Earlier quoted context omitted.
> every argument I've read so far triggered my "religious/spiritual mumbo jumbo" detector quite hard. Agreed. Sounds like a number of people have found a spiritual way to look at this, which seems a bit like a kind of quasi-religion, similar to the mystical aspects of Zen or yoga.
Are you the spirituality police? You seem worried people have found a deeper connection to their bodies and then, for some reason label it as “spiritual” or “mumbo jumbo” and go on trying to diminish their experience, why ? Personally, the more I see of this anti-spiritual enforcement, the more I see intellectualism and science becoming the dogmatic religion of the Catholic Church when it was illegal to have unorthod…
> "It’s also ok to debate the point sure, just be respectful?"
Could you please explain where, in my previous comment, I wasn't being respectful?
I was simply observing that the way people often talk about these ideas, including in this thread, resembles spirituality and religion. Which is true.
> "Why go on the internet and try tell people otherwise."
This subthread started with you saying "This is why I think all the 'meatbags' and 'hardware running on software;' analogies are actually really primitive and silly."
So, in your own words, "if people like to think [that,] what's it to you? Why go on the internet..." blah blah blah.
You can dish it but not take it, apparently? You're making a much stronger attempt at policing than anything I said. Perhaps you're projecting something onto me?
In any case, you seem to be having a problem with a false dichotomy. It's not as though any of us are saying our bodies don't exist, or that there's no interaction between our bodies and minds. There's lots of well-established science on that. See the last line of the comment by TeMPOraL that I originally replied to.