousness isn't just from the mind but rather your whole nervous system working together to get the reality you perceive. So i think if you lose any limb you technically lose some form of consciousness.

The thing is the mind doesn't loose the finger, the body looses the finger, the mind still knows where that finger should be, and still sends signals to it, just nothing there to react to the signals, but in the mind, the finger is still there, unless you were born without. that would be the only time I think the mind wouldn't send signals to the finger.

So consciousness is still there of the finger, and nothing really was lost minus the physical manifestation of the finger.

There are experiments out there ( im too lazy to search for them but have read and seen them ) about phantom limb pains, the ability to create these pain feelings by inducing an action that normally would cause pain.

I.E. hiding the hands from the person's eyes, but allowing them the knowledge of a extra stimulus to the said hands, the person reacts as if the hand was there. The hand that is not missing is put in front of a mirror and there is another mirror that makes it look as if the missing hand is there, and this way the brain actually is tricked into thinking the hand is there and feelings and sensations can be felt from this in the missing hand.

There's more to be conscious of in this world than ordinary and tangible objects.

I think if we existed simply as hands, then losing a finger might have a larger affect on our consciousness... if this even makes sense. Heck, it might even kill you!

Short answer: You lose the ability to use that finger to manipulate the physical world. That's all you lose... well maybe a little respect and dignity, but those feelings are based on the EGO.

Do we do our thinking from our fingers? No.
Do our fingers act as any sort of antennae? Probably not.

I can't tell you where consciousness originates or from what part of our mind/body it operates from but I can tell you this: It's not in our limbs.


[sidenote]:

Honestly, having less limbs or no limbs at all might actually make you become more conscious! You would have far less distractions and more time to understand your mind.

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

Consciousness isn't measured at all. But if you look at the definition I just edited into the OP. You will see that without the finger, your "soul" is less conscious. Your entire being is less conscious.

It seems like a contradiction for you to say that "consciousness isn't measured at all", but then you say "less conscious". I would think one couldn't be less conscious, but rather conscious of something different.

Sorry. Maybe you can explain then how is it measured? Thats what I'm trying to figure out.

So you're saying that even though his finger is gone, his consciousness extends past the skin to the area where his finger once was? Because I don't think there's any way that's possible.

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
The thing is the mind doesn't loose the finger, the body looses the finger, the mind still knows where that finger should be, and still sends signals to it, just nothing there to react to the signals, but in the mind, the finger is still there, unless you were born without. that would be the only time I think the mind wouldn't send signals to the finger.

So consciousness is still there of the finger, and nothing really was lost minus the physical manifestation of the finger.

There are experiments out there ( im too lazy to search for them but have read and seen them ) about phantom limb pains, the ability to create these pain feelings by inducing an action that normally would cause pain.

I.E. hiding the hands from the person's eyes, but allowing them the knowledge of a extra stimulus to the said hands, the person reacts as if the hand was there.

edit on 7-7-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)

So the mind doesn't know where the finger is, it thinks its still there, even after seeing and knowing it has been cut off. That seems like a bodily issue to me.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

Consciousness isn't measured at all. But if you look at the definition I just edited into the OP. You will see that without the finger, your "soul" is less conscious. Your entire being is less conscious.

It seems like a contradiction for you to say that "consciousness isn't measured at all", but then you say "less conscious". I would think one couldn't be less conscious, but rather conscious of something different.

Sorry. Maybe you can explain then how is it measured? Thats what I'm trying to figure out.

So you're saying that even though his finger is gone, his consciousness extends past the skin to the area where his finger once was? Because I don't think there's any way that's possible.

I agree that it can't be measured, therefore to say less, or more consciousness, doesn't seem reasonable.

Originally posted by BoyMeetsWorldATS
There's more to be conscious of in this world than ordinary and tangible objects.

I think if we existed simply as hands, then losing a finger might have a larger affect on our consciousness... if this even makes sense. Heck, it might even kill you!

Short answer: You lose the ability to use that finger to manipulate the physical world. That's all you lose... well maybe a little respect and dignity, but those feelings are based on the EGO.

Do we do our thinking from our fingers? No.
Do our fingers act as any sort of antennae? Probably not.

I can't tell you where consciousness originates or from what part of our mind/body it operates from but I can tell you this: It's not in our limbs.


