DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
Submitted for your opinion:
(note: just FYI, this is all written from a naturalistic/materialist perspective, without inclusion of the supernatural or traditional duality. Ideas of souls and such would definitely affect these points.)
What is us and what is not us?
Personhood:
The thing that we ethically value is our minds. This is what we think of as "us". This is distinct from the brain in that it is the function of the brain. So, a "person" could be said to be a pattern of information, resulting from the activity of the brain. A mind is not physical, but not supernatural either. Rather, it is the name of a process, like "democracy" or "socialism". Neither of these can be held in the hand as physical objects, but they describe patterns of interaction. A "person" is a pattern of interacting data (memories, beliefs, perceptions). This pattern plays out through the hardware of the brain, although that is incidental.
The biological body
Certainly if I lose a hand, an organ, etc. I as a person am still intact. If I lose parts of my brain then my personhood will be effected, but only insofar as the loss of brain tissue does not allow the information to flow in the same patterns, so even my brain is not me. But still, we can't help but consider that "I" am contained within my skin. Even though we know our body is not our personhood, we feel as though our body is part of us.
Where does our body end?
Why should we draw the line of "I" at our skin's edge? There seems to be two elements here: what we can move, and what we can perceive.
Moving
As for what we can move, certainly I can move my arms and my fingers by my decision, which sends a physical signal down to them. This signal is a physical chain reaction due to the physical properties of my nerves and muscles. But, what about that pen on my desk? I can move that too. What about my car? My decisions can set off chain reactions that cause it to move as well.
Perceiving
Perhaps our body is more us than other surroundings because we can feel with it. I can feel if something touches my finger but if something touches my pen I can't. But feeling is just one of our five senses. The fact is, that I can detect if something touches my finger, and I can also detect if something touches my pen. Does it matter if I use one sense (touch) in the former case and another sense (sight) in the latter?
Is the biological body arbitrary?
So, we are capable of both perception and motivation of things in our environment, whether they be part of our biological body or not. And, just as within our skin, all motivation and perception alike is caused by the reactions of physical matter to one another.
The true body
Isn't it, then, arbitrary to consider our biological bodies as the limit of "me"? Perhaps the only "me" is my personhood and all else is just environment. In that sense, my real body is not necessarily the edge of my biological skin, but my actual body is a dynamic thing made up of the physical matter around me, which extends and contracts into different regions of the world according to the extent to which I can detect and control.
Therefore our minds (personhood) are constantly trying to extend the "body". When I ask my friend to do something for me over the telephone a thousand miles away, then I have extended my true body a thousand miles because I have, through my will, changed the physical universe in that local. When I ask later whether or not it was done, I have sent out a signal and received feedback, as a means of perceiving, just as my fingers perceive touch.
What do you think of the "true body" concept?
Thanks
(note: just FYI, this is all written from a naturalistic/materialist perspective, without inclusion of the supernatural or traditional duality. Ideas of souls and such would definitely affect these points.)
What is us and what is not us?
Personhood:
The thing that we ethically value is our minds. This is what we think of as "us". This is distinct from the brain in that it is the function of the brain. So, a "person" could be said to be a pattern of information, resulting from the activity of the brain. A mind is not physical, but not supernatural either. Rather, it is the name of a process, like "democracy" or "socialism". Neither of these can be held in the hand as physical objects, but they describe patterns of interaction. A "person" is a pattern of interacting data (memories, beliefs, perceptions). This pattern plays out through the hardware of the brain, although that is incidental.
The biological body
Certainly if I lose a hand, an organ, etc. I as a person am still intact. If I lose parts of my brain then my personhood will be effected, but only insofar as the loss of brain tissue does not allow the information to flow in the same patterns, so even my brain is not me. But still, we can't help but consider that "I" am contained within my skin. Even though we know our body is not our personhood, we feel as though our body is part of us.
Where does our body end?
Why should we draw the line of "I" at our skin's edge? There seems to be two elements here: what we can move, and what we can perceive.
Moving
As for what we can move, certainly I can move my arms and my fingers by my decision, which sends a physical signal down to them. This signal is a physical chain reaction due to the physical properties of my nerves and muscles. But, what about that pen on my desk? I can move that too. What about my car? My decisions can set off chain reactions that cause it to move as well.
Perceiving
Perhaps our body is more us than other surroundings because we can feel with it. I can feel if something touches my finger but if something touches my pen I can't. But feeling is just one of our five senses. The fact is, that I can detect if something touches my finger, and I can also detect if something touches my pen. Does it matter if I use one sense (touch) in the former case and another sense (sight) in the latter?
Is the biological body arbitrary?
So, we are capable of both perception and motivation of things in our environment, whether they be part of our biological body or not. And, just as within our skin, all motivation and perception alike is caused by the reactions of physical matter to one another.
The true body
Isn't it, then, arbitrary to consider our biological bodies as the limit of "me"? Perhaps the only "me" is my personhood and all else is just environment. In that sense, my real body is not necessarily the edge of my biological skin, but my actual body is a dynamic thing made up of the physical matter around me, which extends and contracts into different regions of the world according to the extent to which I can detect and control.
Therefore our minds (personhood) are constantly trying to extend the "body". When I ask my friend to do something for me over the telephone a thousand miles away, then I have extended my true body a thousand miles because I have, through my will, changed the physical universe in that local. When I ask later whether or not it was done, I have sent out a signal and received feedback, as a means of perceiving, just as my fingers perceive touch.
What do you think of the "true body" concept?
Thanks