The Mind-Finger Problem.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
Yes you are right a sense has been lost, a sense being a way of analysing data in a special way. How could you compare smelling with seeing. Take the movie Avatar, that is like adding an extra sense when you take on that new body consciousness. As you give up that body, you are giving up that way of sensing life. That's why humans although they look the same, the lives they live are entirely different.

What I'm really getting at is that the mind and body are not separate.

This is the crux of matter!!! I would say they are and they are not separate, when the body dies in other words the sense's do not function anymore, then the mind is freed from the body. The whole idea is to determined within yourself what is mind alone and what is body consciousness. It is possible but awareness must be developed, if not you will be hoodwinked in to believing and believing is just software.In fact the you that thinks is none other than software, its an amazing conjunctions of software. This software is called a human being, it always updates and is the one responsible for joining the bodies senses together as one, which they are not and naming itself a being with memories and the whole kibbutz. The hardware is pure mind at least that is what this software is saying hahaha

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
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.

So far, you're the only one.

Additionally, you were very quick to dismiss what I had to say because I had based my conclusions on speculations from my life experience. I think the angle you're taking is also dangerous for the same reasons. You're speculating.

I'm not sure if you're just out to blow your own mind or whether playing devils advocate is what makes you tick. But you've been met with a good cross-section of people all believing the opposite of what you're suggesting...

..and that's not due to a lack of understanding from us. I think you're being absurd.

we disagree, I'm moving on

Originally posted by BoyMeetsWorldATS

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
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.

So far, you're the only one.

Additionally, you were very quick to dismiss what I had to say because I had based my conclusions on speculations from my life experience. I think the angle you're taking is also dangerous for the same reasons. You're speculating.

I'm not sure if you're just out to blow your own mind or whether playing devils advocate is what makes you tick. But you've been met with a good cross-section of people all believing the opposite of what you're suggesting...

..and that's not due to a lack of understanding from us. I think you're being absurd.

we disagree, I'm moving on

edit on 8-7-2012 by BoyMeetsWorldATS because: (no reason given)

My mistake, I always assume that all we can do is speculate on such matters. I maybe should've mentioned that I'm only speculating, but that would be redundant in a metaphysics forum. Rather than run to your emotions and attempt to paint me in a bad light, why don't we look at the problem and work together? I'm looking for backup, not enemies. Ad hominem doesn't help you in any way, whatsoever.

I'm not here to discuss beliefs. If that's what you entered this thread for then you're sadly mistaken. Make an attempt at using your logic, not your feelings. If you don't like the way I approach these problems, by all means discard what I say. But if you can't refute it, then don't even try in the first place, unless you're willing to travel with me as deep as our logic can take us.

I ask that you please try again. Look at the problem and find contradictions and fallacies. Don't immediately run to your emotions, or what someone told you to believe, because truth is difficult to bear. I want to believe the same as you, but so far cannot. Please prove me wrong.

If this isn't your cup of tea, then please, move on.

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Yes you are right a sense has been lost, a sense being a way of analysing data in a special way. How could you compare smelling with seeing. Take the movie Avatar, that is like adding an extra sense when you take on that new body consciousness. As you give up that body, you are giving up that way of sensing life. That's why humans although they look the same, the lives they live are entirely different.

What I'm really getting at is that the mind and body are not separate.

This is the crux of matter!!! I would say they are and they are not separate, when the body dies in other words the sense's do not function anymore, then the mind is freed from the body. The whole idea is to determined within yourself what is mind alone and what is body consciousness. It is possible but awareness must be developed, if not you will be hoodwinked in to believing and believing is just software.In fact the you that thinks is none other than software, its an amazing conjunctions of software. This software is called a human being, it always updates and is the one responsible for joining the bodies senses together as one, which they are not and naming itself a being with memories and the whole kibbutz. The hardware is pure mind at least that is what this software is saying hahaha

There's much truth and wisdom here, sir. However I still hold the mind is the body, and the mind isn't freed when the body dies, but it ends when the bodily functions end. Once there is nothing to perceive the world, every idea, concept, language, awareness, and everything that contributes to the overall consciousness of the whole—the soul, mind, body, nous, spirit—ends.

Plotinus said "A being without parts may know itself." Is this at all possible without taking a giant leap of faith?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


By your idea of consciousness, you could also argue that a fat person is 'more conscious' than a skinny person, simply because they have more body mass to sense the world with.....Or that someone with 20/20 vision is 'more conscious' than someone that is near sighted.

I don't think that consciousness really relies on sensory input.....Just as you could be blind, and deaf, and numb to feeling with your skin, but you may still be conscious...Consciousness is simply being awake, and aware of yourself, and your own thoughts, and is not necessarily defined by your ability to perceive the outside world. It isn't dependent on the quality of your sensory organs.

Well another way of seeing it, is the mind is the tree trunk and the body grows out of it in the form of leaves. Eventually they fall, the trunk is still in place and eventually the body is born again. Whilst the leaves are there, the mind and body are one. Whilst they are not...................... nobody can truly say.

