What is Spirit?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2014, 06:18 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 01:16 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Back to the serious stuff.
Explain further:
Quote:Void being an attractor that we gravitate towards
- how do you incorporate the term spirit in this ?

Tao is unity, but metaphysics is practiced by constructing dualities; in my case - Gwynnite Big Grin - thingness and void. I see void as a big black sea with a fractal shore, and dancing along the edge, we do create ex-nihilo through an emotional response to our physical environment. Groupthink, mob mentality, and the very real possibility of becoming a self-organizing system through globalization. A new kind.

Atheist because one does not name void, give it a gender and worship it; but word made flesh? Speak creation into being? If we have already altered our brains through language, we have already done these things. Stir in the ubiquitous fractal nature of nature with some old mojo - as above, so below - modernized into self-similarity over differing orders of magnitude, and perhaps prophets do see god.

Yet the tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao, and "true void" is a ridiculous distinction to make while alive. For this life, I love my Gwynnies; find yer own gwynnies, speaks Holy Spirit from here. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-01-2014, 06:31 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 08:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  I believe that spirit is material. It is organized system.

Oh great. Yet another nut job making up their own dictionary.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(18-01-2014 07:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  What universals are you referring to? Have you gone Platonic?
And who said anything about random?
Universals are the basic properties of reality which can be contacted by minds and which allow us to know outside reality empirically and rationally. Such as identity, logic, linearity, non-contradiction and so on. This allows us to create truly universal and logical definitions such as universally preferable behavior, for example, which makes an interesting case for objective morality. Curiously enough, it is basically the golden rule in modern terms, but its ancient age makes it no less valid.

(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  All neurological evidence shows that every bit of personality resides in the brain.
There is no person without a brain.
Yes, but there is such a thing as a "higher self" or "true self" which manifests through the brain. Its existence was felt by countless people down the ages who meditated.
My current guess is, this feeling is the result of increased inflow of reality through integration of the brain. Meditation does have an interconnecting effect on the brain - and as some scientist said, integration is the measure of consciousness in a system. We become more conscious through meditation and we may become aware of phenomena completely dwarfing our small everyday personality residing in the brain. Thus the idea of mystical transcendent God is encountered by many people independently in our history, because they literally experience it. Note, that this is different from disruption of normal brain function through drugs.
There is an objective tendency to integration in human civilization as a whole, it is synonymous with the process of modernization. Similarly there is such a process in one's brain as we mature, develop personally and start thinking objectively.
I base this opinion on these sources: (and of course my own experience)
How God Changes Your Brain - Andrew Newberg
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...sciousness
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/73169...Experience


(18-01-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, your insistence that the brain be human is entirely anthropocentric. What about non-humans? What about aliens?
Or are you insisting that only a biological brain can support or host a person? Are we back to élan vital, for which there is no evidence?
By this definition, a "man" is derived from the root of Sanskrit word "manas", which means mind, so "man" is literally "the thinking one". To think means to contact outside or objective reality in some way. This is how we can distinguish a simulation, -which is completely enclosed and limited in itself- from a sentient being.
Sentience is derived from the material substrate itself, from energy that is the basis of existence of matter and everything. Software or information in a computer can not be conscious, it's a frozen snapshot of a state of matter. Only energy is conscious, because consciousness is a process (a cyclical process!).
We, biological brains are conscious only to a limited degree, how much our material substrate permits. However, this limit can be overcome by integrating our brain (and whole nerve and endocrine system) to such a degree that it can contact the "higher self" phenomenon. This extremely powerful phenomenon inspired people to create greatest works of civilization and as such represents the true potential of humanity and each thinker's rightful heritage. We are capable of knowing reality and this is a real phenomenon. When one contacts something from this reality, it is like an explosion of light in the brain. Such as when a prepared person learns and does philosophy.

Remember the integration model of the consciousness? We must see the parallel between human consciousness, human behavior (particularly the works of genius), integration of brain, effects on meditation and contemplation on brain, knowledge and perception of reality (works of philosophical and scientific geniuses), self-transforming mystical experiences and especially the general, whole, physical and metaphysical universe. Because we are a part of the universe and we were that before we invented empirical science. If you put all these things together, that might get you out of your Cartesian dualism. There is no us and the universe which we can know only by reading the Nature journal, there is only the universe, which is in a process of integration and we are a necessary part of it and our part of integration is done through some instruments one of which is the scientific method, but there are also other methods.


