Ourcellves? (Identity)

by romansh , Wednesday, April 09, 2014, 04:36 (3664 days ago) @ dhw

I don't seem to be able to get my point across. You have taken "we ARE our cells" right out of its context, and nowhere did I offer such a dualist response. I am following through the logic of a particular materialist hypothesis, which began: "IF (very large capitals) we accept the materialist argument that the brain and mind are synonymous, we ARE our cells." I am not putting a case for materialism, dualism or a homunculus. I am pointing out that IF we ARE our cells (materialist view), it is illogical to claim that our cells control us because our cells and us are the same thing. Therefore we control ourselves. -You offer a dualist position here ... "we" do not have control over them, but they control "us".-You have limited "us" to "our cells" ... so therefore our cells control us, ie we control our selves by definition. Having got that out of the way this is a dualist/pluralist position. For someone with a monistic world view the self does not end at some arbitrary boundary defined into existence ... such our cells.-> You force me to labour the point. If the materials ARE me, it is the materials that say XYZ are mine. There is no homunculus, there is no soul or spirit, but only materials. Since you like equations, the equation is cells = me, at all their/its levels, from automatic processes through to thoughts and decisions. I am not defending any position, but simply following this one particular hypothesis through to its logical conclusion, as followsHW ... you labour the point unnecessarily. I accept we have bodies and that we feel ownership of them. I accept that we write laws that emphasise the ownership. I accept there is a whole bunch of stuff going on in what we have labelled as ours. -But you miss the point completely.-
> I agree there is no escaping the chain of cause and effect. I am merely pointing out that IF we ARE our cells. it is a false dichotomy to claim that "we" are controlled by our cells etc., etc. There are, however, ramifications in terms of cause and effect which I would like to discuss, but there is no point in doing so if this initial point is still not clear.-Again you miss the whole point of the argument DHW. I am not suggesting that we are (just) our cells. We are much more than that. Poetically speaking we are a reflection of the universe and the universe is a reflectiom of us.-This is captured in the Hindu concept of Indra's net.