[sidenote]:

Honestly, having less limbs or no limbs at all might actually make you become more conscious! You would have far less distractions and more time to understand your mind.

edit on 7-7-2012 by BoyMeetsWorldATS because: cause

Sorry, I don't want to hear beliefs on the subject, but cold hard logic (it's all we have to go on in subjects like these). Doesn't the finger help form ideas? Doesn't it interact with everything? Doesn't it move things around? You assert our consciousness isn't in our limbs. What I'm trying to say is that it is. How can consciousness not extend to the limbs, if the limbs are a vital part of interacting with the environment. If you were born without limbs, you wouldn't be able to form an idea of what weight feels like in a hand, or what it feels like to throw a ball.

It is dangerous and perhaps foolish to assert that our consciousness doesn't extend to the limbs.

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I don't think consciousness is measured by mass, so no, I don't believe having less body parts equals less consciousness.

Consciousness isn't measured at all. But if you look at the definition I just edited into the OP. You will see that without the finger, your "soul" is less conscious. Your entire being is less conscious.

It seems like a contradiction for you to say that "consciousness isn't measured at all", but then you say "less conscious". I would think one couldn't be less conscious, but rather conscious of something different.

Sorry. Maybe you can explain then how is it measured? Thats what I'm trying to figure out.

So you're saying that even though his finger is gone, his consciousness extends past the skin to the area where his finger once was? Because I don't think there's any way that's possible.

I agree that it can't be measured, therefore to say less, or more consciousness, doesn't seem reasonable.

But the finger is unable to interact and help form percepts any longer. The space where that finger was is no longer a utility of the conscious. It cannot build with it anymore. It cannot make it do anything.

Basically, I'm trying to explain that the soul, spirit and consciousness is the same thing—the body. I think the mind-finger problem is logically sound enough to be agreed upon.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Since he no longer exists where his finger once was; is it safe to conclude his consciousness or soul is now without a finger?

I have fingers. I can see them. I can move them. I can lick them. I can use them to feel other objects. I can use them to feel each other. They can collect different types of data for me also, such as temperature, highly corrosive acids, etc.. etc..

There is no proof that souls exist. Even if they do truly exist, it has no physical form. It has no fingers.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

......the soul, spirit and consciousness is the same thing—the body......

Bodies die. We know this.

Those who believe that they do in fact have a soul, also believe that their soul continues on, after the body dies. So how could the soul be the same thing as 'The Body'?

If you accept the OP's theory that losing a finger would make a person slightly less "conscious" then would we not also have to factor in how 'aware' a person is in every day life?

For example, a very closed minded person (religious, blind racist, etc) would not be very open and have limited awareness. Or people that are just not socially aware of their surroundings and what is going on. They would have less 'consciousness' than a normal person would may have lost a finger or hand.

I highly doubt my body is part of my soul.

For a few reasons, My body was created inside the human body of my mother, My soul was not needed to build the body I am in today, since that body was a chemical/biological reaction between an Egg and a sperm. When I die my body remains and becomes part of the earth's food chain. In both instances, my soul is not the main factor of my body, my body is the main factor of my body's condition.

Even when someone is brain damaged, their body still functions, our bodies are Bio mechanical, and only need a power source to go on. If the soul powered the body, we wouldn't need to eat.

Once my body dies, if my soul was part of my body, my soul would die.

The Body is powered by electrical impulses the brain sends out based on the perception of the environment around us. The electrical power is provided by the energy we get when we convert the food we eat. So if I make a robot, that does things based on it's environment, that sends electrical signals to it's CPU to do things, and get's that electrical power from the battery that it converts into usable energy, does that robot have a soul?

It's basically a human body.

Of course it doesn't, we made the robot, no soul changed ownership.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Since he no longer exists where his finger once was; is it safe to conclude his consciousness or soul is now without a finger?

I have fingers. I can see them. I can move them. I can lick them. I can use them to feel other objects. I can use them to feel each other. They can collect different types of data for me also, such as temperature, highly corrosive acids, etc.. etc..

Even IF this thing referred to as a soul, truly does exist, it has no physical form. It has no fingers.

I agree. But it would be at least safe to say that if there is a soul, or a force that compels the body to live, that it is now less conscious.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


But the finger is unable to interact and help form percepts any longer. The space where that finger was is no longer a utility of the conscious. It cannot build with it anymore. It cannot make it do anything.

I very much enjoyed reading Merleau-Ponty, when I went to University, and you sound like you're questioning the Cartesian cogito in the spirit of Merleau-Ponty. But, I think that consciousness can not be cut-up like a body can. So, less or more consciousness doesn't seem reasonable to me. I am quite sure that consciousness doesn't require certain parts of the body, in order to be. So, for me, the mind-body problem, and the language used to demonstrate it, remains problematic in the history of philosophy