Am I the body?

[an anarchist]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

If you never had an out of body experience(s), then perhaps this question seems silly. But even if you have not had out of body experiences, I reckon you can wrap your head around the question anyways... you guys are smart.

I have had out of body experiences over the years. Used to chase them. Gonna pick up the chase again one day, but I've taken a couple years off to recover presently.

My point is, I know (imo) that I am not the body. Do I have physicality truly, or is it an illusion? I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

What am "I"? I suspect many have intuitively felt or experienced that they are not the body, hence the prevalence of a belief in a "soul" in most religions.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

 

[an anarchist]

I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

Well, now I'm thinking upon it harder... upon losing my physical nature, I was conscious, yes, but the "I" was me and "god" combined.... such a thing is called ego death. Being one with the universe/god and stuff. So in a way, upon losing the physical nature, perhaps I lost my individuality? Therefore the body is truly an "I"? I am not sure.

I was an amatuer psychonaut, my conclusions remain unclear to me.

 

[Eddi]

I believe that I am some kind of enduring soul

It's a shame such ideas are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry!

But that doesn't mean they don't exist....

I believe in some kind of dualism

 

[Nakosis]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

If you never had an out of body experience(s), then perhaps this question seems silly. But even if you have not had out of body experiences, I reckon you can wrap your head around the question anyways... you guys are smart.

I have had out of body experiences over the years. Used to chase them. Gonna pick up the chase again one day, but I've taken a couple years off to recover presently.

My point is, I know (imo) that I am not the body. Do I have physicality truly, or is it an illusion? I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

What am "I"? I suspect many have intuitively felt or experienced that they are not the body, hence the prevalence of a belief in a "soul" in most religions.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

Well, I see myself as the brain. We never really get to see ourselves. So you kind of know your are not physically the body. You are something else. However since we never see our self, the brain, we don't usually identify as such.

The actual self is never seen so it is easy to begin to see one's self as immaterial.

 

[an anarchist]

It's a shame such ideas are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry!

Is it though? I wonder...

Scientific inquiry = what we can observe. More specifically, what we can measure.

An individual can observe themselves leaving the body, but can such an experience be measured and recorded? I guess not.

Yea your probably right, for now at least.

 

[Eddi]

I like the term "meat suit"

That is how I see my body

I hate my body

I also like the term "the ghost in the machine"

When I did my degree we went over Hume (or is it Hulme? IDK LOL) and he had views about this issue that were interesting

 

[PureX]

I suspect we all know that we are not our body.

However, because our bodies are what everyone else sees of us, and are what they are responding to much of the time, we tend to become a bit 'traumatized' by the collective weight of those experiences, to the point when those experiences do begin to 'define' us, even within ourselves.

Also, It's probably important to note, and maybe to keep in mind, that our bio-mechanics do very often dictate how we think and feel a lot of the time. Such that our bodies "are us" in that sense. Although we can learn to gain a significant degree of control over that influence if we are willing to work at it.

 

[Eddi]

Also, in Sociology called "embodiment" which is basically the sociology of human bodies, I think it is an interesting issue

It covers the relationship between the self and the body

 

[Kathryn]

It is interesting to me how our brains and bodies work together. For instance, when I broke my right elbow very badly (spent five days in the hospital) I would have told you then as I'm telling you now - I am a better person because of that injury to my body. By "person," I mean, my brain or soul or whatever you want to call it. My inner being is a better person because of the physical pain in my body that I endured.

 

[Alien826]

Is it though? I wonder...

Scientific inquiry = what we can observe. More specifically, what we can measure.

An individual can observe themselves leaving the body, but can such an experience be measured and recorded? I guess not.

Yea your probably right, for now at least.

I wouldn't say it was beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry. Take NDEs (Near Death Experiences) as an example. People claim to have experienced themselves floating in mid air and observing themselves on operating tables and so on. A fairly simple test would involve determining if they obtained information that was accurate and could not have been obtained in any other way. We have to be very careful about how this test is framed, but I don't see why it can't be done.

What would it mean though if the test showed that accurate information was obtained? First, it wouldn't be evidence for survival after death as the very fact that they are reporting it shows that they were not permanently dead. It would however suggest that even an unconscious brain has some way to be aware of its surroundings, and that would be a pretty big deal imo.

 

[osgart]

Well there's substantive content to the inner experience. It's not just passing emotions; here and gone. There's inner characteristics that don't just come and go. It seems that people operate on their understandings, and perceptions rooted in those characteristics. If it could all be explained with physical jargon then we would be nothing but chemical reactions which really doesn't explain anything about qualities and characteristics of self. Constancy and identity is apart of the inner experience regardless of whether I regard such things as existing.

 

[Eddi]

When my grandmother was in her deathbed she said she could see everyone in the room as though she had exited her body

I should have said "how many fingers am I holding up then?" but that did not occur to me at the time and would have been inappropriate anyway

 

[ChristineM]

I am I
You are You

Body and brain are symbiotic, one is useless without the other

 

[SeekingBalance]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

If you never had an out of body experience(s), then perhaps this question seems silly. But even if you have not had out of body experiences, I reckon you can wrap your head around the question anyways... you guys are smart.

