Could the Dasein be the brain or an activity of the brain?
Heidegger characterizes Dasein as Being-in-the-World.
He also gives it a set of Equiprimordial modes of Being-in-the-World: Disclosedness, attunement, understanding and discourse.
Studies of the brain have found that if you stimulate certain areas of the brain you can get Dasein to disclose certain things.
For example: If you stimulate the C-fibres of the brain (whatever they are I am no neurologist and this is hear-say) then the subject reports the experience of pain. That is to say that the Dasein discloses the attunement of pain.
When I first began reading “Being and Time” I thought that Heidegger was saying that Dasein was consciousness (awareness) but I now know that consciousness is merely conscious of what Dasein discloses.
Phenomenology, as I understand it, is a method of interrogating reality from the 1st person subjective awareness and Heidegger assumes that reality appears as it is.
(On a side note I’ve noticed that every philosophical system has a starting point that has to be taken on faith and I believe that this is one of the starting points in Heidegger’s system. The other being being-in-the-world. Both of these are starting points that cannot be proven but act as a foundation.)
A problem I see with saying that Dasein is the brain is that the question “Is reality as it appears?” still remains. This is because the brain acts as a kind of radio. It modulates (that is changes) the input into something intelligible to consciousness; rather it changes the input into objects of consciousness.
Maybe the reason why I am so inclined to say that Dasein is the brain is because all the characterizations that Heidegger gives are activities. I think that he even says that Dasein is potentiality-for-being and each being is a kind of activity; that is an enactment of a possibility.
So is he saying that Dasein is possibility and if so then you can make the statement “Possibility enacts one of its possible possibilities.” which seems a bit absurd.
Maybe its just because in language we always have something that acts but here we’re having an activity that acts.
I don’t know – – – I’m in a bit of a shambles over this one!