Y'know this has become completely absurd - arguing over who did or did not use what words where and what they meant by them.

If we're going to discuss the concept of "spirit", then let's do that and not get sidetracked into trying to prove each other wrong because of some miswordings taken out of context.

Sore losers...

Sore winner.

Pretending that you won this one will not save face. You lose.
You remain in darkness. Take an English class. Diagram some sentences.

Oh JB... I love you so much, I wanna be just like you when I grow up.

I love you more than corn flakes...

You are more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

G'Nite to you'uns!

Like Sky suggested you're just taking things out context and misrepresenting them:



And what did I say there?

I said, "Many people are perfectly within the realm of using logic correctly to argue that,... the observation of creativity is sufficient evidence to lead us to the conclusion that spirit must exist

That's not an assertion on my part that spirit must exist. All I'm saying there is that people are perfectly within the realm of using logic to correctly argue that the same logic used in science should be just as valid when talking about spirit because science certainly takes the stance that the quantum field must exist.

So, once again, this is just a misunderstanding on your part.

No where did I ever personally demand that spirit must exist.

Gee whiz, if I were willing to do that I wouldn't be agnostic now would I?

And everyone on these forums that has read very many of my posts at all are well aware that I'm constantly confessing to ultimately being agnostic.

So it doesn't even make sense that I would assert that spirit must exist.

And I didn't. All I did was point out the fact that people who do argue that spirit must exist using the correlation of creativity that I gave above, are being at least as logically consistent as scientists.

That was my point. That they are being logical, not that they have necessarily proven anything. Hells bells, I'm agnostic about the quantum field too.

I'm an extreme skeptic about everything.

You totally misinterpret what I say and screw it all around to fit your own personal agenda and then say things like the following:



Your entire conclusion here is based solely on your own misunderstandings and dire need to be right and prove that other people are wrong at all cost.

The bottom line is that you're misinterpreted my words which I have clearly shown above.

I've never claimed that spirit must exist. I'm agnostic so why would I do such a thing?

I was defending the logical validity of people who do make that claim using the above correlations. They are being at least as logical as scientists.

In the meantime all you're attempting to do is discredit me personally.

You're not even sincerely interested in the actual SUBJECT of the conversation evidently. Your solely focused on discrediting other people by attempting to claim that everyone is illogical but YOU!

You need to back off with your constant accusations that other people's logic is faulty.

If you disagree with someone just say so. No need to accuse them of having faulty logic. Like JB had suggested all you're doing when you make that claim is attempting to say that your opinion is valid and there's is not.

Also, if you genuinely believe that the concept of spirit is utter nonsense, then why do you participate in so many discussions about spirit?

That would imply that you're just a heckler. Purposefully disrupting conversations about a concept that you've already pre-concluded must be "illogical".

Thank you Sky.

It's nice to know that some people are actually understanding what I'm writing.

I'm a confessed agnostic. I don't demand, or assert, that spirit must exist. And I never have.

Well now it is three against one and Creative loses.

And James is the horses mouth.

As Creative would say: Who could possibly know more about what he actually meant than him? Creative jumped to a conclusion, and when we attempted to correct his misinterpretation, he stuck to his guns and to his 'opinion.'

Well here it is from the horses mouth.

Ok, Abracadabra. My mistake.

Do you have an argument?

Do I have an argument for what?

The only point I was hoping to make is that there are logically sound arguments that can be made that provide rational grounds for suggesting that "spirit" is, at the very least, a rationally plausible concept to consider. I would also suggest that these same arguments may even provide grounds to suggest that "spirit" is potentially a necessary concept to consider.

And, of course, I already gave those arguments in brief. The bottom line is that these arguments aren't any different from the arguments used in science. And the scientific arguments have traditionally been held to be 'logically sound'.

The observation of creativity that appears to arise from the human psyche is an observed phenomenon. Creativity cannot be explained away via memory, or previous knowledge. After all, if it was either of those two then it wouldn't be creating anything "new".

So, IMHO, the observation of human creativity, is in a very real sense, analogous to the observation of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in physics.

In physics we see something "new" (and seemingly random) coming from seemingly nowhere. So we postulate the existence of a "quantum field" that has properties which we assigned to it so that it can perform this magical feat. Even though the field itself is entirely non-physical in the sense that the field itself cannot be directly detected in any physical way.

