Agreed, but that is irrelevant to the fact that some of my body is not a part of my mental self, yet my mental self still owns those body parts in a real sense.
I think I see what you’re saying. So the “minimum body” owns (in your opinion) the “non-minimum body”.
Don’t hyper-ventilate.[:P]
by identifying who something belongs to, you point it out. That “something” thereby has a reference point in space-time. It has identity - the who - that something belongs to. the word self-ownership seems trivial to me and it still doesn’t say ethically who’s that something belongs to. It’s trivial to me because it’s seems self-evident and unarguable. As to who justly owns anything that can be argued though.
I always think in terms of this proposition when I think of self-ownership. I don’t know why you insist that it has to do with the next proposition of yours:
–
i don’t know. seems like a whole lot of nothing really. I don’t know why it’s so critical that when I say that self-ownership is the first proposition, you come back and simply assert that no self-ownership implies the second proposition. Maybe I’m dense. I don’t rely on self-ownership to explain my economical nor political-ethical position, but for the sake of understanding what all the hub is about when it comes to this term is my purpose to hashing this out.
“Do you honestly believe that something inseparable can be separated.” Are you just affirming yourself or what?
“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).”
You are making the distinction for me once again. There is no light - there is no mind, yet the body still exists. (Although, the human body can continue functioning without a mind, and a light bulb cannot).
The ingredients chemically break down, unlike the Sonata they cannot be picked back out. However, the body can continue to be a body without the mind. Whether it can be “picked” out is a different story.
By completely missing points and throwing in non-sequitars. Clever.
It depends on what you mean by function. The light bulb is still “all there”, it can still be screwed in.
Why is whether mind can be “picked out” or not a different story? OK, well then use the sonata analogy instead. You can’t say, “I wish I could be cognizant of my thought process without all of these neurons firing” without being nonsensical.
Don’t care. If you want to say it is functioning by all means.
Because I was talking about a mere distinction between the mind and body, in the case of a cake there just isn’t any.
And? That doesn’t remove the distinction, as we’ve already gone over cause/effect, the point was that the body can still function without the mind, making the two distinct. (Also, you didn’t actually use the Sonata analogy, neurons misfiring again?)
Then you admit that nothing has actually been separated in the bulb (or the brain), is is just the arrangement of components that leads to a different result.
Well, why is there a distinction between mind and body, and cake and ingredients?
LOL [:P] If I was a neuro-surgeon, and I cut out enough of your brain to give you the mental capacity of a chimp, i.e. you were still highly functioning, but not self-conscious, you would say the body was functioning, but the mind was gone, right? So would it also be fair to say that the pieces of brain I extracted were the parts of the body that manifested the mind? They are ultimately inseparable. Even if you remove the majority of the body from the mind manifesting portion of the body, or if I caused them to be non-functioning via hammer, or car accident, the mind is inseperable, like attempting to extract the eggs out of a cake, or playing the moonlight sonata without playing any of the notes.
We’ve already made a cause/effect analogy. The effect is gone. Focusing on how it happens just misses the point entirely.
“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.”
“The ingredients chemically break down, unlike the Sonata they cannot be picked back out. However, the body can continue to be a body without the mind. Whether it can be “picked” out is a different story.”
What? You are proving my point about cause/effect again. You’ve altered my body in some manner (removed the cause) and thereby gotten rid of the mind (cause) - yet the (functioning) body still remains. Clearly, separable. Clearly, distinct.
I don’t see it that way, so I guess we’ve reached an impasse.
Looks like somebody’s neurons aren’t firing on all cylinders.
LOL