faer — TheMadFool

Is this some neologism for "their"?


In any case, as to the actual question, I suspect that people's intuitions don't separate mind and body when it comes to personal identity, and sexual attraction and revulsion runs largely on intuitions, so a person who in any way "is your sister", mentally or physically, will still seem sexually repulsive.

intuitions — Pfhorrest

While I'm a big fan of intuition - it seems to be both the first and last "detective" to arrive at the "crime scene", winning an advantage on both occasions - it is completely useless until and unless its borne out by reason, you know, the part of our psyche that, supposedly, understands stuff.

As for the topic of discussion itself. I suppose it's a clear case of a clash between intuitions rather than the "more common" intuition vs reason scenario everyone, invariably, suspects.

faer — TheMadFool

Is this some neologism for "their"? — Pfhorrest

Not even I, the friend of Anglish (Anglisc), have heard of it :wink:. Let’s just use “he”, for orspringlily (originally), the so-called “masculine” gender wasn’t used for things based on whether they have a tarse, but based on whether they have a soul, so “he” can mean tarse-bearing Men (often just called “men” today) as well as sheath-bearing Men (also called “women”), and also other living beings.

I suppose it's a clear case of a clash between intuitions rather than the "more common" intuition vs reason scenario everyone, invariably, suspects. — TheMadFool

What clash? I think that is right, and that our everyday intuition tells us that both your sister’s mind and your sister’s body are parts of your sister. By the way, there’s a rather funny story about the basic idea of the topic at hand in Fifth Contact concerning the characters Bannon and Vree :wink:.

I think they are too different reactions. You don't want to have your sister experience having sex with you, so the body with the brain is out. You are used to seeing the other body as your sister's. The image has decades of taboo and non-sexual relations around it. I think over time I would be able to overcome the latter. That's my wife in there. I would begin to associate her words and personality with the new body. I could get over that. But I would never want to have sex with my sister's new body, even though I might find the body sexually attractive. I would be stopped by the knowledge.

But here's the thing. Our minds are not just our brains. We have large neuronal nexi in the heart area and in the gut area. The endocrine system, much of it, is outside the brain. The mind and the muscles, nerves, sense organs, endocrine systme are in constant extremely complicated interaction.

What clash? I think that ↪Pfhorrest is right, and that our everyday intuition tells us that both your sister’s mind and your sister’s body are parts of your sister. By the way, there’s a rather funny story about the basic idea of the topic at hand in Fifth Contact concerning the characters Bannon and Vree — Tristan L

Yes, both the mind and body go toward a person's identity. That's only reasonable option.

My initital story, if that's the right word for it, actually had three women. Midway through my post, I suddenly realized that I'd forgotten why there had to be 3 women. I remember now. So, let me extend this tale of, now 3, instead of 2, women and you.

Woman no. 3 = X = unrelated to you.

Imagine now, that your wife's brain/mind and X's brain/mind has been interchanged. The question is this: if you now had to choose whom to live with, do you opt to stay with your wife's body with X's brain/mind in it or would you rather stay with X's body with your wife's brain/mind in it? Is it mind/brain OR body that defines a person?

So, it's just a matter of time before you start having sex with both your sister and your wife then? You speak of emotional aspects which I'll take to mean, all things considered, just the process of, as people say, getting used to the the cards that were dealt to you. That's all I could gather from your post.

A person is not their body but a person is not their mind either, they are their consciousness. If somehow my consciousness was swapped to another body with a new brain, let's say this new brain is genius and I attain their mental capabilities rather than that of my old brain, "I" would still refer to the consciousness, "I" have gained a new body and "I" have gained a new mind.

I think your example is not great, for instance, if your wife swapped bodies with a man, would you still be intimate with her? Probably not because you are probably not attracted to men and so any new look would probably be enough to challenge the relationship and if you can't be attracted to your sister's body or you don't want inbred children, that's reasonable but that's got nothing to do with the question you've asked.

A person is not their body but a person is not their mind either, they are their consciousness — Judaka

This must make sense at some level. What's the difference between mind and consciousness?

If somehow my consciousness was swapped to another body with a new brain, let's say this new brain is genius and I attain their mental capabilities rather than that of my old brain, "I" would still refer to the consciousness, "I" have gained a new body and "I" have gained a new mind. — Judaka

This blew my mind. Can I substitiute soul for consciousness? Very, very, very interesting.

This however doesn't solve the problem. Just open this document, find-replace "mind" with "consciousness" and the problem still remains intact, unsolved.

