[RD] Your Body is Only a Shell: Naive or Truthful?

[Ryika]

Tell me more.

 

[Hygro]

Mostly:
middle of the night, wake up into sleep paralysis, try to figure out how to move, try to roll off my bed, succeed in rolling of my bed, only to find i am now floating around for a bit, and after a short stint of floating around my room I zoop back into my body and everything feels really tingly and warm.

 

[Ryika]

Sounds to me like you were dreaming.

 

[Hygro]

Dreams in that state tend to be super vivid, yeah. Still, it's its own experience.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If your body is a shell how come you can't take it off?

There's an inherent claim here, which is false. By no means is this a fault on your part, because it is such a common thing that I'd say everyone makes this claim unconsciously on a regular basis except for people who make it consciously, but it is always false.

The claim is "I know what death is."

I distinguish the meatbag from the thoughtbag, and from the self. I experience them as distinct parts of an integrated whole. But I do not claim to know that that whole has to remain integrated for the various parts to exist. Death may be exactly the "taking off the shell (body)" that your question presumes can't be done.

The most frightening thing in human existence is that life and death remain inexplicable. We avoid facing that so consistently that statements and positions based on such assumptions about what it is of isn't are commonplace, because they are comforting in their implication of knowledge. I find that it is far more comforting to recognize that while it is inexplicable that just means it is unknown, and there is nothing absolutely bad about the unknown.

 

[Blue Monkey]

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". ... 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

You said much more clearly what I was trying to express with that long-winded set of questions. Rather than a simple dichotomy with a hard boundary I think of most conceptual distinctions as frontiers where things over lap, blend, syncretize ...

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.

Again, much better description of embodiment and - more importantly - habitus. Rather than "nigh-nonexistent" I'd say subtle. Or perhaps just different enough from the expectations of your community (yourself included) that they aren't consciously noticed. Whether introverted or extroverted, both kinds of people are aware of their bodies and expressing themselves physically.

Speaking of "brains in vats" and "Russian dolls", any one else aware of the work of Richard L. Thompson?

 

[Blue Monkey]

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)

I'm not clear on how that specific hypothetical obviates the general experience of kinaesthesia beyond conscious control by the brain.

 

[RomanKing]

You cannot separate the body from the mind. The mind is the body and vice versa.

Viewing the body and mind as two separate entities is largely a cultural thing.

 

[Narz]

I'm not clear on how that specific hypothetical obviates the general experience of kinaesthesia beyond conscious control by the brain.

Conscious control is only a small part of the brain.

 

[Borachio]

There's an inherent claim here, which is false. By no means is this a fault on your part, because it is such a common thing that I'd say everyone makes this claim unconsciously on a regular basis except for people who make it consciously, but it is always false.

The claim is "I know what death is."

I distinguish the meatbag from the thoughtbag, and from the self. I experience them as distinct parts of an integrated whole. But I do not claim to know that that whole has to remain integrated for the various parts to exist. Death may be exactly the "taking off the shell (body)" that your question presumes can't be done.

The most frightening thing in human existence is that life and death remain inexplicable. We avoid facing that so consistently that statements and positions based on such assumptions about what it is of isn't are commonplace, because they are comforting in their implication of knowledge. I find that it is far more comforting to recognize that while it is inexplicable that just means it is unknown, and there is nothing absolutely bad about the unknown.

What we fear above all, I think, is uncertainty. We'd often rather be wrong, but certain, than just plain uncertain.

I think this is only natural, though. Being certain makes life easier. The issue at stake is safely tucked away in a little box and if we ever need the answer we can just take it out and look at it.

Being uncertain is a lot, lot harder and time consuming.

I've spent (or wasted) much of my life speculating about life and death (and other things). I still don't know anything much about either (or anything else). It may be that I'm better off not knowing. Though I'm hardly likely to stop now.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Conscious control is only a small part of the brain.

The brain is only a very small part of consciousness.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think this is only natural, though. Being certain makes life easier. The issue at stake is safely tucked away in a little box and if we ever need the answer we can just take it out and look at it.

Problem is that the only access to certainty regarding death is dying. Any other "being certain" is a false comfort. The real comfort can only come from acknowledging the uncertainty and being okay with it.

