At the beginning of the internet in the 1980s (mass access anyway) I had started an online persona. It was as though I was a no more than the digital bits. The possibility was that the physical body was of little consequence.
Living online from the 90s my wellbeing deteriorated. Dislocated, I felt lost and insubstantial.
It was during this time that I began to truly ask who or what I am. Is it my body and/or my mind that is the real me? Or is it neither?
Trying all options, I have, by process of elimination, narrowed it down to this — the body plays a huge part as to who and what I am.
The mind supervenes to the body. No body, no mind. No mind, dead body. The mind does not go somewhere at death. It ceases to exist. More accurately, when the physical process ends, being alive ends. The implication is that what we call a mind does not exist as such but is a process of an object, this particular object, the body.
There was an experiment once that tried to observe the change of weight at death as the soul leaves, effectively trying to give the soul a quantitative number. As expected no change was observed. It is like the weight of an appliance with and without the power on.
Some argue that our ability to measure this is simply not sensitive enough. Or it could be it just isn’t there. Given the evidence, the body is more real than the mind. And the mind needs the body to exist.
I play a game of tennis. I do not think a game of tennis.
signature103 
I’m serious. I saw something in your posts. I think we are very similar of what we are taking about. But are coming from two orientations.
LikeLike
I guess my understanding of Being is Being. It is a founding term, as I describe in the PH.
Becuase Being is the truth from which things proceed, it is only noticeable by that which surround it, like a black hole. That’s why I speak of teleological notice. Ontology appears to me a necessarily ideological or religious, necessarily concerning “belief”. And the basis of having a belief of choice. Hence again why I discern between reality and truth.
But. But I also say that I am not Being exclusive in this philosophy, I am not making an argument. I am not saying “other people believe in religion. And it is an incorrect manner of understanding being”. I say that belief and choice occur in reality and is the manner though which Beings arise.
I agree with the idea of ‘no static’. But that’s also why I have issue with finding a brain ground of mind: Becuase such a idea is assuming there is a static basis to be able to know of truly. Even to say everything is always changing. Hence, my non exclusive description of the situation. As opposed to an argumentative stance.
LikeLike
I agree for the most part.
But I find the tendency towards “be” problematic. In that it may come from a notion that “be” exists.
In our previous talk months ago, I pointed out that “is” is not a state. States do not exist. They only exist in conception. The static state reduces things to the unchanging, which does not exist.
So this comes back to ontology, of what exists and what does not. You may say we cannot know this, and suspend on judgement. But a fear of guessing is an impasse where nothing is solved. That is like Waiting for Godot. Or like Bad faith. Inaction because of not knowing how to proceed is suffering. Inaction as a choice because it is wise not to do so brings about solutions, solutions relevant to the moment but perhaps not to a later time. That is the relentless march of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That anecdote is cool and along those lines I think my philosophy as it has to do with real things concerns more about what the mind is and what it does.
I don’t mean to say “what it is“ as a question as to what its foundation is, say for example a plant foundation is earth. More I ask what mind is in itself like what is that plant.
Where the plant comes from or where it grows is not so much my concern. That concern has to do with our other discussion on the other thread post of yours or mine or whatever it was. Lol
And so far as what the mind is and what the mind does I tend to say that there is a reason and there is emotion. So far as the mind is part of the body. I’m not concerned with the chicken or the egg problem. I am more concerned with what the chicken is and what the egg is and then how they relate to each other.
Some people would say that either reason dominates or emotion dominates, but I tend to think about things in the sense of what reason is and what emotion is and how they relate to each other. Again, I’m not concerned about power or what people might argue or what might be self evident in various situations as to which is present or which is functioning more.
Personally I think to say that one or the other dominates is possibly formed around and ideological, or what I tend to put in the category of religion, position. I would say that we understand as either reason dominating or emotion dominating and that it’s better to be rational is a reflection of our current ideological paradigm.
I ponder if the idea that reason is leveling out someone who is otherwise too emotional, say, too irrational, is merely a way of denying the influence of the emotion at all times. Which is to say, even when people think they are their most rational, their decisions are based upon an irrational emotion that is merely being denied.
That is just a theory of mind as it goes to the possibility of how society could be so screwed up when everyone you would talk to you would have a solution for how it should be less fucked up, and yet all these people have these great ideas about how to go about having a world that is less fucked up really just contribute to the world being more fucked up.
😁
LikeLiked by 1 person