Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

[Sgt. Pepper]

Pull the wool from over your eyes said he as he shun the light of God onto this forum .

Your 'friend'' is quite clearly narcistic and not even giving any counter argument . Saying somebody is incorrect without provided proof or logical counter argument is mediocre minded I am sorry to say .

You're entitled to your opinion about @The Hammer, but I know that you are mistaken.

And you can't control how other people respond to your posts. It's not up to you to decide whether their posts are off-topic or not.

Does ''I'm done'' in some way suppose to be meaningful or helpful ?

My notions are facts , they are the truth so help me God !

Your notions are nothing more than your personal opinion based on your beliefs. They are not definitive facts, as I demonstrated in my post (post #89). I also suggest that you review Rule 8 of the forum rules (see here), which applies to stating personal opinions as a definitive matter of fact.

 

[Alien826]

A man walks into a restaurant and behind the service counter is a monkey who wishes the man a good day and takes his order .
[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I've been to that restaurant. They wouldn't serve me because I wasn't hairy enough. When I protested they threw poo at me. I didn't go back.

You are somehow messing up the quote system. I don't know if you are inserting "/QUOTE" or what you are doing but it makes it difficult to reply. Just leave the quoted text as it appears in your reply and all will be well.

 

[Eddi]

Let us recap , words don't feel a thing . If you stump a toe , the words in the mind , you , don't feel the pain but experience the body is suffering . That is a piezoelectric thing but we have little need to discuss that in this thread .

You feel the pain but you also understand that pain with your mind, and this involves words and concepts

You experience the pain but conceptualise it with words. If you were to stump your toe you would feel the sensation of pain but understand this by thinking "owch, that hurts!" - therefore the experience of stumping your toe is both physical and mental

I don't see what your point is

Ok , let us try this , a man named Dave gets struck by lighting and forgets everything , does Dave exist anymore ?

That's an age-old question and can be answered in many ways

You could argue that he would and you could argue that he wouldn't......

Dave the human is gone , there is just the animal body left . The animal body was not dependent of Dave . Dave was a secondary existence formed within the animals mind .

I wouldn't put it like that

I'd say that Dave's personal identity would no longer be available to him

But when his family and friends looked at his body they would still see Dave

Also, he would still be just as intelligent as he was before, he'd just have no memories of before getting struck by lightening

Dave would be the same animal with the same mind, it's just that there wouldn't be any continuity with how he was in the past

You seem to be using the word "human" to refer to a person't identity, their ego, their sense of self

Personally, I think that people are their bodies as well as their minds too

The way I see it, people are both minds and bodies. You cannot have a mind without a body and you cannot have a body without a mind. They are different aspects of a person's humanity.

I think this is a much more sensible way to think about such things.

With the example of Dave, his body would still be living, but his memories and sense of self would be gone. But it would still be Dave. And he would still be conscious, and have the same abilities. So sorry but I'm not buying your angle on this.

Do you have a passport?

If you do, does it feature a picture of your body, or of your mind?

In Sociology there is a concept called "embodiment" which is the study of how people "inhabit" their bodies and make them their own, and how their personal identity is in part derived from their bodies. I suggest you look it up, it's interesting

I don't believe in the whole "ghost in a machine" thing, I think that together the body and the mind form a greater self

So Dave would still be Dave, he just would have no idea who he is or where he was

 

[jes-us]

You're entitled to your opinion about @The Hammer, but I know that you are mistaken.

And you can't control how other people respond to your posts. It's not up to you to decide whether their posts are off-topic or not.



Your notions are nothing more than your personal opinion based on your beliefs. They are not definitive facts, as I demonstrated in my post (post #89). I also suggest that you review Rule 8 of the forum rules (see here), which applies to stating personal opinions as a definitive matter of fact.

I have proved the facts several times and provided evidence but ok here is more evidence and proof .

A man named Dave has a labotomy , does Dave exist anymore ?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You feel the pain but you also understand that pain with your mind, and this involves words and concepts

You experience the pain but conceptualise it with words. If you were to stump your toe you would feel the sensation of pain but understand this by thinking "owch, that hurts!" - therefore the experience of stumping your toe is both physical and mental

I don't see what your point is

That's an age-old question and can be answered in many ways

You could argue that he would and you could argue that he wouldn't......