So it seems to me that to observe creativity in the human psyche that appears to be coming from nowhere it makes every bit as much rational logical sense to postulate the existence of some psychic field from whence these things arise.

I personally take this one step further and suggest that this psychic field] and the scientifically recognized quantum field may very well be the very same field.

Any quantum physicist will quickly concede that within, and around, any and all atoms are indeed, 'quantum foam' that consists of seemingly random virtual particles popping into and out of existence constantly. Of course, this is their postulate. They must postulate the existence of this 'quantum foam' (or quantum entity) in order for their physics to work. Without it, everything breaks down and the mathematics produces nonsensical results. So they are convinced that it must actually be happening because when it's postulated to happen everything works out just fine.

Now I offer that there are three very important things to recognize here:

1. Our brains are entirely permeated with this mysterious "quantum foam"

This quantum foam exists within, and between every single atom that makes up our brains.

2. This quantum foam has a measurable observable affect on how atoms behave.

If this wasn't true there would be no need to even invent the idea. The fact that it actually has a measurable and observable affect on how atoms behave is the very reason why it needed to be postulated in the first place.

So it's not a benign concept. It's a concept that has an observable affect on physicality.

3. Many of the properties that scientists have been forced to assign to this quantum field are indeed properties that would loan themselves to many spiritual concepts.

For example, science as recognized that the quantum field has an "apparent" ability to provide genuine "randomness".

Well, genuine randomness can indeed explain creativity.

Now, please be cautious here. I am neither claiming that the quantum field has been proven to be genuinely random, and neither am I attempting to assert that this is indeed the source of creativity.

All I'm attempting to offer are plausibility arguments that are grounded in science.

This is all I have ever attempted to share. I'm not out to "prove" anything.

Another property of the quantum field that loans itself well to the concept of spirit is the property of 'non-locality'. The observed ability of quantum phenomenon to apparently make 'quantum leaps' of activity often with seemingly total disregard for the normal restraints of time and space that we hold so dear in the macro world.

I believe that this property has been well-confirmed by science, clearly via the entanglement of quantum particles. This entanglement feature of the quantum world has not only been measured and observationally confirmed in experiments, but it's even finding its way into modern technology!

Modern computer scientists are actually creating and using 'e-bits' (quantum entangled bits of information) in practical ways to do things that would be classically impossible. So this is far beyond mere theory, this is entering the realm of actual technology. We're actually getting a handle on these things and using them in practical ways.

Well, this property of non-locality would certainly account for many spiritual and psychic phenomenon.

