I am not this body

#1
I am not this material body,

My body is constantly changing from birth, like changing clothes, taking of one garment and wearing another,
All the atoms that make up my body are constantly being renewed. and the body I had as a baby is no longer, it has been replaced with an entirely new body, and the body I have in the present will also not be the same body I posses in ten years or so, So, all the physical elements that make up my body are nothing but temporary, Yet, 'I' the self ( Soul ) am still existing as the same self, In the search for identity, The conclusion is, I am not this material body. If the body is changing, in this lifetime, like changing garments, yet I am still existing.

So where does my mind reside, In my brain? My research say's no.

Another challenging phenomenon is the presence of normal or
even high intelligence in people who have very little brain tissue. There
are again rare, but surprising, cases of people who seem to function
normally in life, with normal intelligence and normal social function,
despite having virtually no brain at all.

Bruce Greyson M.D Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences

How is it possible to conclude that the 'life force' within me is an emergent of my brain, when my brain itself doesn't begin to emerge until about three weeks into my material life, Each one of us begins life as a single celled organism, about the size of a grain of salt, The cell starts to divide and multiply, into two then four, eight, and so on, The body is able to develop due to the life force within it, and about three weeks into conception we start developing a brain, limbs, organs and so on. Without the life energy within the material body, there is no question of development. the conclusion is that life is not an emergent of the brain, the brain is an emergent of life.


Also, the brain you had last week, is not the same brain you will have next week.


, "Your brain is being disassembled and reassembled every day. "One week from today, your brain will be made up of completely different proteins than it is today. This video shows the process. We've known that it was happening, but now we can watch it happen."- Don Arnold, associate professor of molecular and computational biology at the USC

http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/video-shows-the-traffic-inside-a-brain-cell-82220123

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-video-reveals-just-happens-inside-brain.html


So in conclusion, I am constantly changing my material body, yet I am still existing.
My brain is an emergent of the life force within my material body, not the other way round.

Discuss
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
I have two questions.

1. How many cortical neurons does the guy with "very little brain" actually have?

2. If the brain can't possibly produce the "life force" because its components are constantly refreshed, then how can the body produce the "life force" when the same thing is happening to it?

~~Paul
 
#3
I have two questions.

1. How many cortical neurons does the guy with "very little brain" actually have?

2. If the brain can't possibly produce the "life force" because its components are constantly refreshed, then how can the body produce the "life force" when the same thing is happening to it?

~~Paul
Idk about the first one, but i believe he tried to say that neither brain nor body produce this life force. The body developes through the life force. Thats atleast what im getting out of Johnny's post.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#4
Idk about the first one, but i believe he tried to say that neither brain nor body produce this life force. The body developes through the life force. Thats atleast what im getting out of Johnny's post.
Ah yes, that may be, but I don't think it follows from the fact that the body's components are continually replaced. That's also true of my house and my car, but I don't think we need a house-force or a car-force.

~~Paul
 
#5
Ah yes, that may be, but I don't think it follows from the fact that the body's components are continually replaced. That's also true of my house and my car, but I don't think we need a house-force or a car-force.

~~Paul

What Dasmurmeltier said for the first post, but to respond to this post, your house and car do not have life energy, but it takes a life force to cause them to develop.

Going back to the human body, unless a life force or spiritual spark is present within the body, then the body can not develop. Once the life force leaves the body, there is no question of development. It is due to the life energy within the cell that the body develops.
 
#6
Wrote this on another thread that is relevent here too:
This view seems to address the assumption that consciousness requires a contained body in time and place. Which opens up the idea that our consciousness can be at multiple places (including dimensions) and multiple times (present / past / future). So we may have a simple explanation for what appears to come from the Jeff S experience and Bernstein/stain bears multiple dimensions idea etc.

But I wonder whether it just introduces another assumption that consciousness doesn't require a contained body in time and place. And from that assumption more theories can be proposed but the base assumption isn't really addressed adequately first, such as what is the nature of that containment?

