The elusive "I"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Why not? There is no reason to believe physical objects existed before the mind which is certainly more powerful than the brain. There is no evidence the brain is aware of itself whereas we are conscious of our mental activity. I would prefer to have a bodiless mind rather than a mindless body, wouldn’t you? 🙂
Click to expand...
I think you are making no sense dude. 😃

Just think of Angels. We believe that they are conscious. This means that they can think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

Needless to say that is a copy and past from another thread of mine.
 
tonyrey said:
. . . There is no reason to believe physical objects existed before the mind which is certainly more powerful than the brain. There is no evidence the brain is aware of itself whereas we are conscious of our mental activity. . .
Click to expand...
I’m wondering how one might prove which came first, the mind or the brain. In terms of humanity, like the chicken and the egg, they came together. As to the universe itself, we imagine it physically constructed of stuff that can be perceived, thought about and manipulated. It shouldn’t be that much of a stretch to consider a universal mind underlying the material structure that we can come to understand through our intellect as underlying the appearances we experience. While it could not be otherwise that our minds and bodies have emerged as one, with respect to all creation, the Source of matter, space and time has to come first. As to other relational beings purely of spirit, who would comprehend mathematics, beauty, goodness and evil. It makes sense that they would exist outside of the time and space that describes the flow of change in the universe. Truth is reality, and a lie is its distortion, regardless of when and where. Relativists have a belief system that can never accept objective spiritual reality. They aren’t any more skeptical than the next person, but only in matters that run counter to their beliefs, and in that case to the extreme.
 
Aloysium said:
I’m wondering how one might prove which came first, the mind or the brain. In terms of humanity, like the chicken and the egg, they came together. As to the universe itself, we imagine it physically constructed of stuff that can be perceived, thought about and manipulated. It shouldn’t be that much of a stretch to consider a universal mind underlying the material structure that we can come to understand through our intellect as underlying the appearances we experience. While it could not be otherwise that our minds and bodies have emerged as one, with respect to all creation, the Source of matter, space and time has to come first. As to other relational beings purely of spirit, who would comprehend mathematics, beauty, goodness and evil. It makes sense that they would exist outside of the time and space that describes the flow of change in the universe. Truth is reality, and a lie is its distortion, regardless of when and where. Relativists have a belief system that can never accept objective spiritual reality. They aren’t any more skeptical than the next person, but only in matters that run counter to their beliefs, and in that case to the extreme.
Click to expand...
No, matter comes before mind. Just trace back to see how a sperm and egg form.
 
STT said:
I believe in spiritual beings who are not made of matter. I believe that human is made of matter though.
Click to expand...
So you believe we are biological machines incapable of thinking independently and reaching our own conclusions?
 
STT said:
Lets start by the Descartes’s argument: “I think therefore I am”. One can say that “I experience therefore I am”. This seems a better argument since thoughts are part of our experience. This means that “I” has the ability to experience. One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
Click to expand...
Descartes intended this as an example of something that can tell him he exists, but not the only one.

If somebody wrongs you (God forbid) and it’s not too complicated to find out, do you know you’ve been wronged? And what does that tell you about yourself?
 
tonyrey said:
So you believe we are biological machines incapable of thinking independently and reaching our own conclusions?
Click to expand...
We are biological machine capable of thinking independently and reaching our own conclusion.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Descartes intended this as an example of something that can tell him he exists, but not the only one.
Click to expand...
We are in fact claiming that experiencer is not necessary based on the fact the we have experience because experience just can happen as an event.
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
If somebody wrongs you (God forbid) and it’s not too complicated to find out, do you know you’ve been wronged?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
And what does that tell you about yourself?
Click to expand...
It means that I have the capacity to find the truth about myself.
 
STT said:
We are in fact claiming that experiencer is not necessary based on the fact the we have experience because experience just can happen as an event
Click to expand...
Experience requires a subject (experiencer). If an event happens and no being experiences it, it is not an experience. It is just an event.
 
STT said:
It means that I have the capacity to find the truth about myself.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “myself”? “My body”? If so it doesn’t make sense because the body doesn’t possess itself. It **is **itself and there is no such thing as the “self”. You should write “This body has the capacity to find the truth about itself”. The term “self” becomes superfluous and should be ignored.
 
tonyrey said:
If you believe we are **mindless bodies you have to prove that your brain knows **it exists, has free will, can control itself, understands what it is doing and is responsible for what it is doing.
Click to expand...
What about a thinking body?
 
tonyrey said:
What do you mean by “myself”? “My body”? If so it doesn’t make sense because the body doesn’t possess itself. It **is **itself and there is no such thing as the “self”. You should write “This body has the capacity to find the truth about itself”. The term “self” becomes superfluous and should be ignored.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you run into divergences of meaning: While we all know what “the body” is, the word “self” is ambiguous.

Does “self” include “the body?” Or is self only the mind? Or is it neither, a kind of “je ne sais quoi”?

Whereas the body, as a minded or thinking body, has no such ambiguity.

ICXC NIKA
 
Aloysium said:
Recognizing this is a philosophy forum, I must say however, that thinking may be over-rated.

youtu.be/8HLEr-zP3fc
Click to expand...
Thinking is what makes us human.

Our human bodies are a glorified animal; what makes them special is the megaheaded adaptation for thinking (and nimble-handed adaptation for action).

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Thinking is what makes us human.

Our human bodies are a glorified animal; what makes them special is the megaheaded adaptation for thinking (and nimble-handed adaptation for action).

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
What makes us human is the capacity to love, to know God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top