Creative saidNot to hijack this thread or anything, but that has no more "logical grounding" than any claim of the existence of spirit.

To illustrate...

If one defines spirit as "that which decides, postulates and opines" (as I do), it seems pretty obvious that spirit exists, since it is obvious that decisions are made, postulates are put forth, and opinions are formed.

In other words, the "logical grounds" for a claim of the existence of spirit is dependent upon the definition of spirit.

So I would agree that you have no logical grounds to support what you define as spirit. But that does not mean that there is no logical grounds to support what anyone else defines as spirit.

See the problem?

Everything about this entire thread is about you, don't kid yourself.

Sky wrote...



Yes, I do.

Using the very same logical grounds, I could define a pink and black elephantic smooge as that which decides, postulates, and opines. Would that make it a logical claim? Definition alone does not equate to being logical.

We attribute those things to humans and their minds/brains because it has been logically shown to be the source of those things. In fact, how one believes affects those things - measurably. Does belief affect the spirit's critical thinking skills? It certainly affects a human's.

I was not attempting to "refute" your claims, nor was I attempting to use my belief in spirit as grounds to warrant the conclusion that what you had written was "incorrect."

I could just as well have left the idea of "spirit" completely out of it. I put it in there for clarification, which most people would have understood. But you did not understand it because you don't believe in spirit.

Now I will write the statement in such a way that you will (or should) understand:

"How one thinks is not WHO THEY ARE it merely reflects 'where' they are in their growth and self realization."

How one thinks is only temporary. Who we are stays with us for the duration of our life.

I have grown and I have learned and I am in a new place, but I am still the same person. But does changing the way I think really make me a "new person?"

Have I been reborn and redeemed with each new life lesson and with each new way of thinking I decide to adopt?

If I am not the same person, then I should not be responsible for anything I did in my past. If I murdered someone in my past, but I learned my lesson and changed my thinking and my actions and my beliefs, why then, if I am a new person, should I have to pay for my crimes? I am not that person anymore. Who I am now is not the same as who I was then. (Why should "born again" Christians get to be redeemed and forgiven and not me too?)

I see life as a path of learning that we are on just like going through different grades in school. When I graduate, my grades from all of my years in school will determine my record and I will probably not be able to erase my bad marks just because I have changed and consider myself a "new person" because I know more and think differently.

That is all I am saying. There is something inside of me that is UNCHANGING. I can feel it.

That is "who" I am.

Who anyone thinks I am is a different story.

As far as what is and isn't "logical" that is also a personal decision. You can twist and rationalize a totally ridiculous dream into seeming like it is perfectly logical at the time, then you wake up and remember the dream and realize that it was not logical at all. That is just how the mind works. It rationalizes perceptions and twists them in such a way that they will make sense to the observer and anything that does not make sense is simply discarded.

Which was exactly my point.

There is no "logic" involved in assigning meaning to labels. It is simply an arbitrary assignment of a significance to a label.

In your example, you arbitrarily picked the label "pink and black elephantic smooge" and assigned it the significance of "as that which decides, postulates, and opines".

What it seems you've attempted to do is take the already existing significance of a label and compare it to a different significance. Which is totally different from simply assigning a significance to a label.

In other words, if you are going to argue against the existence of "spirit", then you must either agree with an extant definition, or provide your own definition of exactly what it is you are arguing against. Otherwise there can be no "logic" to it at all. The sum total of the argument would boil down to "I don't know what it is, but I know it doesn't exist." Either that or "It doesn't exist because I don't know what it is."

What he said.

I ask people who always talk about God to please tell me what exactly they are talking about. I don't even know if I could define "spirit" except I feel that it is something that is aware yet has no physical form, but is an energy field that thinks. "Thinking stuff," as Wallace D. Wattles puts it.

Sky...



Where did you ever get such an idea from? Assigning a label is a means for the identification of an object through the recognition of it's physical properties. It is not arbitrarily assigning the property of existence.



What I did was show you that that method of attempting to define spirit into existence does not work.



Nope. I can show you(and did) how one cannot logically define spirit into existence. I gave a perfect example of why not. Contrary to what some may think, a premise is not always unprovable.

Truly.

Moreover, there is also a huge difference between considering the possiblity of spirit versus claiming to have concrete proof of it.

Science itself postulates a lot of things very seriously without having any evidence that they exist whatsoever. They are currently considering the existence of 7 "hidden dimensions". They have absolutely no more reason to postulate those hidden dimensions than a spiritualist has for postulating the existence of spirit.

The only reason scientists postulate the 7 "hidden dimensions" is because when they do that some of their theories can be made more plausible.

So what's the difference?

If scientists can postulate 7 "hidden dimensions" (or even infinitely many parallel universes or 'membranes'. Or even 'strings' themselves for that matter! Then why would it be so illogical for a spiritualist to postulate the existence of ONE tiny little spirit?

