NationStates Jolt Archive


Bodiless Existence: Y/N?

New Watenho
15-10-2005, 14:07
So, do you think a person can exist without a body? There's various problems to both points of view on the issue, which I'd outline if A) I had time and B) it wouldn't be much more fun let everyone work their way through them :)

Back in a few hours.

P.S. This isn't the no-brainer materialists and/or religious folks might perceive it to be. I'm intending to make people question some assumptions here ;) Also, it'd be nice if people could be polite? Please?
Krakatao
15-10-2005, 14:12
So, do you think a person can exist without a body? There's various problems to both points of view on the issue, which I'd outline if A) I had time and B) it wouldn't be much more fun let everyone work their way through them :)

Back in a few hours.

P.S. This isn't the no-brainer materialists and/or religious folks might perceive it to be. I'm intending to make people question some assumptions here ;) Also, it'd be nice if people could be polite? Please?
On this issue I am materialist, so it is a no brainer. But it would be nice to have the mind move about invisible.
Willamena
15-10-2005, 14:42
So, do you think a person can exist without a body? There's various problems to both points of view on the issue, which I'd outline if A) I had time and B) it wouldn't be much more fun let everyone work their way through them :)

Back in a few hours.

P.S. This isn't the no-brainer materialists and/or religious folks might perceive it to be. I'm intending to make people question some assumptions here ;) Also, it'd be nice if people could be polite? Please?
No, I think the body is utterly necessary, that the 'person' or consciousness is a product of the biological body.

(And I am not a materialist.)
New Watenho
15-10-2005, 16:36
On this issue I am materialist, so it is a no brainer. But it would be nice to have the mind move about invisible.

Ah, you see, "body" is a bit more wide-ranging than that. If the "mind" has a presence, a place in space, is that not a physical presence?
Kanabia
15-10-2005, 16:53
It would be nice, but I doubt it.
Drunk commies deleted
15-10-2005, 17:22
I don't think that a mind can exist independant of a brain. We know that altering the brain alters the personality and the ability to perform certain functions like understanding and using language. To me this means that what we call the mind is like a computer program running in the brain. Without the computer the program doesn't run.
PasturePastry
15-10-2005, 17:51
The question is not so much about if bodiless existence is possible, but whether bodiless existence is meaningful. Adding to Drunk Commies Deleted's idea about a computer program, it's entirely possible to sit down with a pad of paper and write out the code for a program, but without a computer to run the program, it's not very useful.

So, yes, it's possible to have a bodiless existence, but is it possible to have a meaningful bodiless existence? No.
Uber Awesome
15-10-2005, 18:48
I put "no" because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a noncorporeal part to a person. That's not to say it's incompatible with materialism, but it would probably require the discover of a new kind of matter.
Willamena
15-10-2005, 20:14
I put "no" because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a noncorporeal part to a person. That's not to say it's incompatible with materialism, but it would probably require the discover of a new kind of matter.
But if it's matter, then it's not incorporeal.
Kanlemor
15-10-2005, 20:22
Definitely. The "body" is just part of the means the conscious soul - a person - uses to interact with its reality. If the soul began to interact with a different reality - after the body's death, for instance - that no longer involved a body, it would no longer need one.
Drunk commies deleted
15-10-2005, 20:37
Definitely. The "body" is just part of the means the conscious soul - a person - uses to interact with its reality. If the soul began to interact with a different reality - after the body's death, for instance - that no longer involved a body, it would no longer need one.
If the body is just part of the means by which the "soul" interacts with it's reality, what's the other part(s)?
Cheese penguins
15-10-2005, 20:48
No, I think the body is utterly necessary, that the 'person' or consciousness is a product of the biological body.

(And I am not a materialist.)
i agree 100% with this persons views on this! i belive that it would not be possible as you come as a whole adn nowt less.
Call to power
15-10-2005, 20:50
I hope we can't live without the body because being a ghost would be terrible (very boring)
Kanlemor
15-10-2005, 21:30
If the body is just part of the means by which the "soul" interacts with it's reality, what's the other part(s)?

The intention and value invested in things, elevating materials to a spiritual level, where they acquire a moral importance.
Willamena
15-10-2005, 21:42
The intention and value invested in things, elevating materials to a spiritual level, where they acquire a moral importance.
Intention and value invested in things are means by which the "soul" interacts with its reality?

Do you realise that doesn't actually mean anything?
Drunk commies deleted
15-10-2005, 22:15
Intention and value invested in things are means by which the "soul" interacts with its reality?

Do you realise that doesn't actually mean anything?
Yeah, what she ^ said.