(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Our everyday consciousness is not an illusion but a real emergent property with new attributes the individual parts don't have.
Like wise a wave in the sea is not an illusion but emerges from water molecules, hydrogen bonding, wind, mathematics of fluid dynamics, enough water molecules etc. Individual water molecules don't have properties of "waves" or the concepts of "solid ice" or "liquid" don't exist - they emerge but are as real once emerged to the individual water molecules.
Consciousness - even the everyday sort is real once emerged and destroyed once its substrate is destroyed (brain in our case)
Our everyday consciousness, or ego, or false self is a self-contained mechanism of self-validation. It needs no physical reference to reality, that's why I say it is an illusion. A wave refers to a general property of reality, so it is a real concept. What we usually think of as thinking is not that, it is neither physical referencing, nor using real concepts.

Whether that does or doesn't destroyed with destruction of brain, that is a technical question. Some people have the reasons to think yes or no, but at our present shared, objective level of knowledge it seems like the answer is no.


(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Our everyday consciousness does not base itself on "attachment to random things" but have incredible order in the systems involved in perception. Granted the systems of perception can malfunction - see V.S. Ramachandran or Oliver Sacks work on bizzare neurological conditions.
There is a process of "substantiation of the random" and it is a way how people choose symbols of their identity into which they invest and how they thus construct their identity, which is quite false by objective standards. That is a sociological fact, this is what I referred to. Gangs have their names and colors, patriots have their flags, believers have their totems. Then they start using subjective logic, putting a barrier between "us" and "them". They start inventing tales of how "us" are better or just different than "them". This is not objective logic of true and false, this is the subjective, emotional logic of "ours" and "not ours". Fair enough? And these people are considered healthy.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  No reason why an AI with sufficient complexity and consciousness could not contact universals...
If you mean universal in the platonic sense then an AI might even be better at "awareness" of mathematical patterns underlying observable phenomena.
In any case as Kant rightly argued (& many others) we have limited access to the "absolute essence" of things (the numena) because our brain generates phenomena and is inherently anthropocentric which either distorts or has limitations - hence why some of our intuitions & introspections can be misleading. (i.e we don't automatically intuit quantum physics unless steeped in the mathematics & experiments required to reveal this level of reality.) Just because the mathematics of quantum physics is generally hidden it does not mean our everyday observable world is an illusion. I don't need understand quantum mechanics to fly an aeroplane but aerodynamics which emerges on a much larger scale and follows Newtonian physics. (again Newtonian physics emerges on a large scale - not applicable to the incredible small, or incredible massive or fast scales - but still "real" in the everyday sized world.
It is an interesting argument that an artificial brain might reveal other aspects of reality than our half-animal brain. But I don't think it's valid, because the brain is a general purpose computer, if used right. If used right, not even quantum physics is beyond its reach. What is needed is the necessary set of concepts and ability to re-wire itself dynamically, to integrate better. Ultimately, the brain is a lump of well-organized matter, a fine midway meeting point of energy and matter at its subtlest.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Also there is no hint that some meditating on OM / AUM is going to reveal quantum mathematics - for this we need hard work, good mathematicians and getting our hands dirty with experiments ! Rationality & empirical evidence is the way do this !
Yes, that is one way to do it. However, empirical method is philosophically very tenuous, because it examines only particulars, its proof is never absolute. And rational method again can't examine the empirical world. Both are limited by a language or scientific paradigm and I have discussed these in one of my earlier topics. Basically, in times of scientific revolution the rational evidence temporarily breaks down, because there are two or more competing paradigms with equally good explanations.
As for the OM method, yes, it obviously has severe limitations on empiricism and so on, but it may reveal some peculiar aspects of reality and human brain that can not be otherwise found and that can be deeper examined by proper science. Otherwise its usefulness is still high, but strictly for personal use or social and societal transformation by the virtue of our enlightened personality.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Your sentence doesn't make any sense.
Grasping causes is both within and outside our brain simultaneously. Your are assuming some dualism or "élan vital"
Please review my sentence in the light of the reply up there - objective vs subjective logic.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Again this doesn't make any sense. Like Chaos (or Kant & many others) said we must think anthropocentrically and limited by this when perceiving "full reality"
Granted we may have access to some universals in mathematics - but this is a huge debate in philosophy of mathematics I cannot go into here for sheer space. (Kurt Gödel was a mathematical Platonist and some of his points might be valid)
There definitely is an antropocentric limitation in our senses, such as hearing, smell or sight, and brain centers that process them. But our reason can grasp not only mathematics, but also instruments that extend our senses. Also, mathematics are based on philosophical disciplines (gnoseology and logic), which are based on basic properties of reality, not of human brain. Otherwise we could not manipulate the general nature, but only other people. So I must argue, that our brains, at least their biggest part, the neocortex are not antropocentric, they are reality-centric.

