I brought in a definition from a standard dictionary. — Alkis Piskas

It’s unbelievable how often this mistake occurs. I’ve written about it elsewhere:

Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. So I think it's worth making the following points:

1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."

2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."

3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.

For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.

If that is what you are calling "games" or you think that consulting dictionaries to get the meaning of terms is uselsess, no wonder why you find everything meaningless! — Alkis Piskas

The mind/body problem is meaningless, unless we know what "body" is. As I said before, there WAS once a technical notion of "body", within the mechanical philosophy and early physics of the 16th and 17th centuries. That was based on the principle of contact action and the idea that the world behaves like a machine, like the machines of the time -- clocks, for example.

That was destroyed by Isaac Newton. As Hume writes, he “seemed to draw the veil from some of the mysteries of nature, he shewed at the same time the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy; and thereby restored Nature's ultimate secrets to that obscurity, in which they ever did and ever will remain.”

There has been no technical notion of "body" since. Chomsky has interesting things to say about this.

If we want to sit around and invent definitions for what "body" or "material" or "physical" means, we can. Outside an explanatory theory, it's a complete waste of time. Appealing to "common sense" and the dictionary, or common usage, is also a waste of time. It would be like pointing to the dictionary definition of "work" in a physics class. Is that what physicists mean by "work"? No -- not even close to what we ordinarily mean by work.

So there is no mind/body problem.

It’s not OKAY that you still haven’t answered my question — praxis

Right, that would generally not be OK. But I don't have to answer all the questions after some point in a discussion, when an important mismatch has occurred. Yet, I will answer your question since you asked me to. Can you please remind me exactly what that question was?

To seeing the brain on a scan. — Newkomer

I can't really connect this to "I can see the physical world too." ... Anyway, this is not important. Let's drop it.

Can you please remind me exactly what that question was? — Alkis Piskas

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?

Fourth time I’ve asked.

Well, my brain gives me emotions too! — Newkomer

OK, I believe you. But it would be better to look up the term "emotion": "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.", Oxford LEXICO).

What the brain gives you is a physical response to an emotion. Not the emotion itself. The brain is only a stimulous-response mechanism. The vibrations you mentioned are such a response. The adrenaline you may feel in your body (they say dogs can smell it) from a strong fear is such a response. And so on.

It’s unbelievable how often this mistake occurs. I’ve written about it elsewhere: — Xtrix

I looked at your reference. You say "I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to 'common sense,' but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms." I am afraid to say that this is the only way a discussion or simple communication can take place. Common or similar definitions of terms consist the common reference on which both interlocutors can be based. And dictionaries are a means to provide that common reference. Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries. This way, the other interlocutor knows what he is talking about. Doing neither of them calls for unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts between the two interlocutors. It's only too logical. ("Common sense" as you mention in your reference of your link.)

I strongly advise you, as a professional translator and linguist, is to start using dictionaries. You will thank me when you will start "saving" your discussions from unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts.

Misunderstood and unknown words are the main reason why comminications fail.

The mind/body problem is meaningless, unless we know what "body" is. — Xtrix

If all life in the universe died, would there still be a universe with stars, planets, galaxies, etc.?

What the brain gives you is a physical response to an emotion. Not the emotion itself. The brain is only a stimulous-response mechanism. The vibrations you mentioned are such a response. The adrenaline you may feel in your body (they say dogs can smell it) from a strong fear is such a response. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

This is nonsensical. You say that the brain is a stimulous-response mechanism and that emotions are part of that mechanism (“The vibrations [feelings] you mentioned are such a response.”), and yet claim that the brain doesn’t produce emotion itself.

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit? — praxis

OK, I'm really sorry that I put into that trouble and waiting.

I will answer with another similar question: "How is consuming and having an apple different from solving and having a mental problem?" Semantically, their difference lies on physicality. One is physical and the other non-physical. Otherwise, linguistically they are parallel grammatical constructions.

This is nonsensical. — praxis

Well, examine better what the other said before coming out with criticsm. More specifically examine again the meaing of emotion. I have put time axplaing all this to you and you seem to ignore what I said.

OK. That's it for me. I'm out of this utterly failed comminication.

How is being and having a body is fundamentally different from being and having a spirit?
— praxis

OK, I'm really sorry that I put into that trouble and waiting.

I will answer with another similar question: "How is consuming and having an apple different from solving and having a mental problem?" Semantically, their difference lies on physicality. One is physical and the other non-physical. Otherwise, linguistically they are parallel grammatical constructions. — Alkis Piskas

You appear to be suggesting that it's impossible to be and have a body because the body is physical and that it is possible to be and have a spirit because it is not physical. Is that right?

