There is a general consensus among biologists that the body of an animal is being held up by muscles, bones, tendons, etc. However, there is an ever-growing body of evidence that would prove otherwise, or at least that this is only a small part of the whole.

Scientists, under modern empiricism, will never be able to prove, in any way, that the human is not only the body. And that is because they start from a materialistic conception, and it is impossible that by studying the matter they find evidence of something immaterial. Unless they accept that to say that the only thing that has existence is matter, it is a totally arbitrary choice and that it does not really respond to any sustained logic.

The fact that the human is not only the body and that there are intangible things we have known for thousands of years. And to think that the only thing that exists is the physical world leads to countless aporias and incongruities of which we have knowledge since Parmenides and Plato. However, scientism has never been responsible for giving an answer to such things, they have made tabula rasa and ignored everything that does not fit in their vision, without ever giving an answer, simply ignored, not seeing reality as it is, and beginning to adapt reality to how they want it to be.

This will not give them any problem in purely physical issues, scientists will continue making advances in the field of physics and applied sciences as they have been doing, but the moment they seek answers beyond that, their knowledge will be totally useless.

If the human being were only his physique, we should say that the child me has absolutely nothing to do with the me of the now, and so with all people, because there is physically nothing that connects them.

On the other hand, the transhumanists start from a misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. They believe that human evolution has been a constant and linear progression, as if the world were meant to turn the human into an improved and superior version of itself. Evolutionary theory never says such a thing, in fact, the changes we see between us and the monkeys, which supposedly descend from a common ancestor, did not occur to become superior to us and inferior to them, but to adapt each one to its environment.

In such a way that, in spite of the fact that we place robotic pieces, there would be no progress at all, since the human physical qualities correspond to the environment. If we must change ourselves to adapt to the artificial environment we create, it is to be feared that the environment we are creating, far from being beneficial, is harmful to us, because it does not correspond to ourselves.

On the other hand, a few days ago, in one of your posts, I remember you mentioned Gramsci. Gramsci has an important concept that is "common sense", which is that axiomatic knowledge that people have, but that is not based on logic, reason, or anything, but simply imposed by cultural hegemony.

The fact that "we are continually progressing thanks to technological advances" is not a reality, it is an illusion, it is apparent to common sense, but it is not based on facts. Society does not advance at all to have more material things, the rulers traced the starting line and the goal, and told us that we are in a race. The advance in technology has been at the expense of many other things, however, the focus has been only on a handful, very small handful of things, to believe that we are progressing.

So far I see that I extended so much and I'm sorry, but it's a very good post and it has made me think. Regards!