Why a person cannot arise from matter

[learningphysics]

By person, I mean experiencing being (there is subjective experience). If a person literally comes to exist from matter, then there's no way to distinguish these two situations:

Situation 1
Person A arises from body A.
Person B arises from body B.

Situation 2
Person A arises from body B.
Person B arises from body A.

These two situations are actually the SAME if persons arise out of matter. But the two situations can be distinguished in reality. The person in body A, knows that the universe would be different if he was in body B, and the other guy was in body A. Perhaps the situation is indistinguishable to the outside world, but not to these two persons.

The contradiction above leads me to believe, that the person must exist independently of the body (by body I include brain). The body may determine a person's behavior and the content of his experience, but the person is not the body itself.

[StatusX]

by distinguishing between "person" and "body" you are presuming from the start that there is something besides the physical account. This may be true, but this argument is circular.

[Justinius]

The contradiction above leads me to believe, that the person must exist independently of the body (by body I include brain). The body may determine a person's behavior and the content of his experience, but the person is not the body itself.

The person can only exist out of matter once the body dies. This seems very theological, but the above quote seems to indicate a proof of a human existing both physically AND metaphysically. The physical part of it would be the body itself, and the metaphysical would be a concept that I've noticed has been carefully avoided in this thread: a soul.

The body is only something that lasts physically for so many years (ie. physical death). This proof seems to be logical, so it makes sense to ask where the soul goes after physical death.

[Tom Mattson]

Situation 1
Person A arises from body A.
Person B arises from body B.

Situation 2
Person A arises from body B.
Person B arises from body A.


Note that body A and body B must necessarily be subject to different physical conditions, as they cannot both occupy exactly the same location at the same time.


These two situations are actually the SAME if persons arise out of matter.

No, they aren't. In fact, according to the physicalist account, Situation 2 cannot happen, because only Person A can arise from body A, and similarly for B.

[learningphysics]

No, they aren't. In fact, according to the physicalist account, Situation 2 cannot happen, because only Person A can arise from body A, and similarly for B.

Hmmm... I don't understand this... Please note by person, I don't mean personality... I mean the raw experiencing being...

Is the functionalist account saying that associated with a particular body is a particular person and only that person can come out of it? If so, then there's template or a reference to a person, prior to arisal (this is my thesis/idea)... How else can the body determine, that this "particular person" will arise, as opposed to just "a person" will arise...

[learningphysics]

by distinguishing between "person" and "body" you are presuming from the start that there is something besides the physical account. This may be true, but this argument is circular.

Yes, I do make the distinction from the start... I apologize. I'll have to rethink, and reword what I'm trying to say. I think I might be able to reformulate without the use of "persons"...

[Tom Mattson]

Hmmm... I don't understand this... Please note by person, I don't mean personality... I mean the raw experiencing being...


OK fine, but according to the physicalist account there is nothing more to the raw experiencing being than the body. So I have to agree with StatusX here when he says that your argument is circular. That is, you attempt to prove that physicalism is false by assuming it is false.

[zubzy]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe the 'Person' is almost like a viewer of the 'Body'. By viewer I mean one who 'experiences' the body, or 'lives' through it. The 'Person' does not control, rather, the body does all the work.

The 'person' merely SPECTATES the 'body'.

Although you feel like you're in control of your own body, the body has a mind of its own. You do not 'steer' it. There is nothing you can do for what the body does. When you are told to do certain tasks, ONLY THE BRAIN responds to this. You spectate, or 'feel' the brain's thoughts.

Let's say we go back again to the start of the body's life. This time, instead of 'Person' spectating, we get 'Person #2.' Every single moment that 'Person #2' experiences or 'views' identically resembles that experienced by 'Person.'

When you say you control your hand moving up, down, or whatever part of the body, this is just the body doing it. When you read a book it is not really the person reading it, it's the body. The person is just placed in the body as a viewer.

It is kind of like watching a movie. 'Person' is the audience, and the movie is the 'body.' The person is powerless against all actions performed in the movie.
This is exactly the same for person+body, however, the difference between the two is that the person experiences everything with 100% intensity of what the body itself undergoes, unlike a movie where you only see+hear.

[RingoKid]

holographic projections from an unseen dimension onto a fabric of 4d spacetime...

...we each have a body/brain but share the same mind.

When we die, our mind stops vibrating in 4d but it it still vibrating someplace else. The body/brain remains in 4d as physical objects/accumulations of strings but...

Elvis has left the building.