This idea that if things can't be physically detected concretely they can't be postulated is nonsense and certainly isn't adhered to by the sciences.

In fact, science has also postulated the existed of "Dark Energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. Yet no one has ever detected "Dark Energy" on any level. They may as well have postulated that Merlin the Magician is doing it!

The same thing goes for "Dark Matter", they have postulated the existence of "Dark Matter" and they have even mapped out where it must be in "clumps". Yet it is not detectable directly. The only reason they have postulated its existence is because this explains the behavior of gravity on large scales. But again, for all they knew Merlin the Magician is doing it.

So science itself is constantly postulating invisible undetectable things to explain its theories. Yet no one is screaming that there are no grounds for those postulates.

I have every bit as much logical reason for postulating the existence of 'spirit' as scientists have for many of their postulates.

So how is it any different pray tell?

This idea that we should only consider things that we can directly detect concretely simply doesn't even hold in modern science. Why should it hold anywhere else?

And please note that I didn't even need to bring the dreaded QM into the picture here, which is even worse yet!

It's just no even sane to suggest that it's illogical to consider spirit, IMHO. It wasn't all that long ago that it was considered illogical and absurd to think that time can flow at different rates at different places in the universe, yet now this is accepted as an actual measured concrete FACT.

What once seemed illogical is now accepted as everyday knowledge.

Well I’d have to ask where you got such an idea. I certainly did not say “assigning a label is assigning a property of existence”. What I did say is that “defining a label is assigning it a significance”.

But “Assigning a label is a means for the identification of an object through the recognition of it's physical properties” is entirely based on the premise that everything is an “object”. Essentially “defining out of existence” (see below) anything that is not an object.

The label itself is nothing more than “shorthand” for the “longhand” definition. And neither the definition, nor the label, are the thing. (The map is not the territory.) They are nothing more than ink on a page or sound waves in the air. And that ink and those soundwaves have no intrinsic meaning whatsoever. Someone must come along and say “those ink scratches mean so-and-so” – i.e. define them.

So the only “logical” thing one can say about any definition is simply “I do/don’t associate that meaning with that label”. Anything else is presumptuous.

Well, the other side of that coin is “defining it out of existence”, which works no better.

But that’s really neither here nor there.

I didn’t define anything into existence. The word “spirit” already exists, so I couldn’t have defined that into existence. And all the words in the definition refer to things that already exist, so I couldn’t have defined them into existence either. So what exactly is it you’re claiming that I “defined into existence”???

What I did do was to take an existing label and assign an existing significance to it.

Now if you don’t agree with that label-significance association, then present one that you do agree with. It doesn’t really matter what it is. (At least it doesn’t to me.) What matters is whether or not we agree on the significance.

And I showed you how logic is irrelevant as far as definitions go, as well as how nothing was defined into or out of existence.

And contrary to what some others may think, a definition (which is a premise) is never "provable".

I must remember who I am dealing with here...

'Spirit exists' must be presupposed before it can be given credit for things which have logically and reasonably been given to the mind/brain. That is why your attempt is an attempt to define your belief in spirit into existence.

I have not defined it away. I refuse to define it. That alone gives no support for your argument.

The term itself is not being defined into existence, what you believe the term represents is. I have clearly shown how that is faulty logic.

So what do you imagine people are talking about when they use the term "spirit."

Casper the friendly ghost?

Yes. And don’t forget about all that “human reflection” stuff.

I agree that 'Spirit exists' must be presupposed before ‘spirit’ can be given credit for anything.

And I agree that 'brain exists' must be presupposed before ‘brain’ can be given credit for anything.

And I agree that just because credit has already been given, does not mean that credit cannot later be given to something else.

So the issue revolves around the logic and reasonability of giving the credit.

And really, all I can say on that account is that I don’t agree with the logic and reasonability of most of the arguments I have heard. And to be clear, that doesn’t only apply to “scientific” arguments. It also applies to religions and philosophical arguments as well.

So I don’t know where we can go from there. Seems like we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

And what exactly is it that is coming into existence? We agree that the term already existed. And we agree that the “properties” already existed. So what’s left? The only thing that didn’t exist is an association between the label and the properties – in your view. (It already existed in my view.)

So really, all I hear you saying is that you simply refuse to make the same association. (“I refuse to define it.”)

Which is fine with me. I don’t think you should have to make that association if you don’t want to.

A lady and gentlemen, I enoyed your discussion very much:
a slow but steady process of refining the logical building blocks to the eventual conclusion...

HOWEVER, if any of those logical building blocks is faulty, the whole logical structure of the contr-argument crumbles.
In particular, I'm referring to the 13th post on page 9 -- where the poster has the auddassity of claiming:


_______________ ____________
A twitcing/jerking movement may be involuntary, but intuition usually occurres as a direct respose to the intesive thinking, judging from my own experience and that of others. Sometimes, it may also occurre, when we least expect it. But that's because subconsciously we're still involved in processing the information -- that alone may colour the intuition as comming "out of the blue"! Nevertheless, it is always a response to the intense thinking process -- either conscious or subconscious.

It would be nice to have the intuitive thoughts pop into one's head INVOLUNTARY, i.e. whenever "they" feel like it... Unfortunately, that's seldom the case! The more one is involved in deep thinking, the more chances there are for being enlightened with Intuitive Thoughts...

Well, this truly isn't any different from what scientists do when they presuppose that a 'Quantum field exists' to explain where virtual particles come from, etc.

In this sense, speaking about spirit isn't all that different from speaking about a quantum field which scientists totally rely upon all the time.

In fact, if a spiritualist suggests that the quantum field itself may very well be the very essence of spirit, then they have a very well-grounded concept of spirit. (this is in fact my own personal view)

The only reason that scientists have postulated the existence of a quantum field is because they need somewhere for their virtual particles to arise from. So a spiritualist could just as easily use the same notion of suggesting that this is where creativity and consciousness ultimately arise from.

It's as well-grounded as any scientific idea.



Personally, I feel that the only thing you've truly shown is that you don't understand logic, philosophy, or science.

The quantum field itself (as well as the myriad of other scientific examples I gave previously) are all examples of where science postulates things into existence simply by recognizing a need for them. So this is done all the time in philosophy and science.

It's either that or just say, "God did it".

There really is no other alternative.

Well, I guess there is. We could also just toss our hands in the are and confess that "We just don't know". But I think underneath it all, if we are honest with ourselves, we all fundamentally understand that in the end, we truly don't know.

Just the same, it's interesting to consider the possiblities doncha think?

Sky,

This is a little lengthy, however, I felt it necessary. Hopefully you will find it meaningful.



Absolutely!

Losing sight of the human reflection elements which are always contained in a written forum is a detriment to mutual understanding and a stepping stone for careless assumption.

Because I realize that others hold a belief in spirit which may or may not be held dear to them, out of respect for the person alone, I attempt to establish enough dialogue to assess how important those beliefs are, and how much of the rest of the belief system is supported by those beliefs. If I am prudent, then I must take this into consideration.



'Brain exists' is not presupposed, it can be shown. That 4 pound mass inside of the human skull is a brain. It can be pointed to and measured. We have plenty of reason to believe that every(normal) human has this physical feature. We can judge the differences between a healthy normal brain and one which has been damaged in some way, noting the changes in the individual, etc.

'Brain exists' is not presupposed any more than 'nose exists' is.



Credit has been given to the mind/brain for the things which you use to define spirit based on demonstrable and repeatable evidence/findings. Therefore, it takes overwhelming evidence to the contrary in order to replace that knowledge with something completely different. An arbitrarily assigned label which has been placed upon an undetectable entity and later given credit for those things known to have a different source does not have the same logical/reasonable grounding as a label given to a known object which has been tested in literally tens of thousands of ways over and over again.



In the context of this thread, this seems like the best idea if for no other reason than that the specifics of any particular belief system are not meant to be hashed out.



The term Zeus comes to mind. That label had been given the physical attributes(credit for detectable things) which - as of that time - had not been known otherwise. As those things became more well known, the term lost much of it's meaning through losing what it had been falsely given credit for. Now that term is known to have been a way for the people to grasp some form of understanding regarding what they claimed was a result of Zeus. Through research and knowledge gained from repeatable experiment and demonstrable evidence to the contrary, Zeus, the term, does not possess the same significance(meaning through what it had been given credit for) as it did when the term was first coined.

I am not saying that it is absolutely impossible for spirit to be 'responsible' for the things which you have mentioned. That very well may be the case, however, I find little reason and even less logical grounding to attribute those things to something other than the human brain/mind.

There is a logical method by which one can determine the validity of an argument for a thing's existence. That thing is either detectable through it's own mass, or the affects that it has on other physical objects.

I refuse to define spirit for several reasons, one of which is because it is yet to have been physically detected. There are no physical means for description, as there are for other yet to have been physically detected but known(or postulated) to exist things - gravity comes to mind, as well as dark matter/energy, the quantum field, the 11 dimensions required for M theory, etc. You see, the observations being made in science, require the postulation of some of these things, based upon detectable demonstrable and repeatable evidence, all of which is supported by our prior knowledge. Our knowledge has led us to them.

The known things which have been attributed to the term spirit have been repeatedly shown to have a physiological source - the brain/mind. So the invocation of the term spirit leads us away from what we already have proven to be the most likely scenario given the repeatability of the evidence involved.