(18-01-2014 04:28 PM)Baruch Wrote:  "Free choice" may also be an emergent property when consciousness reaches a certain threshold of self organization. I don't actually like the word because the term "free" is ambiguous. We have choices, or a will and for the most part that is part of being conscious but not necessary & sufficient for consciousness. It is most certainly possible to be conscious and not experience "will" or "choice" eg in non lucid dreams.
I don't like the word either, because it is an illusion. Defining "free choice" as a "non-causal" choice is just unfair, impossible. So I define free will as internal, conscious will, which nonetheless may be perfectly predictable yet still perfectly free. But it is opposed to all things external and/or unconscious. What is or isn't conscious is again a reference to the degree of neurological integration of the brain and/or one's personal worldview.
Obviously, as our consciousness expands, we are more aware of good and bad consequences of choices and obviously a bad choice is no choice at all, so the more we know, the fewer choices we have.

Change all your "we" and "us" and "our" to "me", "my" and IMHO, and maybe I read all your assertions with no evidence or references.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-01-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
Where in the human body does the spirit reside? How much of the body is required to contain a spirit? Do quadruple amputees have spirits? You could technically pare away the human body to just the head kept alive by a blood pump (even if it's only for a very short time). Does that head have a spirit?

Does it reside in the brain? How about people in persistent vegetative states? Alive, but no spirits?

Does it reside in the heart? How about people with heart transplants? Spirits in the wrong bodies?

And don't get me started on souls.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
19-01-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(19-01-2014 06:50 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Where in the human body does the spirit reside? How much of the body is required to contain a spirit? Do quadruple amputees have spirits? You could technically pare away the human body to just the head kept alive by a blood pump (even if it's only for a very short time). Does that head have a spirit?

Does it reside in the brain? How about people in persistent vegetative states? Alive, but no spirits?

Does it reside in the heart? How about people with heart transplants? Spirits in the wrong bodies?

And don't get me started on souls.

Doc

Where there is something, there is one thing; where there is nothing, there is infinite nothingness. The body is the framework, the net, catching particulate on the wind. Holy Spirit resides in the space between things, calling upon thingness, parent to child, come, let us fill the void.

[Image: 1604558_529844127114762_343896173_n.jpg]

Tongue

Which is to say it doesn't reside because it is not a thing, it is absence of thingness, and the restlessness of our being causes us to fill the void with words like spirit.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-01-2014, 07:33 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(19-01-2014 07:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Which is to say it doesn't reside because it is not a thing, it is absence of thingness, and the restlessness of our being causes us to fill the void with words like spirit.

Whoa, that's deep, man. Tell me, O great guru of Gwynndom, what is the difference between spirit and soul?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(19-01-2014 07:33 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(19-01-2014 07:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Which is to say it doesn't reside because it is not a thing, it is absence of thingness, and the restlessness of our being causes us to fill the void with words like spirit.

Whoa, that's deep, man. Tell me, O great guru of Gwynndom, what is the difference between spirit and soul?

Doc

3 Smartass

Holy Spirit is tao, unity, one; soul is spirit reflected in I. We as humans throw up these concepts and over time revolve a mutual center of gravity. Theists and god revolve around a mutual center that doesn't describe every theist nor any god. John Cantor posting on an internet forum revolves around the simulated self that writes and the self that is.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 07:59 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(19-01-2014 07:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Holy Spirit is tao, unity, one; soul is spirit reflected in I. We as humans throw up these concepts and over time revolve a mutual center of gravity. Theists and god revolve around a mutual center that doesn't describe every theist nor any god. John Cantor posting on an internet forum revolves around the simulated self that writes and the self that is.

Doc, puffing on a chocolate joint: Whoa! I can hear the colors, man! Please take my money, O wise guru. And tell me, who will win today, the Broncos or the Pats?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
19-01-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
In cheer sports, spirit would seem to mean determination, drive, a desire to win.
"We've got spirit, yes we do, we've got spirit, how bout you" ?




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2014, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2014 08:16 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(19-01-2014 06:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Change all your "we" and "us" and "our" to "me", "my" and IMHO, and maybe I read all your assertions with no evidence or references.
Evidence? No. Pre-scientific stage here.
References? What about the references to A. Newberg, J. M. Cohen, New Scientist magazine? I could add references to Itzhak Bentov, who makes a good case of what I say in the book Stalking The Wild Pendulum. I made sure not to read the book too thoroughly - just see if we agree independently.

We all agree independently, me, HoC, these guys... and Patanjali a few thousand years ago. Maybe that's our job, not to build a dead mechanical box that will or won't make a ping sound at the right moment. Without philosophers, you won't even know what is the box supposed to do and why, there will be no reason to construct it, no way to name what it does. All in due time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: