A Scientific Basis for Spirit

[Abracadabra]

I could simply redefine spirit as a concept entirely within the lines of what is currently known about some mundane aspect of our lives (and is completely at odds with whatever you are calling spirit Abra) and we would have two competing theories. Of the two, mine would be more evidenced and make fewer assumptions. I hereby redefine spirit as the chemical process otherwise known in living organisms as metabolism. -Off to publish his paper-

I think that's a great idea.

You'll have a spirit that cannot be denied by anyone.

The ultimate spirituality.

You could even name it Rhythmism and start your own religion if you wanted to. I guarantee that you could make a bundle just writing books on it. Followers would magically seem to pop into existence from nowhere.

Seriously. Just look at how successful Pastafarianism became? Or whatever they call that spaghetti God.

[The Grand Nudger]

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".

[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.

[Epimethean]

Your signature is the most profound expression of your idiocy yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Deju Vu?

[Epimethean]

Vu ja de!

[Cyberman]

Deju Vu?

Not again!

[Abracadabra]

Your signature is the most profound expression of your idiocy yet.

My signature is the most profound truth in the universe.

[Epimethean]

Of course, we've already established that you are demented and cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction, so, "why of course, and here is your lithium."

[Abracadabra]

Of course, we've already established that you are demented and cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction, so, "why of course, and here is your lithium."

That my be true, but why should anyone care what has been established by unimaginative uncreative people who erroneously believe that science has ruled out mystery in the universe?

Clearly they'll claim to have established anything without sufficiently considering it in highly imaginative and creative ways.



It's kind of like the Christians who keep beating the dead horse of their hateful God hoping that if they beat him hard enough he'll somehow become "good".

But not to worry.

I'm leaving this site anyway. So break out the atheistic champagne!

You guys do a great job of showing the Christians the errors of their ways. You certainly don't need my help with that.

And if you all like to wallow in a spiritless existence that has no mystery who am I to interfere with that?

I have no desire to take that from you if you cherish it so much.

I'm off to Wicca land on a parallel web site in another psychic dimension of reality.

kips down the yellow brick road picking petals from a daisy. "She loves me, she loves my knot,...