When I say "body" btw I don't mean a physical body, or a spiritual body. A lot of the 19th century spiritual concepts proposed that aether was the material of the spiritual world for example. So if something like that is verifiable (i dont know if it is or isnt), for all intents and purposes these bodies (spiritual / physical) are still made out of some form of material substance. Also if time is subject to physcial laws and properties, then time is also a part of the same material fabric.

So what I'm getting at is we still might be seeing things from a materialist point of view by considering that containment of consciousness requires some kind of material to hold it. But maybe thats an assumption like I said. What if consciousness doesn't require material to contain it? What if its still contained in a way which isn't defined by any material?

One thing that interests me is how we define people's consciousness especially in regard to conscious autonomy or freewill. What happens if we define our specific type of consciousness by its ability to choose in a tangibly autonomous ways? Is that a non-material type of containment? I'm considering that it is.

So lets say having conscious autonomy is another feasible line of inquiry regarding whether or not our consciousness remains contained. Then we could question if our freewill is more subject to materiality or if materiality is more subject to our freewill? A strict materialist point of view would stand by the former (also to the extent that freewill is an illusion).

If the whole material universe / multiverse / time etc. is more subject to our will than we are subject to it then this says something completely different I feel about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the materiality. So the question is whether or not any phenomena (like Jeff S) supports this point of view to make it a feasible line of inquiry?
Maybe our thinking of "body" doesn't require material. Perhaps a better would for it is soul?
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#7
Going back to the human body, unless a life force or spiritual spark is present within the body, then the body can not develop. Once the life force leaves the body, there is no question of development. It is due to the life energy within the cell that the body develops.
I'm not sure why you think a life force is required for development.

~~Paul
 
#10
The mind is not the brain.

The brain filters consciousness.

The mind filters omniscience.

You are not your brain, you are not even your mind.

What you are.

I do not subscribe to the definitions you provide of the Vedic literature, Mainly that we become one with Brhaman or that we realise our true self as Brahman. This is false.

This is affirmed in the Bhagavad Gita as it is. 2.12

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. - Bhagavad Gita as it is. 2.12


PURPORT

In the Vedas, in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

nityo nityānāḿ cetanaś cetanānām

eko bahūnāḿ yo vidadhāti kāmān

tam ātma-sthaḿ ye 'nupaśyanti dhīrās

teṣāḿ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.

The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa's is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much — even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa's individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
 
#11
Wrote this on another thread that is relevent here too:


Maybe our thinking of "body" doesn't require material. Perhaps a better would for it is soul?

I don't think consciousness needs to be contained in a material body, as you put it, I believe consciousness becomes entrapped in a material body by natures law.
 
#13
Endless heckling. Why not find some more useful way to spend your own time?

Have you read the thread?
I gave my reasons why a life force is required for development of the body, Yet Paul persists with the same old question and not addressing the reasons.

Simply put,

Can a dead body develop? The answer is no, It must have life, otherwise there is no question of development.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#14
Have you read the thread?
I gave my reasons why a life force is required for development of the body, Yet Paul persists with the same old question and not addressing the reasons.

Simply put,

Can a dead body develop? The answer is no, It must have life, otherwise there is no question of development.
But the body is not dead. You are defining "living" as "having a life force," but this begs the question about the life force. You are assuming it is required without explaining why.

The reason you gave in the OP is that the cells are constantly changing, but that is not a requirement for a life force. A computer has no life force, but it could replace its own parts without losing its identity. Similarly, my body could be under constant change yet still maintain my sense of identity.

~~Paul
 
#15
But the body is not dead. You are defining "living" as "having a life force," but this begs the question about the life force. You are assuming it is required without explaining why.

The reason you gave in the OP is that the cells are constantly changing, but that is not a requirement for a life force. A computer has no life force, but it could replace its own parts without losing its identity. Similarly, my body could be under constant change yet still maintain my sense of identity.

~~Paul

You assume a computer has consciousness and is alive and has identity, it isn't, but if it were to replace it's parts it would need to be done by a living entity. or at least a living entity who has programmed it to do so.

