[RD] Your Body is Only a Shell: Naive or Truthful?
- Thread starter Synobun
- Start date
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
This is a very interesting thread. i don't usually comment in off-topic forum discussions, but this one got me. My "day job" is as an anthropologist studying virtual worlds. The anthropological vocabulary used around the issue raised in the opening post has two key terms - "embodiment" and "habitus".
Looking at embodiment for a moment points up one way in which this is not a binary (either/or) question. "You hurt me! You broke my arm!" If someone said that most of the time we wouldn't even pause to think about the implications. Yet that simple statement contains both identification of self with the body and distinction of self from the body. Once the question of how intertwined are my body and my sense of self is made explicit then there is a whole range of issues to address. All of which bear on the initial question. Here's just one example of how profound the question is:
If I get a blood transfusion is that blood then part of my body and therefore part of me/mine? How about a transplanted organ? If I have a permanent cochlear implant to aid my hearing is that part of my body and therefore me/mine? How about a prosthetic such as an artificial limb? Is a wheel chair a prosthetic in the same sense? What about an automobile? On first thought my hair and my fingers are equally part of my body. But getting a haircut and getting a finger cut off affect my sense of self quite differently.
It's smeared out along the spectrum - and not everyone will put the smear in the same place within their mental model - but somewhere in there is a shift from "me" to "not-me". There is also a shift from "my body" to "not my body". And those two shifts don't necessarily happen in exactly the same place.
Habitus is a much more difficult term to explain simply. Habitus has to do with the way that outside forces determine how we are allowed to express ourselves through our bodies, and how our bodies determine our sense of self. There are plenty of movies around that use the body-swap motif for comic effect. But there are also real-life situations in which wearing different clothes,changing postures, gestures, etc. are critically important. For example, when i lived in another country I began to dress, walk, talk and so on like the people who were born there - more and more as time went on. To the extent that people from my own country did not recognize me as one of them and would try to talk to me in a "foreign" language that was awkward for them, and were shocked when I fell back into the habitus of my homeland - revealing me as "one of us". I say I changed habitus because my posture, gestures, tone of voice all changed, not just the switching speech back to my first language. But it's much deeper than that. How we walk and talk is affected profoundly by how we were indoctrinated by parents and others - from before we we were born in many cases. Our sense of self is being molded at the same time, by the same people, through the same experiences. Most of that indoctrination we are no longer aware of. We don't usually stop to think "who am I if i wear this shirt?" or "am I truly chewing this food as my innermost myself, or because this is how I was taught an -------- chews?" If innate posture, vocal expression, and a thousand other things I'm not aware of influence how I experience myself as being in the world, and those things were imposed on me by other people's sense of what the proper way for my body to be is, then to what extent is my body me? When my body is in some way an imposed constraint on myself over which I have no control is it still me? Or is my body a prosthetic I'm more or less permanently attached to?
No easy answers to those questions.
Both embodiment and habitus touch on the issue of "presence" as well. Most of us are comfortable talking with someone who isn't in the room - maybe isn't even on the same continent. Someone we are in a skype call with has a presence the room, but are they present? We are not many years at all (probably less than 5 according to engineers I've talked to) away from remotely operated presences that are visually a lot more like full bodies than like claws on the end of a crane. People already experience vertigo in a virtual environment when they lose a sense of connection to their body because in effect they have two bodies in two separate locations and they are not sure where "they" are. When being "here" and "there" simultaneously is as common for more or less full embodiment as it is now for conversation all sorts of perspectives will change, some overtly and some more subtly. And it's not such a far step from there to putting the "body as shell" question in the context of a culture in which we can change bodies thoroughly and for an extended period of time if not permanently.
"You look different" is what we say when someone dyes their hair or grows a beard. We still think of it as the same person. But what about when it's a whole different body? Unless it's a perfectly identical clone a different body = a different habitus. Can it even be the same self in a different body? If it's not the same self, then what was it that got transferred? If it is the same self, but a different body, and we still say "you hurt me" when someone breaks our arms then what does that mean about self/body ?
I don't know specific detailed answers to these questions. I'm not sure there is one singularly correct answer. On a personal level there are times when my sense of self and my body are quite isomorphic if not perfectly identical, but there are other times when they are very distinct, but still overlapping.
Looking at embodiment for a moment points up one way in which this is not a binary (either/or) question. "You hurt me! You broke my arm!" If someone said that most of the time we wouldn't even pause to think about the implications. Yet that simple statement contains both identification of self with the body and distinction of self from the body. Once the question of how intertwined are my body and my sense of self is made explicit then there is a whole range of issues to address. All of which bear on the initial question. Here's just one example of how profound the question is:
If I get a blood transfusion is that blood then part of my body and therefore part of me/mine? How about a transplanted organ? If I have a permanent cochlear implant to aid my hearing is that part of my body and therefore me/mine? How about a prosthetic such as an artificial limb? Is a wheel chair a prosthetic in the same sense? What about an automobile? On first thought my hair and my fingers are equally part of my body. But getting a haircut and getting a finger cut off affect my sense of self quite differently.