I wouldn't put it like that

I'd say that Dave's personal identity would no longer be available to him

But when his family and friends looked at his body they would still see Dave

Also, he would still be just as intelligent as he was before, he'd just have no memories of before getting struck by lightening

Dave would be the same animal with the same mind, it's just that there wouldn't be any continuity with how he was in the past

You seem to be using the word "human" to refer to a person't identity, their ego, their sense of self

Personally, I think that people are their bodies as well as their minds too

The way I see it, people are both minds and bodies. You cannot have a mind without a body and you cannot have a body without a mind. They are different aspects of a person's humanity.

I think this is a much more sensible way to think about such things.

With the example of Dave, his body would still be living, but his memories and sense of self would be gone. But it would still be Dave. And he would still be conscious, and have the same abilities. So sorry but I'm not buying your angle on this.

Do you have a passport?

If you do, does it feature a picture of your body, or of your mind?

In Sociology there is a concept called "embodiment" which is the study of how people "inhabit" their bodies and make them their own, and how their personal identity is in part derived from their bodies. I suggest you look it up, it's interesting

I don't believe in the whole "ghost in a machine" thing, I think that together the body and the mind form a greater self

So Dave would still be Dave, he just would have no idea who he is or where he was

Well said, Eddi.

 

[jes-us]

I'd say that Dave's personal identity would no longer be available to him

But when his family and friends looked at his body they would still see Dave

Yes they would still see Dave based on subjective logic and attachment but in realism Dave does not exist anymore . The family would be looking at the label on a suitcase that had no contents inside . How can Dave exist when it is an empty suitcase ? Objectively Dave is a word , the name on the inside of a folder that forms Dave . The word Dave would still exist in the families mind , that is why they still see Dave . I don't see Dave anymore , I see a body that is now without the formed humanity of Dave .

John is a nasty criminal , so we decide to labotomise John , by doing this we have killed John the nasty criminal , leaving an innocent live body behind . Do you agree?

 

[icehorse]

Yup, I think @icehorse needs to reevaluate their understanding of the situation.

Wait what? Is this a carry over from another thread?

 

[Eddi]

Yes they would still see Dave based on subjective logic and attachment but in realism Dave does not exist anymore . The family would be looking at the label on a suitcase that had no contents inside . How can Dave exist when it is an empty suitcase ? Objectively Dave is a word , the name on the inside of a folder that forms Dave . The word Dave would still exist in the families mind , that is why they still see Dave . I don't see Dave anymore , I see a body that is now without the formed humanity of Dave .

I think Dave would be a human being and that a human being consists of 1) a body and 2) a mind

Dave would have both of these, there would just be no mental continuity

But he would be just as intelligent as he was before

Imagine that before he got struck by lightening Dave wrote a book. And that some time after he got struck by lightening he wrote another book. Would those two books both have the same author?

I'd say that they would

If you want to say that a person's personal identity is only mental then that's fine. But personally I think that a person consists of both the body and the mind and in the case of Dave it is the person as a whole who is named "Dave", not just his mind

Girls Aloud have the right idea pay attention to their lyrics. A person is biology as well as a mind:

John is a nasty criminal , so we decide to labotomise John , by doing this we have killed John the nasty criminal , leaving an innocent live body behind . Do you agree?

You would indeed have "killed John the nasty criminal" but you wouldn't have killed John the man

You'd have just changed him

And how can a body be innocent if the mind arises out of its controls it makes it do something horrible, such as killing someone?

The idea of an innocent body makes no sense. A body is as innocent or guilty as the self of which it is a part

I think this is the most sensible way of looking at things.

 

[Jimmy]

Wait what? Is this a carry over from another thread?

Meant for other thread

 

[jes-us]

You would indeed have "killed John the nasty criminal" but you wouldn't have killed John the man

You'd have just changed him

And how can a body be innocent if the mind arises out of its controls it makes it do something horrible, such as killing someone?

The idea of an innocent body makes no sense. A body is as innocent or guilty as the self of which it is a part

I think this is the most sensible way of looking at things.

I am really enjoying our discussion because you do have some smarts .

Again you agree with me but don't see why yet .

Lets us stick with this for a moment because you are so close .

You agreed that a labotomy would of Killed John the nasty criminal and yes you do not kill the body . Try to understand that the body isn't really called Dave , Dave is an abstract identity of the body we called Dave .

Ok, so you have Daves body sitting next to you after the labotomy . When you ask him his name , what would his response be ? If you shouted him over , ''Dave come here'' , what response would he have ?

