The Metaphysical Body

[Vajradhara]

just an aside...


CD ROMS are not magnetic media, they are optical media, which is why they are read with lasers.

in relation to the OP... Blue, do you consider consciousness to the same as "mind" and, if so, do you consider consciousness to be an epiphenomena of matter?

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

just an aside...


CD ROMS are not magnetic media, they are optical media, which is why they are read with lasers.

Ah yes, of course you're correct! I'm aware of this so I don't know why I said that. Maybe showing my age haha. Well anyway, the point stands but thanks for the correction.

[Blue]

Thankyou for the excellent questions, Enkidu:

"So, my question is, does a physical body explanation cover all situations that would arise within a medical or physiological situation?

Also, how does the mainstream physical body explanation cover the issue of phantom limbs? [I'm sure you know what this term refers to, but for the avoidance of doubt, people with missing limbs, due to e.g. amputation, often report sensations of feeling the limb still attached to their bodies; this often causes significant physical distress to the person].

Now, just to be absolutely clear, I don't think DT Strain's idea here addresses these issues necessarily, however I think it can be useful to throw around different ideas about how things could be structured (from a philosophical perspective) because sometimes it may just be the trigger that allows someone somewhere the 'eureka!' moment when they suddenly complete a pattern and solve a problem.
===========
The answer, I think, to the first point is affirmative. I have not seen or heard of any evidence to the contrary, which is replicable under controlled conditions.
The cited experiment re: the artificial hand, etc., simply employs 'misdirection', as we call it... a technique exploited by magicians and conjurors, too.
The question of 'phantom limb' phenomena has perfectly reasonable neurological explanation... as I think you may know.
ref: DTStrain... regarding your final comment quoted above, I agree again.

I just think he is somewhat confused concerning his point, which I certainly don't follow at all well to be honest.

I could see some sense in what he says philosophically, for the sake of a discussion that might lead somewhere, but when it comes to what is actually observable and amenable to evidence and maybe objective validation, he seems to go off-centre, if you know what I mean?

"Metaphysical body" posited in the Thread title seems to me to lead nowhere - to no particular purpose - embodying as it does a contradiction, in my opinion. That which is not objectively physical linked to a physical concept like 'body' seems to me only to express, from his own words, a desire to recognise that mental processes can be translated into actions and we can be considered to have a 'sphere of influence' over others and objects in general through behaviours.... that hardly seems worth saying!

[Blue]

DTStrain said: do you consider consciousness to the same as "mind" and, if so, do you consider consciousness to be an epiphenomena of matter?
=======
An epiphenomenom of anything is a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it.... so -yes.

Consciousness as I think you use the word is relatively easily defined in terms of human beings.
When awake and they can respond to external stimuli for themselves they are conscious. When they are unconscious, they are either dead or incapable of responding knowingly to exterior stimuli. A reflex response does not prove consciousness... only that a reflex has operated. They may physically respond to internal stimuli during dream sleep, of course, but that is another matter.

'mind' is much more difficult.... do you desire some neurological/biological/psychological explanation, or something else?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste blue,

thank you for the post.

actually, DTSTrain didn't pose this query to you.

An epiphenomenom of anything is a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it.... so -yes.

ah.. ok... then this is where we disagree. fair enough, it's always beneficial, in my view, to have a fairly accurate understanding of the concepts both speakers are using when engaged in an interfaith dialog.

Consciousness as I think you use the word is relatively easily defined in terms of human beings.

hmm... perhaps we are using a different understanding of the term... let's see...

When awake and they can respond to external stimuli for themselves they are conscious. When they are unconscious, they are either dead or incapable of responding knowingly to exterior stimuli. A reflex response does not prove consciousness... only that a reflex has operated. They may physically respond to internal stimuli during dream sleep, of course, but that is another matter.

'mind' is much more difficult.... do you desire some neurological/biological/psychological explanation, or something else?

oh, yes, we are using different understandings of the same term which is probably due to our different ontological world views. we do not draw a distinction between "mind" and "consciousness" except in a lingusitic sense in our understanding of this phenomena.

naturally, physical reflexes are not indicative of consciousness or are they an indicator of a lack thereof. reflexes are a different thing altogether, in our view, and are part of the physical system of the body.

would you say that you have a Cartesian view of consciousness?

[DT Strain]

Blue,

What do you think of the term "nation" or "company"? Are these terms useless and not worth saying? After all, we know that a nation is a collection of people with a certain sort of relationship to each other, so why have the term or the concept?

To continue this analogy, you would be saying, "Where is this nation you speak of? What proof do you have that there are nations?" When I reply that this is simply the name for a set of relationships, not an "entity" that exists out there that can be proven to exist, you would be responding, "If it's just relationships between individuals pitching in money to build things and defending one another and passing laws, then why even make up a term?"

I hope this analogy helps to illustrate how identifying concepts of relationships of parts can be useful. This is why I think, when we think of the relationship of our decision-making faculties to the matter around us (both in our ability to affect it and detect it), that it may be useful to focus on this concept in some contexts, and that having a name for it would then also be useful (i.e. the metaphysical body).

[Blue]

Vajradhara,

Thanks for the comments.

Re: Conscious/ness -

If one has an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts, we can be said to be 'conscious'. We are mentally perceptive or alert; we are awake.
We are capable of thought, will, or perception.
If we intentionally conceive of or do something, we can claim to be acting consciously and deliberately.
If we are inwardly attentive or sensible and mindful. we are being 'conscious'.