It's smeared out along the spectrum - and not everyone will put the smear in the same place within their mental model - but somewhere in there is a shift from "me" to "not-me". There is also a shift from "my body" to "not my body". And those two shifts don't necessarily happen in exactly the same place.
Habitus is a much more difficult term to explain simply. Habitus has to do with the way that outside forces determine how we are allowed to express ourselves through our bodies, and how our bodies determine our sense of self. There are plenty of movies around that use the body-swap motif for comic effect. But there are also real-life situations in which wearing different clothes,changing postures, gestures, etc. are critically important. For example, when i lived in another country I began to dress, walk, talk and so on like the people who were born there - more and more as time went on. To the extent that people from my own country did not recognize me as one of them and would try to talk to me in a "foreign" language that was awkward for them, and were shocked when I fell back into the habitus of my homeland - revealing me as "one of us". I say I changed habitus because my posture, gestures, tone of voice all changed, not just the switching speech back to my first language. But it's much deeper than that. How we walk and talk is affected profoundly by how we were indoctrinated by parents and others - from before we we were born in many cases. Our sense of self is being molded at the same time, by the same people, through the same experiences. Most of that indoctrination we are no longer aware of. We don't usually stop to think "who am I if i wear this shirt?" or "am I truly chewing this food as my innermost myself, or because this is how I was taught an -------- chews?" If innate posture, vocal expression, and a thousand other things I'm not aware of influence how I experience myself as being in the world, and those things were imposed on me by other people's sense of what the proper way for my body to be is, then to what extent is my body me? When my body is in some way an imposed constraint on myself over which I have no control is it still me? Or is my body a prosthetic I'm more or less permanently attached to?
No easy answers to those questions.
Both embodiment and habitus touch on the issue of "presence" as well. Most of us are comfortable talking with someone who isn't in the room - maybe isn't even on the same continent. Someone we are in a skype call with has a presence the room, but are they present? We are not many years at all (probably less than 5 according to engineers I've talked to) away from remotely operated presences that are visually a lot more like full bodies than like claws on the end of a crane. People already experience vertigo in a virtual environment when they lose a sense of connection to their body because in effect they have two bodies in two separate locations and they are not sure where "they" are. When being "here" and "there" simultaneously is as common for more or less full embodiment as it is now for conversation all sorts of perspectives will change, some overtly and some more subtly. And it's not such a far step from there to putting the "body as shell" question in the context of a culture in which we can change bodies thoroughly and for an extended period of time if not permanently.
"You look different" is what we say when someone dyes their hair or grows a beard. We still think of it as the same person. But what about when it's a whole different body? Unless it's a perfectly identical clone a different body = a different habitus. Can it even be the same self in a different body? If it's not the same self, then what was it that got transferred? If it is the same self, but a different body, and we still say "you hurt me" when someone breaks our arms then what does that mean about self/body ?
I don't know specific detailed answers to these questions. I'm not sure there is one singularly correct answer. On a personal level there are times when my sense of self and my body are quite isomorphic if not perfectly identical, but there are other times when they are very distinct, but still overlapping.
Last edited:
Narz
keeping it real
Technically incorrect, all experience is within our head.
That said, the head cannot be separated from the body, the nervous system, digestive, respiratory, etc.
So in other words, I agree with your basic sentiment.
It's a nice idea to think our brains are radios that "play" our souls but there's no evidence supporting that & all points to the contrary.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
I would disagree with you on technical grounds. Experience is much more than those conscious perceptions which are susceptible to ratiocination and contemplation. The CNS is much more than the brain. For example, kinaesthetic impressions of and response to the environment occur outside the brain. Ask any fighter pilot if the total experience is in their head. Or learn how to participate in a Mensur. Or just hold your hand in a candle flame.
Narz
keeping it real
If the nerves in my hand aren't connected to my brain I could hold my hand over a candle flame all I wanted to (although it'd be smarter to go see a doctor instead)
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
IMO these are just examples of the dynamic nature of existence. We are constantly shedding cells, growing new ones, things in our bodies are changing, and like you said in some cases we lose hair, fingers, get implants, our body parts are replaced with other ones, etc. In some cases people even lose a part of their brain.
Is it possible to find something in the universe that is fully static and doesn't change over time? I would say cool something down to absolute zero, but I don't think that's even possible. So any way you look at it our universe is full of things that are constantly changing and never stay still.
With that in mind I think it makes sense to decide to name things even though they are constantly changing to varying degrees. And one of those things just happens to be "me". I am different every day, but I am the same person in terms of what I self-identify as. Yesterday I was warpus and today I am warpus too, even though my brain chemistry might have changed, I might have had some experiences which changed me, or I might have even lost a leg.