All bodies are innocent and are controlled by humans .

Before Johns labotomy , he killed 17 people , did John do that or his body ?

The reality is mind over matter , John ordered and controlled his body to do that .

Lets for argument sake say I am not human anymore , I have evolved to an advanced level , I am now Vulcan .

I explain to you that your definition of a human , is incorrect and you are basing your opinions on this rather than the advanced definition .

You associate a human as being Dave and the body , where the advanced version explains a human as a secondary existence formed within an animals body .


I have proved several times now that the body is independent of Dave etc but you still seem to be considering the separate things as one thing .

 

[Eddi]

Ok, so you have Daves body sitting next to you after the labotomy

I thought Dave got struck by lightening? Or did he have a lobotomy too?

All bodies are innocent and are controlled by humans .

They aren't though because they are a component of a human

It is the human as a whole who does guilty things

How could John kill people if he was just a disembodied mind????? You can't even have disembodied minds, because they arise from the brain.

You seem to not appreciate that a person's mind comes from their brain - and that a brain is a part of a body......

Again: A person is composed of both a body and a mind. It is the person who does things, not simply the body or the mind.

Before Johns labotomy , he killed 17 people , did John do that or his body ?

John the person killed seventeen people - his mind which is a product of his bodily brain directed the body to do the killing. A person's body is a part of the person in question. Therefore John the person did the killing. There would be no John without the body.

Again: A person is composed of both a body and a mind. It is the person who does things, not simply the body or the mind.

I'd like to see John try and kill someone without using his body, or without using his mind. Clearly he is a unified entity who consists of both a body and a mind.

The identity of "John" or "Dave" relates to the person as a whole, not simply the mind or the body.

Lets for argument sake say I am not human anymore , I have evolved to an advanced level , I am now Vulcan .

I explain to you that your definition of a human , is incorrect and you are basing your opinions on this rather than the advanced definition .

Just because a person who says something is intelligent doesn't mean that what they say is true... or intelligent....

A Vulcan would realise this

I have proved several times now that the body is independent of Dave etc but you still seem to be considering the separate things as one thing .

No you haven't

Dave is a person

He is neither a body or a mind

You can't have a mind without a body and you can't have a body without a mind unless you are in a vegetative state

A person can lose their memories and sense of identity but they still have the same mind, from the same brain, in the same body

After Dave got struck by lightening did he have to apply for a new passport? No. So there you go. Would his house and car still belong to him, and not to Richard or Emily? Yes, they would.

You've proved nothing.

 

[jes-us]

I thought Dave got struck by lightening? Or did he have a lobotomy too?

They aren't though because they are a component of a human

It is the human as a whole who does guilty things

How could John kill people if he was just a disembodied mind????? You can't even have disembodied minds, because they arise from the brain.

You seem to not appreciate that a person's mind comes from their brain - and that a brain is a part of a body......

Again: A person is composed of both a body and a mind. It is the person who does things, not simply the body or the mind.


John the person killed seventeen people - his mind which is a product of his bodily brain directed the body to do the killing. A person's body is a part of the person in question. Therefore John the person did the killing. There would be no John without the body.

Again: A person is composed of both a body and a mind. It is the person who does things, not simply the body or the mind.

I'd like to see John try and kill someone without using his body, or without using his mind. Clearly he is a unified entity who consists of both a body and a mind.

The identity of "John" or "Dave" relates to the person as a whole, not simply the mind or the body.

Just because a person who says something is intelligent doesn't mean that what they say is true... or intelligent....

A Vulcan would realise this

No you haven't

Dave is a person

He is neither a body or a mind

You can't have a mind without a body and you can't have a body without a mind unless you are in a vegetative state

A person can lose their memories and sense of identity but they still have the same mind, from the same brain, in the same body

After Dave got struck by lightening did he have to apply for a new passport? No. So there you go. Would his house and car still belong to him, and not to Richard or Emily? Yes, they would.

You've proved nothing.

Ok let me clarify something for you . Dave is a person , a person has to have a defining label . You are still not distinguishing the difference between people and a person .


In the beginning before humanity was formed there was people , these people were without a label , these people were not human because humanity is something that was formed over time . People became civilised via the formation of humans within them .
You are also making the mistake of mind and body , the mind is not independent of the body .

''You can't have a mind without a body and you can't have a body without a mind unless you are in a vegetative state''

Even in a vegetative state the body still has a mind , the brain .