 

[warpus]

The brain is only a very small part of consciousness.

Isn't it the other way around? Your consciousness is only a very small part of the brain?

 

[Borachio]

Problem is that the only access to certainty regarding death is dying. Any other "being certain" is a false comfort. The real comfort can only come from acknowledging the uncertainty and being okay with it.

But maybe death won't bring any certainty either. If, as seems likely (though far from certain) from what we do know about life, death involves the complete ending of consciousness then we won't know anything about it. Without knowledge there can be no certainty.

And what, after all, is wrong with a little comfort? Even if it's false.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But maybe death won't bring any certainty either. If, as seems likely (though far from certain) from what we do know about life, death involves the complete ending of consciousness then we won't know anything about it. Without knowledge there can be no certainty.

And what, after all, is wrong with a little comfort? Even if it's false.

"Maybe death won't bring any certainty" is definitely part of the uncertainty. Maybe it won't.

The idea that it "seems likely" that death involves the complete ending of consciousness is part of the false comfort. I can say "it seems likely" that the fourth planet of a star in Cygnus is habitable, but it is pretty obvious that I have not the faintest idea on the subject and just made that up...or heard it and decided to grasp it like a life preserver. What happens upon death is totally unknown. In that total void of information nothing "seems" any more likely than anything else. We just grab these ideas to beat back the darkness of uncertainty.

 

[Kyriakos]

The twenty headed flying hydra tends to eat most of people who die, and chances are that means you as well.

 

[Borachio]

"Maybe death won't bring any certainty" is definitely part of the uncertainty. Maybe it won't.

The idea that it "seems likely" that death involves the complete ending of consciousness is part of the false comfort. I can say "it seems likely" that the fourth planet of a star in Cygnus is habitable, but it is pretty obvious that I have not the faintest idea on the subject and just made that up...or heard it and decided to grasp it like a life preserver. What happens upon death is totally unknown. In that total void of information nothing "seems" any more likely than anything else. We just grab these ideas to beat back the darkness of uncertainty.

There is much in what you say.

But I disagree that the likelihood of the fourth planet of Cygnus being habitable is directly comparable with the likelihood of the ending of consciousness on death.

There is much that is similar between death and unconscious sleep, for example. Indeed sleep has been known in some cultures as the "little death".

And again, there is much that is similar between death and birth (or at least conception). We, at least most of us, have no memory of anything before birth (or conception), so it's not a large leap from supposing that there (given that we don't remember anything) is nothing before conception to supposing that there is nothing after death. (Even if there is something and we don't remember it, I suggest that that is tantamount to there being nothing.)

Now, I do agree we really don't know anything for certain about either before birth or after death. But there again we really don't know anything for certain about life. Or about anything at all.

I'm not sure this gets us anywhere, though.

(And when I say "us" and "we", I'm specifically excluding those of us who claim that they do know - I'm sure they'd agree to be excluded. For all I know, they may really know something.)

You see, your line perhaps is that we're just uncertain about it all. My line might be that we can't even be certain that we're uncertain.

And yet, all of this tells us nothing about what the subjective experience of dying might turn out to be like. There's a whole different argument to be had there, imo.

 

[warpus]

What happens upon death is totally unknown. In that total void of information nothing "seems" any more likely than anything else. We just grab these ideas to beat back the darkness of uncertainty.

I mean, we've observed, analyzed, and studied millions (if not billions) of human deaths, and a lot more deaths of other species. We have a pretty decent idea of what happens when you die.

I agree that there could be something there we have not yet uncovered. But at least for now there is no reason to think so. We don't have any data that suggests that. So it makes a lot more sense to go with our current understanding of death.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I mean, we've observed, analyzed, and studied millions (if not billions) of human deaths, and a lot more deaths of other species. We have a pretty decent idea of what happens when you die.

Rather it is we know what happen when you die. But the big but is that you don't know what happen when you die

 

[warpus]

I mean it's easy enough to run a test to see what happens when you die..

The reason most people aren't stupid enough to do a test like that is because we pretty much know what happens when you die. You case to be. You're no mo. You're a dead bird. etc.