Your last sentence reveals that they are not “one in the same” at all rather one just depends on the other. Kind of like a parasite.
I am saying one is the consequence of the other, not that they have a separate host-parasite relationship, although that is an interesting analogy.
One being a consequence of another doesn’t mean they are “one in the same” at all, as a consequential view requires distinction.
But the inseparable and dependent phenomena of “mind” is just a result of the amount and organization of our grey matter. It is not a separate entity, it is simply a result of our bodies (specifically brains) existing.
A result, an effect, a consequence… all demand a cause, so there clearly is a distinction between the two saying they are “one in the same” is analgous to saying there is no difference between a bullet and pain. As the pain wouldn’t exist without the bullet, yet there obviously is a distinction.
I would say the distinction between body and mind is more analogous to lead and bullet, or marble and Michaelangelo’s david, or iron and engine block. Consequential, but also the same thing.
If I own my blood and hair, for example, it’s an ownership exactly like owning a hat. It’s not a metaphor for “individual sovereignty”.
Well that just completely misses the point and gets the the ideas cause/effect wrong. Lead/Bullet isn’t cause and effect.
I agree with BP in the sense that self-ownership isn’t very meaningful. I own myself, but I am myself? So if I am myself, then why state it another way by saying that I am own myself? See the problem? It doesn’t add new information, nor does it justify any conclusions prefaced on it. I’m not against the general claims of self-ownership, but they can be justified without it quite easily. In the case of one’s labor, you are free to use your time as you wish; to labor for others or yourself or not at all. Free in the sense that you alone can will the in/action.
No other can magically slip behind the mental steering wheel that is your consciousness and change your actions. Furthermore, as BP pointed out, this conception of a mind/body duality doesn’t make any sense either as you are your body or at least in another sense your will/consciousness can be extracted from it; they’re some how irreversibly linked (by biology, obviously, but lets suppose there can be other ways to link the two). Thus, no one can extract your mind from your body and put another in its place (as even the brain doesn’t necessarily come to mean your mind).
Anyways, I think the question itself is quite silly. Property is justified on the grounds that it is part of the process of living in the general sense. That if a human cannot be assured that his/her labor cannot be secured in some fashion as a good (property) in the world or a service in exchange for that labor, then that human has no reason to continue to labor or even exist. Simply put, in absence of property a human becomes an animal that cannot live. As labor is the only means which all animals (conscious of it or not) sustain their existence (for whatever purpose/intent or design).
I thought of a better way to explain. The relationship of mind and body can be thought of using Roderick Long’s concept of constitutive means. The body is the constitutive means to the mind. If you want cause and effect, how about cause:neurons firing effect:phenomena of contemplative consciousness.
Good one ladyattis. Of course, we can begin to debate the existence of a soul, but I don’t think that would fly very far on this forum.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the body being a means to an end, your endorsement does illustrate my point about a cause/effect distinction. Glad your coming around.
LOL, OK man, if you say so. For your next trick you should prove to me how eggs, flour, water, milk, and sugar when baked into a cake are separate from said cake.
But at some point, there is only so much of yourself you can sell without being a “self” anymore. I’m not saying that every cell in your current body is required to sustain the mind, but I’m saying you can only pare away so much before the mind goes away.
Obviously, points are difficult for you to grasp. As the mind and body aren’t baked together (remember cause → effect) the mind is a product of the body, [it is simply a result of our bodies (specifically brains) existing] which doesn’t cease to be after the creation of the mind (directly contrasting the cake) and can even be separated again (coma victim). Try using apt analogies next time, or maintaining some consistency.
Isn’t what I underlined an identity and recognition of ownership? I mean I never thought it to be more complicated than a simple assertion of identity. Ownership answers: Who’s it is? And to say I am mine as opposed to a slave masters assertion, ‘No. You are mine.’ Or another example, for somebody to point at me when talking to another person and say, “That’s him over there.” Isn’t that all ownership is doing? Identify.
agreed.
No? Please tell me at what point the mind enters the brain.
LOL, where does the mind go after it’s been “separated”?
So all the cake ingredients cease to be when they are combined and baked for a while? Have you ever heard the first law of thermodynamics?
weigh me out a cupful of “mind”, would you?
I’ve been thinking, as my arch-nemesis, it would be great if you had an avatar to go along. Might I suggest:
Why would I do that?
The egg enters the batter. The mind doesn’t enter the body.
Who cares? the body still exists, so the two are clearly separable. The mind would probably just cease to be once separated, given it isn’t matter it doesn’t have to go anywhere.
Are you purposefully interpreting things foolishly? I didn’t say the matter was destroyed, the individual properties of the ingredients merge to form a cake.
Are you purposefully interpreting things foolishly? Who said it was material?
This goes to show what a ridiculous construct the mind really is. Do you honestly believe that something inseparable can be separated. This is like talking of light being separated from a lightbulb when the filament breaks. In a coma victim, the “hardware” (brain), is simply incapable of the phenomena (mind).
Right. They are the constitutive means to the cake, much how the hefty brain of a human is the constitutive means of the contemplative mind.
No, I am attempting to interpret a foolish proposition. Garbage in, garbage out.
Sigh. No, they’re not the same thing. There is a difference between saying “this belongs to me” and “this is me”. Identity is a matter of what something simply is in and of itself. Ownership doesn’t identify what something is, it identifies who something belongs to. You seem to be conflating two distinct senses of the term “property”: (1) the property of an object in terms of identifying traits and (2) a relationality between a person and an object designating possession.
In the case of “the self”, this is the difference between “I exist as an entity with conciousness and willpower” and “I am possessed by an entity with conciousness and willpower” (in the case of the typical self-ownership arguments, this implies an internal dualism between what is possessed and the entity that does the possessing). The attempt to pass off the 2nd statement (an assertion of possession) as if it is the same thing as the 1st statement (an assertion of identity) is untenable.