That seems like the only way forward. We can either decide to name things even though they are always changing, or.. just not name anything. But that would suck, so we say "me" even though "me" keeps changing
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
This is the crux of your post and I want to know more about this.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
It is difficult to explain. They hold themselves in a way that lacks reservation. They're extremely expressive, the sort to dance while they do things around the house, to be able to essentially speak through facial expressions alone. There's no apprehension in their actions. There is no awkwardness, hesitance, or lack of coordination to any physical act they commit.
Which by itself isn't contrary to their viewpoint (confidence doesn't mean you think the body is important), but the way they conduct themselves fits within the image of what I would describe as conventionally attractive. Someone who knows their body, knows how to use it, and moves with a natural grace that draws you in. They don't cover up, they don't restrain their actions. Their behaviour seems designed for maximizing their physical appeal yet they hold a view that physical appeal is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, even when I was healthy, my physical behaviour was always restrained. I'm very deliberate in how I move with little fluidity. My facial expressions are nigh-nonexistent. The popular 'nickname' for me in school was "robot". Based on behaviours alone, I fit the model for "the body doesn't matter" far more than they do. It makes me wonder if its their uncaring that allows them to possess the confidence that allows them to act the way they do, or if there's something else at play.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I find their description of their actions not in accordance to their actions (that's not an shell, that's an expressed integrated bodymind), while I find your description/frame to be a better description. Meanwhile, their bodies are acting in accordance to their mind, whereas you say yours does not, which is a funny reversal. I too recognize expressing oneself bodily, be it in a subtle stoic way or a dramatic way, to be a piece of the conventionally-attractive mosaic.
Unless this "friend" of OP's has found a way to actually transcend this "mere" shell of his/hers and become an pure psionic(?) being, I'm saying bull.
People saying "body doesn't matter" need to be reminded humility by coming down with a nice case of flu.
Let's see how great their mental powers work when they're down with headache, stomach cramps/diarrhea and one nostril congested, another running like a faucet.
No need to go into anything severe even.
People saying "body doesn't matter" need to be reminded humility by coming down with a nice case of flu.
Let's see how great their mental powers work when they're down with headache, stomach cramps/diarrhea and one nostril congested, another running like a faucet.
No need to go into anything severe even.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Yes the health of the body is of very importance to the brain. The brain need energy which it get from the body. The quality and quantity of this energy is naturally important. We all actually live in a virtual reality as the reality we experience is created in the brain with the help of the senses. Damage the brain and you effect the reality. Damage the body may damage the brain.
Attractiveness is only of importance because people make it important.
If you are in reality A but live in reality B you kind of have the radio thing going on.
Attractiveness is only of importance because people make it important.
In what way would that be nice? I mean if you can influence everything about the brain is that not nicer in many ways? It is funny however that the radio idea may actually be correct or atleast in the future it may be then we can make new realities as "real" as our own.
If you are in reality A but live in reality B you kind of have the radio thing going on.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, and a consequence of 1500 million years of evolution too
Obviously bodily health matters. Iirc Heraklitos likened bodily pain to some locomotion on a spider's web which immediately attracts the spider to it and she has to deal with that first of all.
Moreover, yes, if you are physically ill, you can't really perform mentally as you would when healthy. Pain is somewhat difficult to dismiss.
That said, there are people who are far more introverted than others. The mental world itself can and often does become by far the most important one for such people.
Moreover, yes, if you are physically ill, you can't really perform mentally as you would when healthy. Pain is somewhat difficult to dismiss.
That said, there are people who are far more introverted than others. The mental world itself can and often does become by far the most important one for such people.
civver_764
Deity
If your body is a shell how come you can't take it off?
civver_764
Deity
Hmm I didn't think about that. I've never had one of those experiences so I'm not sure.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Then there's the whole being dead experience. Opinions differ on that one.
I can't say I've ever been dead myself. But who knows? Maybe I am dead now and just don't know it.
I've never found this whole shell business satisfactory.
That's just my opinion, though, and maybe we're like those Russian dolls and we're all shells within shells ad infinitum.
I can't say I've ever been dead myself. But who knows? Maybe I am dead now and just don't know it.
I've never found this whole shell business satisfactory.
That's just my opinion, though, and maybe we're like those Russian dolls and we're all shells within shells ad infinitum.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Maybe we're all just brains in vats that pretend we are brains in bodies, because we felt naked being brains in vats.
Anyway. Out of body experiences (as in "Seeing reality, but from a different perspective") likely aren't real, and just a form of false memory that add together bits and pieces of information that we've gathered in a state of low consciousness.
Anyway. Out of body experiences (as in "Seeing reality, but from a different perspective") likely aren't real, and just a form of false memory that add together bits and pieces of information that we've gathered in a state of low consciousness.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I've had a few out of body experiences, they aren't memories they are experiences that happen when they happen.
Similar threads
