A Scientific Basis for Spirit

[Abracadabra]

But would I have any spirit at all? No, not in actually. I've simply redefined it to suit my purposes. I'm using my new definition ( in effect making spirit equivalent with metabolism both linguistically and scientifically) as a reference to evidence, but making claims that are entirely unrelated to that definition. Claims such as "spirit can be shown to produce energy. This effect is automatic, there is no sentient or controlling force involved, ergo spirit as the source of energy is the basis of reality".

I agree, the very term "spirit" is a highly controversial term. That is precisely why I chose to give a specific definition for it at the outset of this thread.

If "spirit" is merely defined as the non-physical part of us that has an experience, then clearly we must be 'spirit'. Since no physical part of us is capable itself of having an 'experience'.

What is supposedly having an 'experience' is a abstract notion of property of complexity that emerges from a brain.

Well, if once such property can emerge from a brain, why not two such properties?

In fact, supposedly this does happen in some brains. We consider that to be a defect and label it as a mental illness called schizophrenia.

But if a person has two distinct notions of 'self' then who's to say which of those notions are "real" and which is an "Illusion"?

Wouldn't they both be equally 'real'?

How could one lay anymore claim to reality than the other?

Moreover, if this is are 'working definition" for a concept of "spirit", then why should we claim that people can't call up and speak with "spirits" at least within their own brains?

If we are nothing more than a thought-form that has emerged from a physical biological computer, then why shouldn't other thought-forms also potentially emerge within that same computer?

Some people may be having experiences with these multiple thought-forms all the time. How could we possibly know otherwise without climbing into their brain and viewing reality from that perspective?

It seems to me that even from a purely secular atheistic point of view these are valid questions.