abstractcolor asked: I just meant to propose some counter-examples for your ideas, to test/refine them. There are cases where the body(/machine) exists but the mind(/self) doesn't, and therefore the mind and body are not synonymous, is what I meant to suggest. I could be wrong, if you meant within the definition of body that the parts are all functioning together in the way that we call being alive, in the way to generate the high-level abstraction of mind. But we call some things bodies that are not like this.

Interesting. I liked that last sentence, but can you give a more concrete example? I’m thinking of something like a person in a coma or otherwise disabled… Is that what you mean? But I think this is more of a consciousness issue.

I’m guessing you’re referring to the first and last “answers”, about the malleability of a body that once seemed a concrete figure purposefully made, and against Descartes’ dualism & the soul.

When I say body, I imagine a collection of ordered atoms which have connected in such a way that they become a macroscopic (from our view) thing, functioning. The thing we call mind or soul or what have you, recently, we’re finding to be more of a manifestation due to those ordered atoms recognizing their own being… Rather than something separate from them, some non-physical magical thing.

Anyway I appreciate it, though my answers/ideas were not to be solid and incontestable — just directions to explore as I continue this project; starting points for work.

blog comments powered by Disqus