So, it's just a matter of time before you start having sex with both your sister and your wife then? — TheMadFool

No, I think I was pretty clear that the body with my sister's brain I would never have sex with.

You speak of emotional aspects which I'll take to mean, all things considered, just the process of, as people say, getting used to the the cards that were dealt to you. That's all I could gather from your post. — TheMadFool

Hm. I never meant or said that. 1) I made a distinction about the REASONS one would be reluctant (and in one case unwilling) to have sex. It is not the same kind of reluctance. In one my attraction would likely still be there for the body of my wife, but since I know (have an idea) it would be my sister experiencing sex with me, I don't want that to happen. In the other case I am seeing my sister's body, so even though it is my wife, I have lived all my life with this as a taboo, being attracted to that body is a taboo (this all seems very familiar to me, but I'll write it again.) One of these two, for me could change. I could over time deal with my wife's essence being in a body that was my sisters. I would NEVER get over knowing that inside what before was my wife's body there is my sister experiencing through it. I would never have sex with that body. 2) I also raised the issue that our minds are not just our brains. And I mean even if you are a complete physicalist, it does not makes sense to just ignore the neuronal complexes in the heart and gut, and also to ignore the endocrine system. These radically affect personality and sense of self.

The "problem" simply has more to do with sexuality than anything else, as I said, you've chosen a poor example. I don't care to go into that topic.

The "problem" simply has more to do with sexuality than anything else, as I said, you've chosen a poor example. I don't care to go into that topic. — Judaka

Good point! However, I feel my thought experiment does the job of exposing the heart of the issue insofar as personhood is concerned, especially the contradictory character of our intuitions on the matter. You might think of your own story so long as it captures the essence of the problem.

Hm. I never meant or said that. 1) I made a distinction about the REASONS one would be reluctant (and in one case unwilling) to have sex. It is not the same kind of reluctance. In one my attraction would likely still be there for the body of my wife, but since I know (have an idea) it would be my sister experiencing sex with me, I don't want that to happen. In the other case I am seeing my sister's body, so even though it is my wife, I have lived all my life with this as a taboo, being attracted to that body is a taboo (this all seems very familiar to me, but I'll write it again.) One of these two, for me could change. I could over time deal with my wife's essence being in a body that was my sisters. I would NEVER get over knowing that inside what before was my wife's body there is my sister experiencing through it. I would never have sex with that body. — Coben

So, your reason for not having sex with your wife's body is because your sister's mind/brain is in it and you wouldn't have sex with your sister's body even if your wife's mind/brain is in it because it's your sister's body. Well, that's the puzzle. Who/what is your wife/sister and by extension you.

Let's add another layer of complexity to the issue. Suppose you and another man, Y, swap brains/minds. Is Y now with your mind/brain you or is your body with Y's mind/brain you? Would you let your body with Y's mind/brain in it have sex with your wife or would you insist that your brain/mind in Y's body is you? :chin:

minds are not just our brains — Coben

Expand on this will you?

The question is this: if you now had to choose whom to live with, do you opt to stay with your wife's body with X's brain/mind in it or would you rather stay with X's body with your wife's brain/mind in it? Is it mind/brain OR body that defines a person? — TheMadFool

I’d say the mind, and I’d most probably stay with the one who has my wife’s mind. However, more importantly, I’d hunt for the mad scientist or thoughtcaster (philosopher) who exchanged the women’s brains or minds and try to make him or her set things right again :wink:.

I’d say the mind, and I’d most probably stay with the one who has my wife’s mind. However, more importantly, I’d hunt for the mad scientist or thoughtcaster (philosopher) who exchanged the women’s brains or minds and try to make him or her set things right again — Tristan L

So, personhood consists of both the mind/brain and body. However, as I asked one poster, one can imagine (hopefully you're a man, if not, you'll need to do some find-replace operation on the roles) that your mind/brain is swapped with that of another man, call him Y. Who would be you, then? Y with your mind/brain in it or your body with Y's mind/brain in it? Which body (yours with Y's brain/mind or Y's with your mind/brain) would you prefer had sex with your wife?

hopefully you're a man — TheMadFool

Of course I’m a man. After all, I’m called “Tristan”, and I signed my very first post on this forum with the masculine (manly) a-stem “Tristanaz”, where the “-az” (consisting of the suffix “-a-” and the ending “-z”) indicates maleness (manliness).

Who would be you, then? Y with your mind/brain in it or your body with Y's mind/brain in it? — TheMadFool

Certainly my mind in Y’s body.