However in a vegetative state the mind and body has no human existence anymore , we call this brain dead although it is actually just data dead .

 

[icehorse]

Meant for other thread

care to provide a bit more context?

 

[jes-us]

No, it would not make more sense. It does not make any sense, in any frame of reference.

Ok try this, I have two computers side by side , one has an empty hard drive and one has an operating system .

Does Windows exist on the empty hard drive ?

We have two people standing side by side

One is educated from birth , a formed ''data base'' and the other was brought up by wild apes .

Does the one brought up by the apes have a human mindset ?

 

[Jimmy]

care to provide a bit more context?

I commented same thing in Hamas must be eradicated thread

 

[Eddi]

In the beginning before humanity was formed there was people

I'm not sure what you're on about, what do you mean by "before humanity"?

Are you talking about cavemen?

I don't see how you can have humans without humanity

Are you saying cavemen weren't human????

Or do you mean the different species of human who preceded Homo Sapiens?

Please clarify

these people were without a label , these people were not human because humanity is something that was formed over time . People b

I'm pretty sure that the earliest of humans had a word for themselves

I'm pretty sure they had a concept of "human" that was different to their concept of "animal"

They were primitive, not stupid

I mean how stupid would you have to be to not know what species you were?

I mean even if you didn't know what a species was you'd still know that there are different types of living thing and that you yourself are one type, that your mother and father are also of that type, and that that big hairy four-legged creature over there is some other type of thing

Again, they were primitive, not stupid

Yes, humanity formed over time. But it would have existed from the same point from which humans existed

Please explain how you can have humans without humanity, that idea does not make sense

For instance they had social organisation. They'd have to have social organisation otherwise they'd have died out.

You are still not distinguishing the difference between people and a person .

"people" is the plural of "person"

Unless you have your own personal ideas about this. If so, please share. I'd be keen to hear them.

People became civilised via the formation of humans within them .
You are also making the mistake of mind and body , the mind is not independent of the body .

As people grow they become socialised into humanity, yes

And I know the mind is not independent of the body, I said that it cannot be separated from the body and that together with the body it constitutes an entire person, I have explicitly said that in almost those exact words

Any distinction between the mind and the body exists purely to help we humans make sense of ourselves, we made up the distinction ourselves

It is you who have been saying that mental things are somehow separate from an animal body, that they are "pathogens" who inhabit a host organism

Even in a vegetative state the body still has a mind , the brain .

No, a person in a vegetative state has no mental life

They have a brain but no consciousness or awareness

They are literally brain dead

 

[jes-us]

I'm not sure what you're on about, what do you mean by "before humanity"?

Are you talking about cavemen?

I don't see how you can have humans without humanity

Are you saying cavemen weren't human????

Or do you mean the different species of human who preceded Homo Sapiens?

Please clarify

I'm pretty sure that the earliest of humans had a word for themselves

I'm pretty sure they had a concept of "human" that was different to their concept of "animal"

They were primitive, not stupid

I mean how stupid would you have to be to not know what species you were?

I mean even if you didn't know what a species was you'd still know that there are different types of living thing and that you yourself are one type, that your mother and father are also of that type, and that that big hairy four-legged creature over there is some other type of thing

Again, they were primitive, not stupid

Yes, humanity formed over time. But it would have existed from the same point from which humans existed

Please explain how you can have humans without humanity, that idea does not make sense

For instance they had social organisation. They'd have to have social organisation otherwise they'd have died out.


"people" is the plural of "person"

Unless you have your own personal ideas about this. If so, please share. I'd be keen to hear them.


As people grow they become socialised into humanity, yes

And I know the mind is not independent of the body, I said that it cannot be separated from the body and that together with the body it constitutes an entire person, I have explicitly said that in almost those exact words

Any distinction between the mind and the body exists purely to help we humans make sense of ourselves, we made up the distinction ourselves

It is you who have been saying that mental things are somehow separate from an animal body, that they are "pathogens" who inhabit a host organism


No, a person in a vegetative state has no mental life

They have a brain but no consciousness or awareness

They are literally brain dead

In this sentence each word is formed after another word but before the first word existed no words . Before this sentences words were formed, existed an intelligent animal species that were without words to form a sentence . Before this sentence was formed, laws did not exist because there was no words to form laws . After all these sentences were formed the intelligent animal species created sets of laws and morals that created a secondary existence within the animals minds , called the human species , that were constructed of ''light' (Information) .