I have had out of body experiences over the years. Used to chase them. Gonna pick up the chase again one day, but I've taken a couple years off to recover presently.

My point is, I know (imo) that I am not the body. Do I have physicality truly, or is it an illusion? I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

What am "I"? I suspect many have intuitively felt or experienced that they are not the body, hence the prevalence of a belief in a "soul" in most religions.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

The world you see is a simulation happening in your brain with the inputs being your past experiences built by one's imperfect senses. An out-of-body experience is not you leaving your body it's your brain rendering the reality simulation in your head from a varying vantage point.

As to what you are would be up to you. The definition you have now might seem solid but it has most likely evolved and changed throughout your life. Maybe it hasn't and you've had the same belief your entire life as to what you are but the illusion is all reality. Your reality will be different from everyone else's because of the unique way you have grown into the world and built the simulation based on your senses and experiences. This delves into free will which I don't think exists either. I was listening to a podcast recently and it featured a study where the degree to which one believes in free will strongly correlates with their correspondence bias. One example they gave is you may be stuck behind this driver and it is driving you crazy, why can't they speed up, why can't they perform some action to fix the problem you are having versus someone on the opposite end of the spectrum who is unbothered because they know that person has no choice in what they're doing. (And perhaps they add reasons to explain and quell their agitation like: this might be their last day they will get to ride the road because perhaps they are dying tomorrow or perhaps they are in tears coming home from a funeral.)

However, this is not a free will argument but in the same way, I think the I we all think we are is forever changing and is nothing but an illusion created for the sake of evolutionary survival. It's odd because well-known scientists of various stripes have argued that there is no need for a subjective "I", whether it's an illusion or not yet we all know what we mean when we talk about "I" even if we don't know why it got there.

I hope all is well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

It depends on your perspective. For most people, "I" points to the body/mind complex.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

In my true nature, I am not the body; I am not the mind. I don't see a distinction between you and me.

 

[Soandso]

Will you continue to be you if you have a stroke or a traumatic brain injury that fundamentally changes who you are as a person to the point where you would be unrecognizable?

Would retaining one's memories or not after such an event contribute to whether or not you were the same person?

 

[Heyo]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

If you never had an out of body experience(s), then perhaps this question seems silly. But even if you have not had out of body experiences, I reckon you can wrap your head around the question anyways... you guys are smart.

I have had out of body experiences over the years. Used to chase them. Gonna pick up the chase again one day, but I've taken a couple years off to recover presently.

My point is, I know (imo) that I am not the body. Do I have physicality truly, or is it an illusion? I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

What am "I"? I suspect many have intuitively felt or experienced that they are not the body, hence the prevalence of a belief in a "soul" in most religions.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

When is a VW Beetle still a VW Beetle? Does it become something else when I switch the ICE Boxer engine for an electric one? Does it become something else if I change the form to look more like a Golf?

I don't believe in a "soul", but if I could "upload" my mind onto a computer, would I still be the same "I"?
Would you still be the same person if you lost all your memories? What can you take away or replace so that you still recognize yourself?
Answer that question, and you'll know more about yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Am "I" the mortal body that people recognize as "me". Or am "I" instead possessing a sack of flesh and bone, which is separate from "me" ?

If you never had an out of body experience(s), then perhaps this question seems silly. But even if you have not had out of body experiences, I reckon you can wrap your head around the question anyways... you guys are smart.

I have had out of body experiences over the years. Used to chase them. Gonna pick up the chase again one day, but I've taken a couple years off to recover presently.

My point is, I know (imo) that I am not the body. Do I have physicality truly, or is it an illusion? I am not sure, but I do know that I (and others) have the capacity to overcome and exceed our physical nature and still be "I".

What am "I"? I suspect many have intuitively felt or experienced that they are not the body, hence the prevalence of a belief in a "soul" in most religions.

Well... what say you? What are you? What defines "you" and "me" as "you" and "me"?

I am an expression of God/Universe/Existence, but so too is a Galaxy, Star, Planet, Man, Bird, Insect, Flower, Rock, Molecule, Atom, Electron, EM Wave, Dark Matter, Dark Energy/Quantum Vaccuum.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Body and sensual world could just be content of the mind. Some went even further and doubt there is "I" that is thinking. This means that the only certain thing is that thinking is occurring.

 

[Quintessence]

Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Body and sensual world could just be content of the mind. Some went even further and doubt there is "I" that is thinking. This means that the only certain thing is that thinking is occurring.

I've always had a special place of hate in my heart for that guy. Dude has it completely backwards.

Esitis, ergo sum - you are, therefore I am. There is no "I" without an environment and all the interdependent relationships we have to non-human (and human) others. That guy's perspective is very symptomatic of the egocentric, individualistic orientation of Western philosophy. As opposed to more ecocentric, collectivistic orientations of indigenous religions and also of Eastern philosophy. It was an Eastern philosopher that introduced me to the significantly more sagacous "estis, ergo sum."

There is no "I" without "other."