Again, I ask that you please be cautious. I'm not suggesting that any of this "proves" anything. But I am suggesting that all of this makes this idea of "spirit" a well-grounded idea.

~~~

Finally, let's talk for a moment about this very term "Spirit".

Well, I'll be the first to grant that it's an ill-defined term. But I would also argue that everyone should recognize this and take this into consideration when discussing this term.

What does spirit mean?

Well, clearly it means differnet things to different people. In fact, for someone like a Christian the term 'spirit' would necessarily be an extremely confusing concept. Why? Because for them God has an ego. God is a spirit with an ego. But God is a spirit that no human will ever become. Therefore, for a Christian there must necessarily be a huge difference between the spirit of God and the spirit of a human. They must always retain a separate identity otherwise the human spirits would become God which would be considered absurd in that religion.

A pantheist on the other hand believes that the spirit of "god" and the spirit of humans are one in the same. We are just "facets" of the "Great Spirit" like facets on a diamond. In this sense of spirituality there is no difference between the spirit of "god" and the spirit of a human. There can't be, because ultimately they are one in the same spirit.

So the very term spirit means different things to different people, and it always has.

As you well know I'm a pantheist. I think I was basically a pantheist even when I thought I was a Christian. The very idea of being "separate" from "god" never made any real sense to me on any level.

In any case, probably a better way to view the term right now is to simply define spirit very loosely as follows:

The underlying essence of all that exists, which is ultimately connected as a whole, gives rise to physical reality including our macro experience of time, and is ultimate eternal (timeless) and the basis of what we truly are.

And again, if we recognize that the quantum field and spirit may very well be one in the same thing, then this definition is making a lot of sense. Wouldn't you agree?

So in any case, this is where I'm coming from when I suggest plausibility arguments for the concept of spirit. I think that spirit is extremely plausible, in fact, I'm pretty convinced that it's a "given". At least as much as the quantum field is a "given".

One reason I'm still agnostic is that I'm not even convinced that the quantum field actually exists.

But I'm coming around to the point where no other idea seems to make any better sense. So why not just go with the flow and accept that the quantum field exists and it is indeed the essence of spirit?

I think I just convinced myself of this, at least, if no one else.

THE OP SAYS:


After reading 4 pages of conflict over the word "spirit" which is not even mentioned in the OP - I have come to a conclusion (my own thesis argument, if will allow me).

In a philosophy/science forum - asking questions (as the OP does)indicates that a frame of reference is requested - a survey of sorts.

At some point the survey of responces either require further questionining for clarification OR some thesis including arguments and counterarguments (regarding the answers that have been given).

Others should respond applying the arguments of the original thesis to their own counter arguments.

NOTE: Please remember that a thesis statement should narrow (not broad) which means that all premises including thoughts and word definitions should be clearly presented.

Now - Creative would you like to make a thesis statement and provide a thorough argument which in someway applies to your opening post.

Cos the truth is - I think many discussions break down, just as this one has, due to a simple lack of format (a good thesis statement and logical arguments). And I don't have time to go back 15 pages to find out if there is even a legitimate discussion going on here. And I wish there were, because I needed a break to THINK about something other than biology.

I am happy though to know you are all still here - be well everyone.

Excellent post Abra. Very convincing argument. I'm gonna save that for future reference and evaluation.

Although I agree with this in spirit, I'm not sure how practical it would be. Not as regards the discussion itself, but as regards the implementation. An open forum like this is essentially "everyone talking at once. And often there are multiple resonses to a single point. And as much as I, and others,might like to see it become more structured, there are those who are simply here for entertainment purpose and not really interested in a formal debate. Nothing wrong with that. That's just how it is. "Topic drift" happens. It almost always happens.

Not really going anywhere with this. Just pointing out that it is what it is.

But again, I really do agree in spirit.

Of course you are right, I was just being a thorn, as you said I came here for conversation, even a good debate, not an argument - so I was being sarcastic.

You have a good "spirit" about it though.

Sorry for my rude interruption.

Here is the bottom line Abracadabra...

Nothing you posted is logical. Quantum whatever = quantum whatever. Quantum whatever does not equal spirit. That was a whole lot of rhetoric and unfounded assertions/equivocations.




Di,

I do not have a complete thesis to offer. A few pages back I offered more along the lines of grounding for the idea that what one believes affects how one thinks, and how one thinks is who one is.

Good to see you!

Creative,

Please explain to me why you feel that nothing James posted is logical. Telling someone that they are not being 'logical' is something you do all the time and I would like to know more about what you feel 'logic' is and how you arrive at your conclusions about what is or is not logical.

JB,

I'm not sure if I can do it and get away with it. I would rather not get in trouble again. I am doing my best to follow the rules here. I gave the basic overview in that post and earlier in more detail. It still applies.

The reason that quantum postulates exist such as a field, foam, etc. is because all prior knowledge supports it and leads to it. There is absolutely no logical connection between any of those quantum postulates and creativity, thought, or spirit. It is a classic example of using what exists in our ignorance to support our imagination.

The argument holds no water. I could use, and have, the very same argument and have the very same logical grounds(soundness) to support the existence of a pink and black elephantic smooge. Before one can attribute anything to spirit, it must first be either assumed(which is illogical) or proven to exist.

Illogical is not a badword, it just means that there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion. Because, I can use his argument without changing it to "prove" the existence of a known non-existent creature, it shows that the argument is invalid.

Say's who? The logic God?

Well, for whatever it's worth, I feel the same way about most of what you post as well. I guess we'll just have to get used to the fact that when you say, "That's illogical" you actually mean that you either can't comprehend what we said, or you simply disagree with it. Either that or you really enjoy insulting people, or just don't know any better.

Everything that I posted is precisely as logical as anything that is being done in modern science. I've made the case for that quite clearly. So if what I posted is "illogical", then so is modern science. So I think I'm in great company on that one.

You millage may vary.