Now I hope that answers your questions and you finally understand .

Added- A boy asked his father , ''Father what are we made from'' ? The father replied , '' what are the words in your mind made of my son''? .

 

[Eddi]

Now I hope that answers your questions and you finally understand .

No, not really

You seem to be confusing conceptual thought and languages

My dog can understand things but there are no words in her head

That doesn't mean she doesn't understand things

Although she does actually know quite a few words but those are for commands and objects, not abstract things

Just because you don't have a word for something doesn't mean you don't have a concept of it and just because you don't have a concept for it doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist

Added- A boy asked his father , ''Father what are we made from'' ? The father replied , '' what are the words in your mind made of my son''? .

So words are purely abstract and don't relate to any real thing?

The father should have said "you are made from many things my son, some of those things we have words for, others we don't"

This would have been better and more straightforward

Especially as words aren't "made of" anything, they are spelt out with letters and are spoken by forming sounds but all they are are representations

If I had a red car then that car would actually be red, it wouldn't just be described as being "red", the word "red" would refer to the condition of being red, it would be red because it is red, not because people have applied the word "red" to it

The word is not the thing. To return to your example, the word "cat" isn't a cat, but it is the word humans use to think about and talk about cats

The cat isn't the word, the word is used to describe the cat

You seem to be no closer to adequately explaining "humans are not alive and don't feel anything" and I'm beginning to suspect that this is because you are unable to without falling into serious error

And you have a very strange and personal understanding of what language is and how it works that is at odds with how it is normally understood. This doesn't help.

 

[jes-us]

No, not really

You seem to be confusing conceptual thought and languages

My dog can understand things but there are no words in her head

That doesn't mean she doesn't understand things

Although she does actually know quite a few words but those are for commands and objects, not abstract things

Just because you don't have a word for something doesn't mean you don't have a concept of it and just because you don't have a concept for it doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist


So words are purely abstract and don't relate to any real thing?

The father should have said "you are made from many things my son, some of those things we have words for, others we don't"

This would have been better and more straightforward

Especially as words aren't "made of" anything, they are spelt out with letters and are spoken by forming sounds but all they are are representations

If I had a red car then that car would actually be red, it wouldn't just be described as being "red", the word "red" would refer to the condition of being red, it would be red because it is red, not because people have applied the word "red" to it

The word is not the thing. To return to your example, the word "cat" isn't a cat, but it is the word humans use to think about and talk about cats

The cat isn't the word, the word is used to describe the cat

You seem to be no closer to adequately explaining "humans are not alive and don't feel anything" and I'm beginning to suspect that this is because you are unable to without falling into serious error

And you have a very strange and personal understanding of what language is and how it works that is at odds with how it is normally understood. This doesn't help.

You seem to be trying to convince me I am incorrect instead of contemplated you are incorrect .

Let us take two empty boxes and place them side by side , we will label the box A and box B .

Let us now add every single word to box A but leave box B empty .

Box A contains the word human

There is no human in box B

You have to understand that no nationality in the world is human , an abstract word . You have to understand that the human label for each nationality is different , different nationalities are different types of humans based on their localised formation .

 

[Eddi]

Let us now add every single word to box A but leave box B empty .

How do you add a word to the box?

Do you write it down on a piece of paper?

What exactly do you mean?

What does the word represent?

Let us now add every single word to box A but leave box B empty .

Box A contains the word human

There is no human in box B

In your metaphor what do the boxes represent?

I'm not psychic and your metaphor seems overly extended and elaborate

Please explain all this box and word business

Either it's rubbish or you are doing a poor job at explaining it. Or both......

You have to understand that no nationality in the world is human , an abstract word .

So you believe that humanity does not objectively exist?

That is only an abstraction?

That's plainly ridiculous

You have to understand that the human label for each nationality is different , different nationalities are different types of humans based on their localised formation .

Yes, culture varies between nations. So what?

You seem to be trying to convince me I am incorrect i

You are doing a very good job of convincing me that YOU are incorrect. A most excellent job.

You have me convinced beyond all reasonable doubt

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you obviously have your eyes and ears closed to criticism

You have put forward a claim and you yourself have shown - in your own words - that you cannot substantiate that claim in any way that makes sense to any other human being

"Humans are not alive and don't feel anything" is false, it is obviously false and you have done nothing to change this, you have had plenty of opportunity but you have failed to do so

All you have provided is half-baked sophistry