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

By your idea of consciousness, you could also argue that a fat person is 'more conscious' than a skinny person, simply because they have more body mass to sense the world with.....Or that someone with 20/20 vision is 'more conscious' than someone that is near sighted.

I don't think that consciousness really relies on sensory input.....Just as you could be blind, and deaf, and numb to feeling with your skin, but you may still be conscious...Consciousness is simply being awake, and aware of yourself, and your own thoughts, and is not necessarily defined by your ability to perceive the outside world. It isn't dependent on the quality of your sensory organs.

No, I'm saying there's no such thing as consciousness. And it is in fact the body that everyone calls consciousness. It wasn't my definition, but that of the Oxford Dictionary. I'm merely using the word interchangeably with soul, spirit and body as to cover every angle.

There's no such thing as more consciousness. You yourself see how ridiculous that is. But by the definition of consciousness, as supplied by the oxford dictionary, if we were to lose a finger, we'd be less conscious. How is that possible? Because the very idea of consciousness is merely a description to cover every process of the body and doesn't exist as something separate from the body. It is the body.

No one can be more conscious, or less conscious. And it is the body we're talking about every time we mention consciousness, mind, soul and spirit.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by wagnificent

 

I heard Philosophical Investigations is contradictory to his first book, so I'm questioning if It's a bad idea to start with this one first. The problem is: there's not much Wittgenstein in the used-bookstore.

Yes Wittgenstein changed his view in his later career. I studied both early and late Wittgenstein in my philosophy training, and to me his later work was much deeper and more interesting.

Another philosopher that I thought was extremely interesting was Spinoza -- he was a Jewish scientist and rationalist who directly challenged DesCartes' mind-body dualism by showing how his "method" was flawed. Spinoza's argument ended up essentially supporting Buddhism (which is "atheist" in a Judeo-Christian sense), which got him ex-communicated from his Jewish community

Spinoza argued that there cannot be two separate substances (mind body dualism) because if they were separate, according to DesCartes' own definition of substance, they could not interact with one another. Thus mind (consciousness) and body (matter) must be of the same substance and differ only by the "mode" of that single substance. In Spinoza's argument all of creation must be of a single substance, so dualism and separation are temporary illusions caused by the attributes of the infinite modes of substance.

Spinoza also stated why he wrote this -- because he wanted to see humans live peacefully and in harmony, a quality that seems to have eluded many of the more ego-driven philosophers.

Originally posted by wagnificent

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by wagnificent

 

I heard Philosophical Investigations is contradictory to his first book, so I'm questioning if It's a bad idea to start with this one first. The problem is: there's not much Wittgenstein in the used-bookstore.

Yes Wittgenstein changed his view in his later career. I studied both early and late Wittgenstein in my philosophy training, and to me his later work was much deeper and more interesting.

Another philosopher that I thought was extremely interesting was Spinoza -- he was a Jewish scientist and rationalist who directly challenged DesCartes' mind-body dualism by showing how his "method" was flawed. Spinoza's argument ended up essentially supporting Buddhism (which is "atheist" in a Judeo-Christian sense), which got him ex-communicated from his Jewish community

Spinoza argued that there cannot be two separate substances (mind body dualism) because if they were separate, according to DesCartes' own definition of substance, they could not interact with one another. Thus mind (consciousness) and body (matter) must be of the same substance and differ only by the "mode" of that single substance. In Spinoza's argument all of creation must be of a single substance, so dualism and separation are temporary illusions caused by the attributes of the infinite modes of substance.

Spinoza also stated why he wrote this -- because he wanted to see humans live peacefully and in harmony, a quality that seems to have eluded many of the more ego-driven philosophers.

Yes! I've read all of Spinoza. His Ethics, although steeped in maybe too much mathematical method, was fairly flawless in my opinion. Even his correspondence in letters, which I have also read, are of great importance to philosophy. I think he showed that his doctrine was rather pantheistic more than anything. He also showed that anyone is capable of philosophy, even a man who grinds glass into lenses by trade. Him refusing professorships to live the life of a recluse of sorts, means a great deal to me ethically. If anyone should be a like a philosopher, I would say be like Spinoza, or maybe Socrates.

I must read Ethics again, as I didn't realize he was attacking Descartes Cogito from Meditations, which I am also trying to do right now. Thank you.

In Conclusion

I think I've shown that if there were a consciousness, it must extend to the boundaries of the body out of necessity, as the way we perceive the world and build upon percepts is an important part of being conscious. If it didn't extend to the surface of the skin and to all other sense organs, it wouldn't be able to learn and build upon experience. But this would imply, as others have stated, that the bigger the body, the bigger the consciousness. We know this not to be true because we don't see any possible way how a 600lb man can be more conscious than a 100lb man. So how do we get out of this logical contradiction?

If consciousness must expand throughout the entire body, then it is safe to say that consciousness—and the soul, the spirit, the mind—is not only a part of the living body, but is in fact the living body itself; and these words only serve to mystify that which is self-evident.

Now, when anyone mentions soul or spirit or mind, it is no longer ineffable, because they are in fact talking about the body and its processes.

Thanks for participating.