I think the trouble you're having is due to not realizing that both 'body' and 'spirit' are concepts. Both of these concepts refer to particular phenomena and neither of them is the thing itself. My body and spirit differ from your body and spirit. I could recognize your particular body or spirit if I knew them well enough, knew their unique characteristics.

Spirit, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular spirit and is nonphysical, right?

Body, by itself, doesn't refer to any particular body and is nonphysical, right?

Your spirit refers to your particular character, how you act and react, which are physical phenomena, right?

Your body refers to your particular body and its various unique features, which are physical phenomena, right?

Anyway, both eating an apple and solving a problem require a brain.

This is nonsensical.
— praxis

Well, examine better what the other said before coming out with criticsm. More specifically examine again the meaing of emotion. I have put time axplaing all this to you and you seem to ignore what I said.

OK. That's it for me. I'm out of this utterly failed comminication. — Alkis Piskas

You could at least try to make sense.

I am afraid to say that this is the only way a discussion or simple communication can take place. Common or similar definitions of terms consist the common reference on which both interlocutors can be based. And dictionaries are a means to provide that common reference. — Alkis Piskas

Tell that to physicists.

Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries. This way, the other interlocutor knows what he is talking about. Doing neither of them calls for unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts between the two interlocutors. It's only too logical. — Alkis Piskas

Agreed. But outside an explanatory theory, like in the sciences, we can define words however we want. Common usage doesn’t help, nor does armchair meaning creation. If I define nature as God’s creation, or “work” as my job, or “energy” as my stamina, etc. — fine. Best to clarify what you mean by your words.

But the questions you’re raising, in philosophy and science, have a long history, and most of them have technical meanings given to them. We’re not interested in defining things in a vacuum.

I can define the heart as the liver, if I want to. That’s what I mean when I say “heart.” Okay…does that advance the field of medicine?

Misunderstood and unknown words are the main reason why comminications fail. — Alkis Piskas

Which is exactly why this entire thread is a complete waste of time.

For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak.

What do you mean?

Maybe I’m missing the point here but the concepts of ‘body’ and ‘self’ both change, are composed of parts, indeed millions of neural connections, yet have a simple unity. — praxis

I think that is a very important point. The subjective unity of consciousness is very hard to explain in physicalist terms. One aspect is the neural binding problem, specifically that there is no identifiable neural system which integrates disparate visual data into the integrated whole we actually experience.

Also Buddhist medicine is based on a holistic view of the human being. However, the meaning and use of term "spirit" is different in Buddhism. They have another term for what in the West we call "spirit": Atman. — Alkis Piskas

Ātman is Hindu terminology, not Buddhist. Buddhists don’t utilise that terminology, in the Buddhist lexicon, all phenomenal objects are ‘anatman’, not self. And there’s really no Buddhist concept corresponding to ‘spirit’.

I think that is a very important point. The subjective unity of consciousness is very hard to explain in physicalist terms. One aspect is the neural binding problem, specifically that there is no identifiable neural system which integrates disparate visual data into the integrated whole we actually experience. — Wayfarer

I just finished a book on thousand brain theory that accounts for this, I believe. Take a look if it interests you.

I just finished a book on thousand brain theory that accounts for this, I believe. Take a look if it interests you — praxis

That's a very good book! The whole cortex is equally structured. The whole universe can be "played out" on it. There are virtually infinite possible neuronal paths. Well, actually a 1 with 10exp40 zeros...

Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries.
— Alkis Piskas
Agreed. — Xtrix

OK. So, if you agree with this you should also agree with bringing up a definition from a dictionary, because it's the same thing. One has just to remove the source! :smile: (Only that mentioning the source is more honest than looking as if one has conceived that definition himself. The same holds when you quote another person, e.g. a philosopher, as this is often done in here.)

BTW, we are talking a lot about "definitions" (too official a term) and maybe we forget that they stand for "meanings"! And what is more essential in a communication than undestanding the meaning of the words used in it?

we can define words however we want. — Xtrix

Best to clarify what you mean by your words. — Xtrix

I agree. This is the best way.

We’re not interested in defining things in a vacuum. — Xtrix

Didn't get that.

I can define the heart as the liver, if I want to. That’s what I mean when I say “heart.” Okay…does that advance the field of medicine? — Xtrix

It won't have any effect at all on medicine, as far as you are not a doctor! :grin:

Which is exactly why this entire thread is a complete waste of time. — Xtrix

But then, why are you participating in it? You could just ignore it. And thus avoid passing your hard critique as well as wasting the time of others ... So which of the two is actually a waste of time: my topic (in which 22 members have participated and has 139 replies up to now) or your participation?

