You're conflating epistemology with ontology there, unless you're an idealist. Are you an idealist? — numberjohnny5

An actualist. An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived.

A human arm can be attached or detached from the rest of the human body. The arm itself hasn't changed — numberjohnny5

Only either immediately or if it has been kept on ice.

Is a detached ear still an ear if it is re-attached surgically onto a leg (just to maintain blood supply to it)?

My point is about the use terms used to represent what is actually occurring rather than merely symbolic language.

An ear attached to a leg is no longer an ear. It has lost it's "ear" function.

No... my fat ass is my own work — Heiko

I bet it's creation takes up most of your time.

Are you therefore saying "mind" refers to will? — raza

Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting upon those experiences.

The entire body is in the same "location" to exist. Remove the head the body also dies and vice versa. — raza

I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brain.

An actualist. An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza

That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say "actualist", but that rather sounds like an idealist position: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html

"Idealism is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived)."

Only either immediately or if it has been kept on ice.

Is a detached ear still an ear if it is re-attached surgically onto a leg (just to maintain blood supply to it)?

My point is about the use terms used to represent what is actually occurring rather than merely symbolic language.

An ear attached to a leg is no longer an ear. It has lost it's "ear" function. — raza

Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an arm even if its past functioning has stopped, because the criteria for being an arm to one might not involve or include arm functionality.

Yes, but not limited to will. We sometimes have automatic thoughts that we can just be aware of; or sense/perceive things without necessarily acting upon those experiences. — numberjohnny5

What do you mean "act upon"? Surely a thought perceived is always "acted upon". The act could be a dismissive action.

. "nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc"

Are arising thoughts therefore "nonconscious brain states" due to the fact they arise involuntarily?

Thoughts arise involuntarily, do they not?

I wasn't saying anything about death. My comment was to do with identity, i.e. a mind being identical to brain — numberjohnny5

My point is mind/brain identical with body thereby one identifiable entity being "body-mind".

What do you mean "act upon"? Surely a thought perceived is always "acted upon". The act could be a dismissive action. — raza

For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act upon that sensation consequently, but that's not what I'm referring to here.

Are arising thoughts therefore "nonconscious brain states" due to the fact they arise involuntarily? — raza

No, thoughts are mental/conscious only. Thoughts being involuntary is not identical to nonconscious activity/states.

Thoughts arise involuntarily, do they not? — raza

Some do, yes. Some thoughts are voluntarily "produced".

No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza

I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this? A thing exists only if you perceive it? [Yes, I know you meant any/all of us, not just you. :wink:] Are there no things that have human-independent existence, then? Or maybe I should ask if there are things that have perception-independent existence? :chin: Are you offering a QM perspective here, or something different? :chin:

[I'm not offering my view here, just inquiring about yours. :up:]

I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this? — Pattern-chaser

That appears to be a question, so no.

I'll have to get back to you on your other inquiries. Inundated currently which I may not get through today.

That's conflating epistemology with ontology. Do you understand? Knowledge of X does not determine or equate with actuality of X. By the way, you say "actualist", but that rather sounds like an idealist position — numberjohnny5

Trying to find a label or box for myself is not something which interests me.

My words are my words.

Sure, that's to do with the function of an ear. But functionality is just one criteria that people connote to different things. An arm can still be an arm even if its past functioning has stopped, because the criteria for being an arm to one might not involve or include arm functionality. — numberjohnny5

Which refers to my point about what is actually occurring. Labels for parts is not a good reference for what is actually occurring.

"I am sitting at my pc" refers to a whole lot of parts which therefore implies a specific identity.

My point is that that identity, this "I, is not what it is in actuality.

One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring.

Trying to find a label or box for myself is not something which interests me.

My words are my words. — raza

Well, in order to communicate it's important to find some common ground. Communication can be tricky in the first place. Otherwise, you may as well just argue with yourself. Anyway, you describing yourself as an "actualist" is labelling yourself. It's actually unavoidable to not label or organise experience. We need to do it to survive. But we can be aware that we're doing it, and realise that labels aren't the thing that they're labelling.

My point is that that identity, this "I, is not what it is in actuality. — raza

I certainly don't agree with that.

One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring. — raza

One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurring.