Which body (yours with Y's brain/mind or Y's with your mind/brain) would you prefer had sex with your wife? — TheMadFool

My old body, which currently has Y’s mind, because I like my old body and I want it to pass its genes on. But again, I’d hunt for the mad scientist :wink:.

genes — Tristan L

Interesting point if I catch your drift. How people, perhaps this is an old-fashoined attitude, now outmoded, used to care about their ancestral lines. Matriarchal and patriarchal family lines were highly valued, protected, and extended down generations, some perhaps are much, much older than some modern African nations. Sad that they seem to have missed out on an important truth - that the bodies are, under some interpretations, merely vessels for the mind.

Oh! And Physicalism seems to accommodate a gene-based perspective of mind/brain.

How people, perhaps this is an old-fashoined attitude, now outmoded, used to care about their ancestral lines. — TheMadFool

Well, it certainly isn’t old-fashioned or outmoded for me :smile:.

some perhaps are much, much older than some modern African nations. — TheMadFool

But aren’t all lineages equally old, namely billions of years? (I’m splitting hairs on purpose here.) But purposeful over-exact interpretation aside, the African nations that you have in mind don’t include the Khoisan, right :wink:?

Sad that they seem to have missed out on an important truth - that the bodies are, under some interpretations, merely vessels for the mind.

Oh! And Physicalism seems to accommodate a gene-based perspective of mind/brain. — TheMadFool

For me, a science-believing platonist, I see things as follows: The ultimate “spark” of the mind, the mind itself, is abstract and thus immaterial, but when in the temporal world, it needs a body to reckon (compute) and process info in a similar way that a mathematician with very little memory needs pencil and paper to do proofs, or an office worker needs a computer. So I think that while the real ID (thisness, heccaeity) is abstract, much of what we think is part of us, such as our inclinations, memories, and smartness, are bodily to a big part, and part of these are in the genes. That’s why I think that forebear-lines are weighty.

Well, it certainly isn’t old-fashioned or outmoded for me :smile: — Tristan L

That's probably because you can trace your line back to a King or a Queen, a Duchess, a Count. My descendants, for certain, won't be happy to see my portrait hanging on their family tree. :grin:

But aren’t all lineages equally old, namely billions of years? (I’m splitting hairs on purpose here.) But purposeful over-exact interpretation aside, the African nations that you have in mind don’t include the Khoisan, right — Tristan L

Yes, split hairs and ruin my day. I was working under the assumption that most on the forum are the generation X cohort with very little time on their hands to read up on Khoisans, Bantu, Mansa Musa, etc.

For me, a science-believing platonist, I see things as follows: The ultimate “spark” of the mind, the mind itself, is abstract and thus immaterial, but when in the temporal world, it needs a body to reckon (compute) and process info in a similar way that a mathematician with very little memory needs pencil and paper to do proofs, or an office worker needs a computer. So I think that while the real ID (thisness, heccaeity) is abstract, much of what we think is part of us, such as our inclinations, memories, and smartness, are bodily to a big part, and part of these are in the genes. That’s why I think that forebear-lines are weighty. — Tristan L

You've made so many assumptions there to fill all the containers in a cargo ship. :joke:

That's probably because you can trace your line back to a King or a Queen, a Duchess, a Count. — TheMadFool

It’s actually because I love my family and am thankful to my parents for having begotten me.

My descendants, for certain, won't be happy to see my portrait hanging on their family tree. :grin: — TheMadFool

Why shouldn’t they be happy? By all means, they should! One shouldn’t be ashamed of one of one’s forebears unless that ancestor was a bad person.

You've made so many assumptions there to fill all the containers in a cargo ship. :joke: — TheMadFool

My philosophy of mind is indeed still rather sketchy and needs a lot of work, but I can beground (justify) most of my claims – I hope:

Why is the mind abstract? Because it can directly “see” other abstract things like numbers and properties and because I believe to have shown (as of yet only in my notes) that all things are abstract, and that being a not-abstract thing is impossible.

Why do I think that the abstract mind needs a body to reckon and process info? Because the sciences tell us practically with certainty that mindly states and processes are strongly bound to brain states and processes.

Why do I think that the mind has very little memory? Because we know from science that almost all to all of the info in memories is stored in the brain, and that without this brain information, there’d be almost no to no memories.

Why do I think that forebear-lines are important? Because science has shown us that genes shape the brain to a big extent, leaving an important mark on the mind’s manifestation in the concrete world. Thus, the link between a person and his or her forebears isn’t of a shapeless purely material nature, but is shape-ly (formal, formly) in a very weighty way.

:ok: :up: