Spirit

[irmerk]

I would like to hear your thoughts or arguments on, for or against a spirit. Do humans have a spirit? Do animals? If so, how do you or anyone else know? If so, why and what for? If not, why do people think they do?

My current opinion is that the complex phenomenon of a consciousness lead early man to attribute it to a mystical spirit, all heavenly! The rest is usually indoctrination and the lack of will to break from tradition and think for one's self. People think that since they can think, realize their own death, feel, care, etc. that they must be more than just a brain in a skull. I think that a spirit is possible, but there is no reason to believe in it yet. It's just the awesome power and complexity of the brain.

Still, I would like to hear others' opinions and/or arguments for or against.

 

[RyuOni1989]

Hmmm...I think my opinions on the spirit are as follows.
Th spirit is just another word for "Self", which everyone sees in themselves as individual.
Because everyone's bodies are the same physically (or so it appears) there must be some 'thing' which makes someone special, which is attributed to the metaphysical "self" or "spirit".
People can argue that personality is judged by the chemical balances in the brain, but as far as I know- there's no way to recreate someone's personality by just having the same amount of chemicals in the same place and so on, so there's no way to verify this.
Until the time it's verified, people are determined to have individuality and meaning in the world. There's no REASON for a "spirit" except for our own personal comfort blanket, but the basic instincts that've been specially selected over time through evolution has made it so we all have a certain set of basic principles to follow as a means of survival, so those DO have reason and meaning.
When people talk of the spirit leaving the body, past lives, ghosts, etc.- I remain on the skeptical side (but definitely leaning to the side of "It's all a bunch of bullshit.") But I can't help but feel fear when walking down a particular creepy road, feeling like something out of this world may jump out at me. I know it's not real, but maybe it's just my spirit making sure that I remember I'm only human and not a robot.
SPEAKING OFFFFF.
If our "spirit" and conciousness is determined by the electrical signals, would that not mean that A.I. would also have a spirit?
If we go for the Nature Vs. Nurture argument, and, for the sake of it- we agree with Nurture, then that means that all humans on the planet are on the same level of A.I. that's being produced. Taking in information, working with it and taking whatever route. So again, I ask- where do you define a spirit?

 

[monitoradiation]

I have yet to even hear a coherent description of what a spirit really is.

Some would say it's the essence that makes us conscious; others would say that it's what makes us able to move, etc., but I don't know of a definition that makes sense.

The closest to a definition of a spirit would probably be close to the mind in cartesian dualism, where the mind and matter are distinct. I guess I can make an argument against such a spirit existing as we know that people can get brain damage and their personalities will change - we know roughly which parts of the brain performs which functions - and we know how to induce emotions and feelings by applying physical stimulation.

These argue against the existence of a spirit independent of a material basis.

However if someone's simply arguing for the existence of consciousness as a spirit, or the ability to think and predict the future, then I have no defense against that because, well, its quite self-evident that we do have a consciousness.

 

[MRaverz]

Depends what you define spirit as.

As such you end up with either the brain's processes, or something which doesn't actually exist.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Depends what you define spirit as.

As such you end up with either the brain's processes, or something which doesn't actually exist.

qotd (quote of the day)

I think that a spirit is possible, but there is no reason to believe in it yet.

Is that you or your thetans talking?

But seriously, why not just save a step and take the position that there is no reason to believe a spirit is possible... Unless of course you would like to elaborate on how it is possible. Bonus points if you can propose a testable hypothesis!

 

[nemesiss]

im surprised that hytegia hasn't replied to this yet, this is one up his/her/it's alley.

i wonder how people here define "spirit" here?

my definition; the essence of willpower within a living creature.

 

[Doc.]

As such you end up with either the brain's processes, or something which doesn't actually exist.

exactly. I've had a small argument with some moron on FB, and I several times asked him to define soul or at least clarify what he means, all I got as a reply was that some words can not be defined.

I'm sure you've seen Mortal Combat film (early 90s), there's where that villain guy sucks the spirits (souls) out of fallen enemies after which the dead bodies of victims get grey for some reason and the villain gets stronger, that is spirit!

Dualism is just load of bullshit imo, people don't want to believe that they are just biochemistry so they make up things like spirit and soul.

 

[MRaverz]

Dualism is just load of bullshit imo, people don't want to believe that they are just biochemistry so they make up things like spirit and soul.

And technically impossible, if an immaterial thing could move the physical - it would be creating energy.

 

[JustBusiness17]

i wonder how people here define "spirit" here?

my definition; the essence of willpower within a living creature.

That's more of the colloquial term for a person's character. I would use the word in the same way myself (if I wasn't concerned about propagating silly myths). But I differentiate between that usage and the one that describes supernatural entities that somehow posses some kind of consciousness without the use of a single neuron.

I personally hate the term spiritual because its so loosely defined.

 

[borrofburi]

Dualism is just load of bullshit imo, people don't want to believe that they are just biochemistry so they make up things like spirit and soul.

You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

 

[irmerk]

Dualism is just load of bullshit imo, people don't want to believe that they are just biochemistry so they make up things like spirit and soul.

And technically impossible, if an immaterial thing could move the physical - it would be creating energy.

These are the things I was meaning to hear, and have elaborated on.

But seriously, why not just save a step and take the position that there is no reason to believe a spirit is possible...

I have a couple of Christian roommates who like to watch Ghost Hunters. To me, it is the most boring show ever because nothing ever happens. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They tell the history of a place and sit around saying, "Can you show us a sign?" They never get results and then end the episode by telling the person that called them in they found nothing. Hooray! Anyway, they watch the show and think there are demons infesting these places. Wait, not that there are demons... But that there are obviously demons infesting these places. They get all scared and talk about how they need to go to church more.

This is the main part, and you may not think it relates to the topic of a spirit. Well, demons, spirits, ghosts, etc. They apparently think we all have spirits, else I would be surprised. I just wanted to hear how others would view or argue the point.

 

[Giliell]

Depends what you define spirit as.

As such you end up with either the brain's processes, or something which doesn't actually exist.

This
In a colloquial sense it exists, I'd define it as a mixture of consciousness, character and mood, like in "mean spirited" or "high spirits". The metaphysical larifari is the usual bs.

 

[Niocan]

Should I ask why the understanding of spirit and matter are approached as mutually exclusive? Or will there be a counter argument trying to claim a single tree can't be called a forest...

Why can't the layouts of abstract thought be applied to single entities? Why is it taboo to view the Macrocosm as the Microcosm?; When as far as we can tell, nature has remained self similar across scale.

These are just questions, not attacks, because I'd like to hear what people think about this subject.

 

[Giliell]

Should I ask why the understanding of spirit and matter are approached as mutually exclusive? Or will there be a counter argument trying to claim a single tree can't be called a forest...

Why can't the layouts of abstract thought be applied to single entities? Why is it taboo to view the Macrocosm as the Microcosm?; When as far as we can tell, nature has remained self similar across scale.

These are just questions, not attacks, because I'd like to hear what people think about this subject.

I don't even understand what you're getting at, let alone being able to agree/disagree.

 

[Niocan]

Well, a forest is an abstract thought that we use to define the traits that arise from the collection of trees; With this in mind, whats the difference between the canopy of 50 trees and one tree? Scale.
The difference between the available biomass and trapped humidity? Scale.

I'm sure there are better examples of this, but the point is that we can use the layout of the abstract thought to help 'map out' the single tree; Because the traits of the forest only araise due to the individual traits of the collection of trees. It's just easier to see these characteristics when there's more data points available, but that doesn't mean they're non-exsistant for individuals.

So, my question would be: Why is it generally accepted to ignore the layout of the abstract? [Spirit]
It may sound odd to hear, for the first time, that someone saw pictures and felt feelings whilst they slept (dreams); But if we understand that this happends to everyone, it's hard to call them a lunitic.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Well, a forest is an abstract thought that we use to define the traits that arise from the collection of trees; With this in mind, whats the difference between the canopy of 50 trees and one tree? Scale.
The difference between the available biomass and trapped humidity? Scale.

I'm sure there are better examples of this, but the point is that we can use the layout of the abstract thought to help 'map out' the single tree; Because the traits of the forest only araise due to the individual traits of the collection of trees. It's just easier to see these characteristics when there's more data points available, but that doesn't mean they're non-exsistant for individuals.

So, my question would be: Why is it generally accepted to ignore the layout of the abstract? [Spirit]
It may sound odd to hear, for the first time, that someone saw pictures and felt feelings whilst they slept (dreams); But if we understand that this happends to everyone, it's hard to call them a lunitic.

Lets face it... The idea of a spirit is a prerequisite for the idea of an after life. Its also a primitive explanation for complex thought. I would counter your argument by pointing out that a single neuron could be looked at as a tree and consciousness as a forest.

 

[Niocan]

Lets face it... The idea of a spirit is a prerequisite for the idea of an after life. Its also a primitive explanation for complex thought.

I'd argue it's a language we've lost that better describes the inner facilities of Mind and the ways of the Spirit; Dualisticly seeing how the language we have today better describes the world we interact with, for some not-so-obvious reason..

It's primitive, only in terms of time, and in this regard I view it as a less corrupted source on this subject of Self; Think about it, there were far less distractions in primitive times and man (through art) projected his feelings onto the night sky. These projections (The zodiac) can only be about themselves and their interactions, and we see today that the plethora of tribes and groups used the same archetypes to describe the cycle of feelings.

Each group had their own language, method of expression, regional sets of animals, etc. But they tell the same story. Is it unreasonable to understand that along with physical traits, humans share parts of the psyche (The unconscious mind)?
Is it unreasonable to apply the trends we see from the plethora of data points to ourselves?

Occam's razor, oddly enough, can be applied to everything mystical about man with the conclusion pointing twords a shared but unrecognized force or connection that humans, and for that matter all of life, share. This bond is Spirit, and it can be understood by archetypes.

This idea is far more complex then it's often strawmanned to be, but this doesn't stop those from trying to discredit it.

I would counter your argument by pointing out that a single neuron could be looked at as a tree and consciousness as a forest.

T'was my point In this sense we can equally comment on the computational capacity of the neuron along side the expansion of consciousness. It's just the two sides of the same coin; Two methods of understanding best applied to the fields they occupy.

 

[Giliell]

Well, a forest is an abstract thought that we use to define the traits that arise from the collection of trees; With this in mind, whats the difference between the canopy of 50 trees and one tree? Scale.

No.
A forest has different qualities that are not present in a single tree. Sometimes, an increase inb quantity leads to a change in quality.
We use abstract concepts and I would say those things exist. Justice, mercy, love are abstract concepts, and I'm sure we can all agree that they exist. Yet they can't be seperated from our physical existence, since without us, they wouldn't exist. Spirit could be used as an abstract to describe "what makes us us", yet it is not independent from our physical existence and doesn't "live on" forever. When I die, so does my spirit.

 

[Durakken]

I posed a similar question to the follow on Bad Astronomy...didn't really go any where but...

What properties must a soul exhibit? or the BA way I put it, If a spirit particle existed what properties would it have?

Well, let's go...

Let's say that what we call a spirit is made of particles so whatever the spirit is made up of made of multiple particles, and not just one. This makes things easier, as we can see in the first condition...

1. Consciousness

Whatever we call a spirit must contain consciousness, which means it must be able to create and recall memories, at least to the point of read/write capabilities. This basic ability is enough for any and all of the spirit myths.

2. Controllable visibility/interaction with other matter.

This means that any particle that a spirit body is made of must be able to optionally absorb and radiate photons as well as produce that force that makes it so large groups of matter doesn't generally pass through other large groups of matter.

3a. In some mythology... The ability to accumulate, separate, and communicate between each piece.

This means that spirit particles must create another force that tells each particle where it is to connect with each of the other particles...and whom they belong to as well as to be able communicate instructions to...

3b. Communicate with other spirit bodies, transfer particles to other spirit bodies, and to be able to manipulate matter...

Same as the above save for to communicate with others...it's a step above 3a but a bit harder.

 

[Niocan]

Yet [Abstractions] can't be seperated from our physical existence, since without us, they wouldn't exist. Spirit could be used as an abstract to describe "what makes us us", yet it is not independent from our physical existence and doesn't "live on" forever. When I die, so does my spirit.

if I may, the abstractions in this sense are mearly the by-products of our level of understanding; They're our approaches to natural phenomenom, our unique perception.

So, yes, the universe would lose our perspective and our interpretations but these natural laws will remain. Gravity existed before we knew what to call it and how to interact with it on more advanced levels, and so does Spirit.

If we are connected to everything, if only on the basic level of the fact that we seem to exist in some similar state to everything else, then nothing is lost..
We can see through the eyes of physics, that energy is neither created or destroyed; All death is rebirth, etc.

@Durakken: I hold the position that our entire body is a unique receiver for our channel / signal of Spirit. It would mean that our DNA acts more like a receptor then a hard wired database for information, but I find this hypothesis describes a lot of interesting things like telepathy, channeling, possession, etc quite well and simplistically. As for the physical properties of this link or what specific name we can call the medium, I'm not sure; But I use the terminology that I use because I find it doesn't carry the baggage a lot of other words have. *Shrug*, if you can stick with that layout you have then props to you.