Well, this is given by the argument that humans are creative. They apparently come up with new ideas for no apparent reasons.

So, for many people the latter part of your requirement has indeed been satisfied.




Well, again, that's your personal opinion which you are perfectly well entitled to. But the bottom line is, that for the reasons given in response to your previous quote, many people are perfectly within the realm of using logic correctly to argue that of observation of creativity is sufficient evidence to lead us to the conclusion that spirit must exist.

So to say that they have faulty logic is incorrect on your part. You are simply in disagreement of the pathways they have chosen to consider. There is nothing "faulty" about their logic at all.



Again, this is a mere opinion which cannot be supported by science. There are many mysteries and unknowns associated with how the brain works in its entirety. To suggest that all of these things have been shown to have a physiological source, is simply not true. That's an assertion of personal opinion which has not been concrete shown to be the case by science.

In fact, if this is your basis for your position then clearly this position is nothing more than your own personal opinion because the brain simply isn't as well-understood as you seem to belief.

So that may be the problem right there. You may have an over-confident belief in what science can actually say about the human psyche.

To tell other people that their views are 'logically faulty' would require that they are in agreement with your premise on this latter point, which most people are not likely to be in agreement with.

I know that I'm not. I personally don't believe that science can explain where creativity comes from in no uncertain terms.

It can't come from previous knowledge because then it wouldn't be new and fresh. So that rules out memory and past experiences. What's left?

I don't believe that science has explained creativity in full, and until that can be sewn up tight, then it can't be said that to consider spiritual sources is "faulty logic", IMHO.

All you're doing there is trying to give your opinions more logical 'clout' than the opinions of a spiritualist. But I personally don't see it. It's just over-confidence on your part that these things might someday be understood in terms of physiological processes.

I don't think it can yet be said that they can be explained in depth.

In fact, I'm quite sure that they can't. If they could be that concretely explained I pretty sure that result would be fairly popular.

So in all honestly, I see your entire position on this to be nothing more than your own personal beliefs that science will someday be able to come up with an explanation for these things.

But to day, they aren't yet there, and may never get there.

So, in a real sense, it's your logic that's faulty, because you are basing all of your conclusions on the unproven presumption that all human psyche will someday be explained in terms of physiological processes.

We just aren't there yet. And many of us believe we'll never get there. I personally believe that it's going to turn out to be just like quantum mechanics and ultimately be unanswerable. We're going to hit the same infinitely deep 'brick wall' of no return that we hit in our investigations of the physical world.

In fact, when we get right down to it, we can't even explain the physical processes. So to say that mental processes can be explained in terms of physical processes is a slippery slope indeed.

Spirit cannot be ruled out at this point. That's the bottom line right there. So it's wrong to suggest that people who consider spirit are using 'faulty logic', IMHO.

That's just wrong.

Saying that you disagree is one thing.

Saying that spiritualists are using 'faulty logic' is just downright rude and unsupportable. There is plenty of solid logic behind the notion of spirit being a plausible reality.

Especially if the spiritualists are only considering the plausibility of spirit. If they are claiming to have proof of spirit, then that's another thing.

However, having said that, science has no proof of a quantum field either. All they truly know is that things pop into existence from nowhere and so they call that nowhere the quantum field.

Spiritualists are doing a very similar thing. They see creativity pop into existence from seemingly nowhere and so they call that nowhere spirit.

I truly don't see much difference between the two at all. In fact, I personally believe that spirit and the quantum field are one in the same. So my personal idea of spirit is already covered fully by science. And science has even demanded that this quantum field totally permeate the entire brain as well as everything that exists. The quantum field is omniscient, as I believe that spirit is. The quantum field even has properties of non-locality, entanglement, and many other properties that I would expect spirit to have. So from my point of view science has already discovered spirit and has simply named it the quantum field.

The “brain” side of the brain.vs.spirit debate always seems to boil down to this “authoritarian” type of argument.

You say things like “known to have a different source” and “tested literally tens of thousands of times” and “demonstratable evidence and findings”.

But I have not seen and/or do not know those things.

So what am I left with? The only two things I have to compare are:

1) Your claim that others know and have seen things.
2) The things I know and have seen.

I understand that you accept the claims of those others and that they align with your own observations and reasoning. And I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the insistence that I accept those claims in the face of my own contrary observation and reasoning.

And not to ignore the rest of your post, but it all seems to be centered on that one concept. So I’ll just let the above stand as my reply to all of it.

Your problem mentioned above - "What I do have a problem with is the insistence that I accept those claims in the face of my own contrary observation and reasoning." - is supported through your own mis-understanding of what I have written here.

I do not insist on that. I had hoped that you would be able to see it otherwise.