Secondly, if the body you possessed as a teenager no longer exists and all the atoms have been replaced giving you an entirely new body, but you still exist, then how can you be your body, the conclusion is that you are not your body, but the life force which inhabits the body. Again the body you have at present will also be exchanged in this lifetime with an entirely new body in ten years or so, But you still exist as the same person although you have an entirely new body.
 
#16
I don't think consciousness needs to be contained in a material body, as you put it, I believe consciousness becomes entrapped in a material body by natures law.
Where did I put it that consciousness needs to be contained in a material body? Wasnt saying that at all.
 
#17
You assume a computer has consciousness and is alive and has identity, it isn't, but if it were to replace it's parts it would need to be done by a living entity. or at least a living entity who has programmed it to do so.

Secondly, if the body you possessed as a teenager no longer exists and all the atoms have been replaced giving you an entirely new body, but you still exist, then how can you be your body, the conclusion is that you are not your body, but the life force which inhabits the body. Again the body you have at present will also be exchanged in this lifetime with an entirely new body in ten years or so, But you still exist as the same person although you have an entirely new body.
Seems we need to define what this 'life force' is... which seems to be an alternative way of saying that something is 'alive'... seems important at least to make an understandable definition for how you define something is 'alive'
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#18
You assume a computer has consciousness and is alive and has identity, it isn't, but if it were to replace it's parts it would need to be done by a living entity. or at least a living entity who has programmed it to do so.
Ah, so you agree that it could be programmed to replace its own parts. Thus replacing parts does not require direct life force and so the definition of "life force" becomes murky. As Max said, we need a definition.

Secondly, if the body you possessed as a teenager no longer exists and all the atoms have been replaced giving you an entirely new body, but you still exist, then how can you be your body, the conclusion is that you are not your body, but the life force which inhabits the body. Again the body you have at present will also be exchanged in this lifetime with an entirely new body in ten years or so, But you still exist as the same person although you have an entirely new body.
Why is the conclusion that you are not your body? The only legitimate conclusion is that you are not the specific atoms in your body. But that does not rule out the possibility that you are the arrangement of the atoms in your body. This is true of every other object, too. You could replace every component of your car and it would still be your car.

~~Paul
 
#19
The reason you gave in the OP is that the cells are constantly changing, but that is not a requirement for a life force. A computer has no life force, but it could replace its own parts without losing its identity.
Interesting how you carefully choose a parallel with computers, which we know everything about, while we have a very rough understanding of the human physical body, not to mention consciousness.

"Life force" might be an anachronistic and murky term... but materialism is even more old-fashioned in terms of explanatory power for life and its implications.

It's amazing how the level of the discussion immediately plummets when you start claiming that there's "no need" for any "unknown" force/principle/cause to explain what living beings do. Then you go ahead and throw a couple of lousy parallels from computer science and we should all be satisfied with such unimaginative (and weak) arguments...

The process of discovery entails the uncovering of things we don't know... the tools we have at our disposal at the moment are very limited even to solve much easier problems such as curing disease, let alone explaining intelligence, creativity or life at its core.

In order to unveil those unknowns we need the full arsenal of tools at our disposal, all the creativity and ingenuity available, not forcefully constrain ourselves into ideological traps.
And finally, even if redundant, it should be clear by know that among all major philosophical positions on the nature of mind, physicalism is the one that offers more problems than solutions... :)
 
#20
Ah, so you agree that it could be programmed to replace its own parts. Thus replacing parts does not require direct life force and so the definition of "life force" becomes murky. As Max said, we need a definition.


Why is the conclusion that you are not your body? The only legitimate conclusion is that you are not the specific atoms in your body. But that does not rule out the possibility that you are the arrangement of the atoms in your body. This is true of every other object, too. You could replace every component of your car and it would still be your car.

~~Paul
Paul, a computer that replaces all it's parts is not the same computer, it may look the same but at the molecular level , it's a new computer, plus computers are not alive. They don't generate life, living entires generate computers, without a living entity, there is no question of the development of computers.


The definition for life is not murky , if a entity is living, it has life energy within it, and the material body can then develop, without the presence of the spiritual spark, there is no development for a material body.
 
Top