Are we our bodies?

[Norsemaiden]

They would bother to maintain their illusion, because their illusion matters to them.

Why bother maintaining an illusion that annoys or upsets you? Why not have an illusion where you can do whatever you want and it only matters as much as you want it to matter?

 

[proglodite]

Why bother maintaining an illusion that annoys or upsets you?

Perhaps refer to the suicide thread.

Why not have an illusion where you can do whatever you want and it only matters as much as you want it to matter?

Obviously we don't have munipulative control, otherwise we'd be running up walls Matrix-style

 

[Norsemaiden]

And there doesn't seem to be control over what is healthy and unhealthy in this illusion, unless we are subconscious masochists. Most people would rather make it that eating donuts and watching TV was the way to a long and healthy life. Reality has a way of imposing itself into people's illusions.

 

[jervi]

This place sure does have a tendency to work against you, and spawn more of that which you resist^^

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well you do have to keep in mind that the really unhealthy food has been invented by people. And as much as most of the world may be an illusion, it is also other peoples illusions as well, and it is very hard to escape it. This illusion is very dense, being in the place where energy becomes solid and dense enough to see, touch, taste, and hear. But in dreams, it is possible to control your world because it doesn't exist in the physical world, but a world of energy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

For one, how do you know all other people are not illusions? What special property shows their souls to be more certain then your own body? Secondly, how are you defining "energy"? Because energy is traditonally considered a physical property.

 

[Silver Incubus]

If I told you you wouldn't believe me so there really is no point. It's like trying to explain empathy to a psychopath, you just won't understand where I am coming from.

 

[Norsemaiden]

If I told you you wouldn't believe me so there really is no point. It's like trying to explain empathy to a psychopath, you just won't understand where I am coming from.

I'm not intending to look for ways of criticising other people's views for the sake of it, I'll really try to understand. So could you explain it further for me and anyone else who is interested?

It doesn't seem consistent that if one's perception of everything is all one's illusion one could share that illusion with actual other people (who are not simply part of one's illusion). Then you are saying that some things DO exist that are not part of the illusion (yet interact with one's illusion) and they are real.

We can never fully see all of reality, because we will always have our own individual perspective. But reality does exist out there. That makes sense to me anyway.

 

[Demiurge]

Who discovered this? I hadn't realised anybody had actually proved it.

It seems fairly clear at this point that the brain, if not equivalent to the mind, is necessary for mental activity to be manifested. One might say that the capacity of mind cannot be eliminated by physical means, but the manifestation of this capacity into action can be. If you slice off the right part of a person's brain, he'll lose the ability to speak, if not the capacity for speech. If you deny any connection between mind and brain, you should be willing to have a piece of your's lopped off.

 

[Neith]

I don't deny any connection, and I don't deny that the mind is a part fo the brain in some way or other. However, this is just my opinion, albeit an opinon shared by others, but I did not know that it had actually been proved by scientists as fact. They can show which part of the brain does what, but as far as I was aware the had never proved which part of the brain was the actual mind, or indeed if the mind was a part of the brain.

And whilst it may not be the core of the thread I just felt the need to enquire whether this was actually fact or not given that the nature of the mind is a part of my Philosophy exam next month, Norsemaiden.

Whilst the question posed in this thread is asking 'are we our bodies, are our bodies ours, do we own them, or do they belong to someone/something else' then shouldn't we be asking who who this 'we' you talk of is. Presumably you mean you and me, as individuals, and therefore, you are referring to us as living thinking entities. That is, 'we' as individual minds. Therefore, you need to ask what the nature of a mind is in order to know whether we are our bodies or whether we own them.

Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm not intending to look for ways of criticising other people's views for the sake of it, I'll really try to understand. So could you explain it further for me and anyone else who is interested?

It doesn't seem consistent that if one's perception of everything is all one's illusion one could share that illusion with actual other people (who are not simply part of one's illusion). Then you are saying that some things DO exist that are not part of the illusion (yet interact with one's illusion) and they are real.

We can never fully see all of reality, because we will always have our own individual perspective. But reality does exist out there. That makes sense to me anyway.

OK, but I'm sure I will get flammed for it.

Myself, and other people have had experiences of consciousness without bodies, in the real world(called Real Time Zone) projections, very similar to Astal Projections except you project to the physical level of "planes", also called ethrical i think. Anyways, in this state it is very possible to move around the earth and observe anything or everything you want to, as long as you can control it. You have no real body and as such you can walk(go) through walls, doors, the earth itself. It is possible to see something that you, in a sleep like state, would otherwise not be able to see. This state of consciouness vibrates at a higher level, and opens up to the collective conscouisness more. People who have NDE's(near death experiences) also experience the same sort of sensations, where they can go through floors of the hospital and see what doctors are doing in other rooms, and usually their physical body being operated on.

Now what separates the astral realm, (it is though by some, to be where dreams are created) from the real world, is that like a dream, it is your own personal reality where the energies are not dense nor affected by the perception of others. But this seems almost even more real then the physical, the experiences can be incredible, but at the same time, there are possiblitys to encounter nasty things if you mind dwells into nasty thoughts.