Ātman is Hindu terminology, not Buddhist. — Wayfarer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Atman_(Buddhism)

Next time bring in your reference(s) too! :smile:

Do you understand the first paragraph of the second reference?

Atman is a Sanskrit word, normally translated as 'soul' or 'self' (also ego). In Buddhism, the concept of Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance – itself the cause of all misery - the foundation of Samsara itself.

The first ref starts:

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).[1]

Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging ātman (self, soul).

As it happens, I did an MA thesis on this topic. Whereas I think you're using the word without much idea of what it means

Oh, I forgot that you are only wasting my time ... OK, I am done here.

Whereas I think you're using the word without much idea of what it means — Wayfarer

I was wondering about this. Will not reducing everything to information and interacting forms forming each other take all meaning away? Except that of information...

It needs to be remembered that we only experience the body though a glass darkly. We never see it as it really is and that includes FMRI machines. Our perception is really limited as process symbols in a slow linear way because it's most useful.
There is a mind/body problem in the same way there is a binding problem (wayfarer linked above) but I believe it comes from not having access to the full picture.

We never see it as it really is — Forgottenticket

Luckily! It's impossible in principle. The brain is too smal to represent the whole body at once. In parts its possible.

If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on? — Alkis Piskas

This approach to the issue resonates with me for I feel it leads to a deeper insight about the self. Others have jumped on the bandwagon as well. See vide infra:

If you are a mind or a soul, then why do you say 'my mind or my soul', 'I have a mind or I have a soul', and so on?" — praxis

Let's continue. People say,
1. My body such and such.
2. My mind such and such.
3. My brain such and such.
4. My soul such and such.
.
.
.

What they mean, what's implied,

1. I'm not the body.
2. I'm not the mind.
3. I'm not the brain.
4. I'm not the soul.
.
.
.

So, what is this I, the so-called self? All that could be the self appears in a list as above and yet, we ourselves, deny every item on that list to be the self, the I.

It's like someone giving you a bag of things and saying there's a flse in it. You proceed to take objects out of the bag one at a time, each time asking, "is this flse?" Everytime the reply is "no". After a while, the bag is empty and flse still hasn't been found.

Is the self an empty word? It seems like it for every possible referent we could think of is not the self. Forget about the self being what the self can't be - other people, trees, animals, etc. - the self can't be what the self can be - the body, the mind, the brain, the soul, thoughts, etc.

Is the self an illusion?

OR, more intriguingly,

Is the self a thing that transcends this our reality - its referent, what it is, resides in a realm beyond the one we know? It's not that the self, the I doesn't refer to something, it's just that this something is not of this world.

I was wondering about this. Will not reducing everything to information and interacting forms forming each other take all meaning away? Except that of information... — Nosferatu

One of the really obvious things I have now come to realise after blathering away on forums for 10 years, is that the question of the nature of meaning and of the nature of information are separate subjects. There is actually no discipline of the study of 'meaning' - well, apart from linguistics and semiotics, on the one side, and then literature and drama, on the other, along with the visual arts, cinema and the like. But 'discerning meaning' is one of the uniquely human abilities, which we generally take for granted, because we do it so naturally. Whereas 'processing data' is what computers do, and do very easily.

Computers [can] outstrip any philosopher or mathematician in marching mechanically through a programmed set of logical maneuvers, but this was only because philosophers and mathematicians — and the smallest child — are too smart for their intelligence to be invested in such maneuvers. The same goes for a dog. “It is much easier,” observed AI pioneer Terry Winograd, “to write a program to carry out abstruse formal operations than to capture the common sense of a dog.”

A dog knows, through its own sort of common sense, that it cannot leap over a house in order to reach its master. It presumably knows this as the directly given meaning of houses and leaps — a meaning it experiences all the way down into its muscles and bones. As for you and me, we know, perhaps without ever having thought about it, that a person cannot be in two places at once. We know (to extract a few examples from the literature of cognitive science) that there is no football stadium on the train to Seattle, that giraffes do not wear hats and underwear, and that a book can aid us in propping up a slide projector but a sirloin steak probably isn’t appropriate. — Steve Talbott, Logic, DNA and Poetry

Is the self a thing that transcends this our reality - its referent, what it is, resides in a realm beyond the one we know? — TheMadFool

Check out the Wiki entry on transcendental apperception.

If you consider yourself the body (I know, too much to bear for some...) than points 2-4 disappear as snow for the fucking sun. The brainless body, that is. — VerdammtNochMal

We've crossed that bridge. People, especially if they're careless, say things like, "I have a body" implying they don't identify with their bodies. Therein lies the rub.

Therein lies the rub. — TheMadFool

In the body there is a lot to rub. What if I say that I am my body and I am in the middle of brain and physical world? The brain thinks for me. I dont think at all...