Consciousness is therefore a state of being which is the opposite of dead, inactive.

Consciousness is therefore an attribute of life itself.

Human beings specifically, but other animals too, have the faculty of self-regard. It is fairly safe to assume a lump of rock doesn't.

Any distinctions drawn, in my opinion, are determined by all the above. An human being which is brain dead.... in not 'conscious'.
==========
DTStrain,

I do not see the relelvance of your comments about 'nation' and 'company'. You use the terms and define them very well.

I also agree with the thesis that understanding of parts is as important as understanding 'wholes'... the gestalts.

I do not see either of these as explaining a term like 'metaphysical body' or your previous comments about that term.

[Blue]

DTStrain,

Is it not the case that the 'metaphysical' is that which is of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses? (Something that could even be described as super - natural?)
Even in common usage it is a term to indicate something which is highly abstract or abstruse... Or at the least, theoretical.

BODY on the other hand, as you have used, it seems to refer to an actual 'body'... not some affectively conceived entity; a physicially conceived objectivity.

Is that not a contradiction in your linking of the two words?

It is to me, and all our exchanges seem to hinge upon this contradiction.

A body-individual, -social or -politic, is similarly capable of objective and clear definition.

Extended influences over others through actions and language is hardly 'metaphysical'. Even sensing another's possible innermost feelings is not evidence of a 'metaphysical body'.
There is no evidence that I know of to substantiate a claim for a 'metaphysical body'.
It only exists as an aspect of your metaphysical conceptualisations throughout this thread, which is fine perhaps, but not pertinent as things seem to be in actuality.
-------
The concepts of 'nation' or 'company' are amenable to objective considerations and analysis.... they are NOT metaphysical, as your discussion below illustrated very well.

[DT Strain]

Blue,

That seems to be where the confusion here lies. No, it is not the case that "metaphysical" refers only to "transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses". This is a misperception some may have though, and probably why you don't see how my descriptions of "company" and "nation" are relevant. Not only are they relevant to my concept of the metaphysical body, not only are they analogous, but they are the same exact type of concept.

All of this about, relating to the supernatural, the definition of metaphysical, and my use of these words, I took great care to explain thoroughly in the very first post on this thread. Please read the "disclaimer" section at the beginning of this threads first post.

After doing so, see the following from Merriam-Webster online. It is definition #3 which I am using. Some people are unaware and think of only #2, but this is only one subcategory of what would fall under the definition. So, yes, companies and nations are metaphysical abstracts - they cannot be placed on a scale or observed directly like a physical object.

-------------------------------------------
Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : SUPERNATURAL
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL
4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery
- meta·phys·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

[Blue]

Exactly my point, DTS.

Good to see an American dictionary agreeing with me and ours over here.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Blue,

thank you for the post.

sorry for the delay.. i've been considering what you've written. is that odd for online dialog?

Originally Posted by Blue

Vajradhara,

Thanks for the comments.

Re: Conscious/ness -

If one has an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts, we can be said to be 'conscious'. We are mentally perceptive or alert; we are awake.
We are capable of thought, will, or perception.
If we intentionally conceive of or do something, we can claim to be acting consciously and deliberately.
If we are inwardly attentive or sensible and mindful. we are being 'conscious'.

fair enough. what is it that perceives these sensations of thought or perceptions? if a being is blind, do photons still strike it's retinas? can it really said to be "seeing" at that time?

i may not be understanding what you are saying, so i'd like to sum up if i may. please correct me where i've misunderstood.

it seems that you are thus far defining consciousness in terms of actions or sensations, by analogy perhaps? this seems rather like inference, correct? rather than the subject.

Consciousness is therefore a state of being which is the opposite of dead, inactive.

however, when one is inactive, one is not, necessarily, dead. would you say that a being that is asleep is "unconscious"? if that is so, how about the different dream states? are they levels or forms of un-consciousness?

Consciousness is therefore an attribute of life itself.

this seems to be a logical fallacy that you have comitted, which is known as Modus Ponens, Affirming the Consequent :
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

i do not see either of these as explaining a term like 'metaphysical body' or your previous comments about that term.

i realize that this bit was directed to DT STrain, i hope that you will not mind my comment.

as i somehow didn't quite post correctly before (i'm looking forward to the server move) here is how the dictonary defined "metaphyics"

Main Entry: meta·phys·ic
Pronunciation: "me-t&-'fi-zik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English metaphesyk, from Medieval Latin metaphysica
1 a : METAPHYSICS b : a particular system of metaphysics
2 : the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHY 3b
- metaphysic adjective

i think that the "metaphysical" body is using a definition of #2, in the sense of an underlying principle or system. in the Buddhist context, there are a few varying views.. one of which seems quite popular is of the chakra system. perhaps you've heard of this?

in any case, our word for this isn't really "metaphysics" it's "Abidharma" so it sounds a bit strange to hear it translated as metaphysics.. but.. that's what English uses.. so there you have it

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by Blue

Exactly my point, DTS.

Good to see an American dictionary agreeing with me and ours over here.

So you agree that definition #3 shows that companies and nations are metaphysical abstracts? If so, then you can see why I use the term metaphysical regarding my concept of relationships of matter surrounding us to our decision-making.