Tycho. Definitely Tycho.

The architecture of the human has been elusive because philosophy has gone through decay and rarely will we find philosophy and science residing in the same person.

At least during the Renaissance such people existed, but we know how history elapsed. By the time of Hume, down through Hegel to the present, philosophy resides with the swine just like the prodigal son.

Unlike cars, which we pick by how slick, how fast it can go, how many chicks you can attract, many humans pick their earth vehicle by the challenges it makes them overcome.

For therein lies the key reason for our being here. For being human.

To find joy in lack, meaning in bitterness and love in the depths of the deepest hate.

Part of the Body - Number of Joints

Skull 86
Throat and Neck 6
Thorax 66
Spine and Pelvis 76
Hands, Arms and Fingers 64
Legs, Feet and Toes 62

Let me begin by noting that our subject is not only an ancient one, but that it has never been met with consensus. Even among the thinkers who inform my thought a shared foundation has spawned both monism and dualism. I believe that your argument is dualist in nature.

On the other hand, I believe that the body also entails the human and that such a separation is a misconception whose origins I believe are explicable.

Allow me to start from history. Since the temple of Amun-Ra and deeper into the past, to the time when my first teacher in the 80's taught me, the universe was made of atoms and the basic atom was symbolized by the circle. Later investigation on other continents reveals the same foundations of human understanding.

The most clear explication of this idea have been made by the Indian philosophical traditions in their variety, and at least by the Pythagorean and Jewish tradition.

By means of geometry the universe is shown to be an atom, and within it, many atoms that are of similar structure and function. And by extension, humans are such an atom.

The forms we see are expressions of the primal atom according to energic levels and logic of the interactions of the diverse forms of atoms expressing the fundamental atom.

Therefore we can not be correct when we argue that there is a dualism in nature.

One thing we have from your own admission is that there is such a non illusion that animates the body.

It's logical that humans can only use diverse symbolisms for this ultimate reality.

It is these symbolisms that need to be investigated instead of falling into simplicism. After all, if we fall into Wittgenstein's trap of non statement or non utterance then we end up begging the question. A logical fallacy that not even Wittgenstein could or can accept.

First you must promise me one thing

That you will trust yourself enough to admit that you are the master artist responsible for the masterpiece called reality/Universe/life etc

Then we can talk

Deal? Good. Let's begin

We shall assume the Universe is a house. A beautiful house. You have built this house.

It is not quite finished, there is always something to improve or correct. But you are very proud of this house. In fact so proud that you can't help walking around it in admiration.

Now you are admiring the front. Now the side. Now you are touching the walls, now the floor. You can't quite reach the roof as it is too high. But you know it is your roof and you could get to it with right tools.

Then something strange strikes you. Every time your position changes the view of the house changes too. The front looks different from the side. The window feels different from the door. Is this the same house?

Of course it is. Your house is not made of one quality or look but many. Changing your perspective does not really change the house, it only makes it look different. To really change the house you have to do something more active than changing perspective.

Back to reality. Why does there have to be one model or two or three knowing that these are merely different perspectives of the same reality? Why does any perspective even have to be 'real?' What is real? If you examined the front of yourse using a particle accelerator (if such a thing were possible) it would look very different from the naked eye. It is all illusion. A beautiful creation, Yes, but illusion


The key to remember is you will get only surface understanding from changing perspective, not that there is anything wrong with such play.

You are the artist. If you don't like your painting you can paint it over, or play with the colors or get a completely new canvas.

Would you say a photon is also an illusion if it determines the perception of all illusions?

And what does the photon imply to the human in terms of biology and function?