 

[Dushan S]

Are our bodies us, or are they something that we own? Should everyone have the right to do what they want with their own bodies?

I guess this is rethorical question? I am not sure that this is something that anyone can seriously argue about.

The morality of the past (last couple of centuries)has held that our bodies are on loan from God and that we're forbidden from tampering with His property. Pagans,too, felt that there were limitations to what a person was free to do with their body. Pagans saw their body as being themselves.

Pagans are not one philosophie. If you are talking about your own ancestors, maybe. My own ancestor have had pre christian relligion that is similar to indian Vedas. They believed in reincarnation, and that their soul is god-alike. They were never praying, but talked to gods because when you are praying, than you are not equal, it is position of slave to a master. They were also inclined to commit suicide easily in hard position because of their belief that their soul will be born again, and that death is better solution than slavery. So talking about pagans and thinking their body is themselves...

To some extent this notion is challenged by the discovery that the brain is where the mind is. Does this knowledge make people see the rest of their body differently?

Actually no one was ever able to explain what the mind actually is, so how it is possible to locate it? We can just locate parts of brain that are connected with certain functions, and technically science does not approves that there is a mind without body, but it does not stops USA and Russian military to spend decades of research into astral projection.

Nowadays, people tend to think the idea that there are some things you should not do with your body is outdated. However, euthanasia and suicide generally are illegal in most western countries. This is the law imposing itself on what we can do with our bodies.

Because Christian or better say "Mass religion" concept is wrapped about power control and slavery principaly. I have no uses of you working for me if you are about to kill yourself, dead slave cannot work for me, so I am loosing money. In old days, implementing reward in afterlife was working well to keep slaves in order. Nova days, having all kinds of entertaiment and things to spend our small amount of earned money on works even better to keep us dumb and in order. Losing fear of death would be losing control over masses in a disastrous way.

Descartes thought of the Self as an inner homunculus, which was seperate from, and in control of, the body. This is the idea that you are a subject, but your body is an object that you make do things for you - but the fact that it is yours, you own it as property, is critical to how you perceive it.

Not quite intelligent idea. If body is doing all the work, and is in control, it seems that it would be more logical that there is nothing else except body. Why putting homunculus there? It seems that idea of human soul was still something he could not rid of but his concept was very materialistic so this was something that worked for him. Technically we can objectively control our body, and treat it in different ways, so his concept is irrelevant. Any homosexual that feels his body is unwanted, unadequate vehicle for him is a proof for that.

What do you think of a scenario where one could go a step further and be made to feel that your body is the property of the government or of a corporation? Can you imagine how this might hypothetically happen? Is a slave's body his own or the property of his master?

This is already state the things are, it is just that we are not much aware, and that this works in a subtle way.

If your body is a thing you own, you may feel free to give it away, or parts of it: a finger, ear, etc. Someone may feel free to give their body over to a cannibal, such as the recent case in Germany. Is this acceptable?

As society and people in power have ownership on masses, any kind of behaviour where person is transferring his body ownership to his own will in a radical way is condemned, sometimes by the law, and sometimes by his social enviroment in a way. Being self destructive is not normal behaviour, and should be treated, but on the other hand very reason for society condemning it is not coming from positive intentions. For instance if someone cuts his body parts to some extent so someone can get new organ is accepted as beautiful and generous. Doing this beyond this line is unacceptable and crime because it is going agains basic principles of society and could destroy it.

The British philosopher Roger Scruton proposes that there "is another and better way of seeing things, however, and it is one that explains much of that old morality that people find so puzzling. On this view my body is not my property but - to use the theological term - my incarnation. My body is not an object, but a subject, just as I am. I don't own it any more than I own myself. I am inextricably mingled with it, and what is done to my body is done to me. And there are ways of treating it that cause me to think and feel as I would not otherwise think or feel, to lose my moral sense, to become hardened or indifferent to others, to cease to make judgements or to be guided by principles and ideals. When this happens it is not just I who am harmed: all those who love me, need me or relate to me are harmed as well. For I have damaged the part on which relationships are built."

This sounds like some primitive deviation of easter concepts, where author was having problems to identify with his own body. In a way, body has his own mind and intelligence of sort, genetical mind and intelligence, and we can work with it or against it, but where to draw the lines of separation? We can look at our right hand and point to it with our left hand. We can say "this is not me, this is right hand, I can detach from it and look at it as an object" But does it makes it detached from us for real?
Root of problem is in spitirual duality between mind and matter that is everpresent in all religions, in a very confusing way, and that has translated itself into modern science too. A lot of spiritual teachers were not preaching difference between mind and body. For them, Mind and body were one, in a sense that both of them are part of unreal world of senses, "Maya", and that they are both just a part of our perception, because we can detach and be objectively aware of both our mind content and our body.

...Quite a detailed and long comment from me, hope you don't mind :wink: