What do I read to focus on the mind-body problem? From my search for good literature so far...

amazon.com/Real-Happy-Pill-Create-Happiness/dp/151072298X

Read this. It's not out yet in english, but it is popular science based on numerous studies based on practical experiments together with MRI scans.

tl;dr
You cannot do anything at all with your body without using your brain.

Moving your body is one of the most complex thing that you can do. Likeness to creating a robot that does chess vs. a robot just doing basic movement stuff.

Along with us having had 100.000 years of life as hunter-gatherer in comparsion roughly 1000 years of life as farmer and then 100 years as industralized people.

Our brain is still out on the steppes and grow and rewards movement.

Aw shit, I misunderstood, you meant something else entirely.

The body is Mind abject.

Advaita Vedanta

The mind-body problem of today is a problem of describing emergence, i.e, how does things work which are not equal to the sum of their parts. Before that we were stuck with variations of either dualism and monism. But emergence is NOT strictly dualist: the mind is more than a collection of neurons but it is still an emergent property of a set of neurons (taking it further, of the whole body actually). It "takes actions" and "has features" that no individual neuron would ever have, but cannot be fully segregated from neurons unless it is transferred to another collective entity (and then it probably would be another conscience with other properties altogether rather than preserve its qualia).

In short, you want to look at nonlinear systems of massive numbers, that build up into emergent properties. There are few good books on this; people are mostly still stuck into dualism, and the ones who aren't, usually do not dwell into emergence as the mind-body problem but rather as a mathematical curiosity. Pic related is the best I can do from the top of my head.

The Answer is called:
PANPSYCHISM

required reading:
thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun

please ignore every single post in this thread, OP. Nobody here has read any analytic philosophy of mind and so they will not be able to provide recommendations or even an approximate summation of some of the main ideas. While it might be nice to have some familiarity with debates on mind that came before, I would think modern philosophy is more consequential to your interests than ancient Greek philosophy. Some of the seminal works in this past century include (in no particular chronological order):

Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind - Sellars
Mad Pain and Martian Pain - Lewis
Representation and Reality - Putnam
The Character of Consciousness - Chalmers
Philosophical Investigations - Wittgenstein
Language and Mind - Chomsky
Mind and World - McDowell
The Analysis of Mind - Russell
What is it like to be a bat? - Nagel
God and Other Minds - Plantinga
Naming and Necessity - Kripke
Essays on Actions and Events - Davidson
Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind - Churchland

and more. cue the continental cuck brigade coming to tell me that analytics are worthless failed mathematicians despite having never read a single work other than Russell's history.

I'm currently reading a fascinating book titled Philosophy in the Flesh by Lackoff and Johnson. Their theory of metaphor is at the core of their argument, and in itself it's a bit shaky, but they present some compelling arguements given their foundation. Maybe give it a shot?

Yesss

This is all you need.

>no Clark

Anybody can spare a copy of Starting Strenght?
I'd appreciate if there was no torrenting.
Also taking all kinds of books (preferably I can find in ebook formats), related to health and fitness that actually have some authority on the matter. I can dig the more scientific stuff, I don't want " 10 ways to get abs in 10 days, by nutritionist Sheila Shekelstein" tier ebooks.

Also, just a tip on where to look for them will be helpful, I can do the sifting myself.

sorry, wrong thread in the wrong board!

where did the pineal meme come from

>please ignore every single post in this thread, OP
Except the one I'm replying to and including this one.

how come?

you're an absolute retard

Because the idea of 'separating' body and mind conceptually is totally insane? What exactly are the cues that lead you to cut yourself in half like this? We consider ourself to be singular, we present ourselves as singular to others, we say we are but one person with one name for all times, yet when we look into ourselves we say there are two, no more, no less?

YOU expand please. The burden is on YOU to say why the body/mind paradigm is worth anything.

In reality the mind does not develop without the rest of the body. If a person was born with disabled nerves and they only bumped their heart and lungs, and the person was fed intravenously, the brain would be nothing but a mass of jelly with the brainstem dimly flickering.

Body/mind is an infantalized understanding of nerves/brain/genesis (soul). THE END

>i am a pedantic faggot who thinks he is smart for pointing out trivial shit

the problem was just displaced into science via the force / matter dichotomy which wont be solved until we unify quantum electrodynamics and general relativity

Oh boy. Don't post here please.

These are good recommendations for a lot of things other than the body-mind problem. Churchland for example has since then been disassociated from actual contemporary neuroscience. Don't have to be a filthy continental to realize most analytical philosophy is usually stuck years behind whatever they try to analyze precisely because they have to, well, properly build analysis! Nothing wrong with that, but I assume OP wants to dwell on the issue itself before having to spend years on frameworks that will be outdated by the time they can be applied. It is also awful attitude to imply OP should ignore anything else other than a short list of seminal works that, after a century, clearly did not live up to the very mathematical standards they praise. To ironically quote, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.", and most on that list should have remained quiet.

This is also not quite correct. Just because the mind does not develop without the body, it does not mean the mind is more than the sum of many body parts. You could argue a person born without arms and legs has a different mental buildup from any of us for example, and this would not imply their mind is any closer (or further) to being a blob. It could also be argued that other systems can be analogous to the body/mind one insofar as they also present a set of units that end up creating a global order which supplants the individual functioning of each unit (e.g ant colonies, bacteria, even the capital if you're into that Landian stuff). They may not be strictly separate but they do not belong into the same categories either.

Also inaccurate, this is not a dichotomy at all but a problem of the force being an emergent property of the matter conglomerate, rather than a nice linear combination of every unit's contribution.

does not mean the mind is NOT* more than the sum [...]

>I get mad and throw insults when someone points out my childish mistakes.