I'll have to get back to you on your other inquiries. — raza

I look forward to it. :smile:

One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring. — raza

This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand?

For example, I am aware of the wind blowing on my face. I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense. I can choose to act upon that sensation consequently, but that's not what I'm referring to here. — numberjohnny5

All you have done here is used a category as a point on a spectrum. "Passive" is merely a point on a spectrum, the entire spectrum being "action".

"I did not choose to notice that. I became aware of it in a passive sense"

That's right. No choosing or no doing. Just as you do not beat your heart or breathing your lungs.

"Nonconscious brain states are involuntary brain processes that involve regulating breathing, hear rate, balance, sensory and motor functions, etc"

What is interesting is that people, maybe you included, identify themselves as a thinker of thoughts.

However, As we have established, thoughts are involuntary (they merely arise, and then "actively" heard if in a "passive" way - passively noticed, or they generate a more grossly physical act, or are dismissed, or generate another thought).

We need to do it to survive. But we can be aware that we're doing it, and realise that labels aren't the thing that they're labelling. — numberjohnny5

What is it, though, that is surviving?

All these survival applications will still be involuntary because it will involve acts that were generated by thoughts which involuntarily arose.

There is the experience that could be labelled "survival".

One cannot not be a thing occurring as a thing occurring — numberjohnny5

My argument is that one is what is occurring.

It is impossible to be one without what is occurring and it is impossible for there to be any occurrence without one.

This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand? — Pattern-chaser

You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is.

You identity is whatever is occurring. Whatever arises in consciousness is you.

I bet it's creation takes up most of your time. — raza

Now the discussion is reaching an appropriate level. Not being able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the world is classified as a serious mental disease. Maybe you should see a doctor.
If you can do so and it is just your theory that says you couldn't, there must be something wrong with your theory.
Furthermore if it seems all in all that the mind could not exist without body (Mind=>Body) and the body could not exist without mind (Body=>Mind), then on can conclude that mind and body are the same (Mind<=>Body). Again there is me and there is my chair.

Now the discussion is reaching an appropriate level. — Heiko

Yes. Your level. I replied in kind once you revealed your attitude.

Maybe you should see a doctor. — Heiko

That is the end of our conversation.

An observer of what is obvious. No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza

A subjective idealist (and solipsist), then. :meh:
Presumably you regularly experience other folks' bodies and gesturing and such?
Not their self-awarenesses, though.

Red marks conundrum:

That's conflating epistemology with ontology. — numberjohnny5

Yep (y)

Oh. You found a convenient box to place me into. I don’t subscribe.

You don’t have my permission so I’m not in that box. Feel free to delude yourself with your array of various boxes to play with.

Doing so, as you have, is merely a reaction from a sense of insecurity. A condition which manifests as wanting to produce order and control.

That is the end of our conversation. — raza

Know what is yours.

All you have done here is used a category as a point on a spectrum. "Passive" is merely a point on a spectrum, the entire spectrum being "action". — raza

My point was that being aware of something is not necessarily a voluntary act.

What is interesting is that people, maybe you included, identify themselves as a thinker of thoughts.

However, As we have established, thoughts are involuntary — raza

Just to clarify, I said some thoughts are involuntary, not all.

What is it, though, that is surviving? — raza

A biological organism/entity, to put it broadly.

All these survival applications will still be involuntary because it will involve acts that were generated by thoughts which involuntarily arose. — raza

Some "applications" are involuntary, and some are voluntary.

My argument is that one is what is occurring.

It is impossible to be one without what is occurring and it is impossible for there to be any occurrence without one. — raza

I'm not sure I understand. I'd put it like this: to be or to exist is to "occur" or be to undergoing processes.

1. So do "you", as the thinker, voluntarily generate a thought?

2. If so, how and why do you do this?

Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought?

3. If so, how and why?

4. If not, what DOES generate an involuntary thought within "you", the thinker?

If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?

(repeat to include numbers for last three)

5. If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

6. If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

7. Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?

Personally I think that all thinking is involuntary - that they are induced within cause and effect.

I think the idea of involuntary vs voluntary arises because some thoughts seem to be far more spontaneous - as if from nowhere, and not, therefore, necessarily following a remembered thread.