A Scientific Basis for Spirit

[Abracadabra]

Prelude:

The question often comes up as to whether there could be a scientific basis for spirit.
The answer seems to be quite simple.
Spirit can only be a scientific concept if a testable hypothesis can be offered for it.
So with that in mind, I would like to propose just such an experiment.
An experiment that you can personally perform without the aid of any technology.
However, before we can propose such an experiment, we must first have some definitions and a hypothesis to test.

Definition of Spirit:

This experiment will be based upon the following definition of spirit.
Arguing with this definition of spirit is a totally different topic.
If you disagree with this definition of spirit, then you have no interest in this experiment.
In fact, you can just say so. Just say, "I don't accept your proposed definition of spirit"
I have no interest in arguing endlessly on that point.
I'll accept that you reject this definition of spirit. It's no big deal.

Here is a preliminary definition of Spirit I got from Goggle's Dictionary:

Preliminary Brainstorming Definition of Spirit:
spir·it/ˈspirit/
Noun: The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

For the purpose of this experiment I would like to rework this definition a bit.
After all, this is my experiment, and I'm permitted to refine the concept that I'm hoping to test.

All I would like to change is the term "soul" at the end of the definition, and replace it with something a bit more scientific.

Working Scientific Definition:
spir·it/ˈspirit/
Noun: The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; and experiences the phenomenon of consciousness.

So in other words, I'm just trashing the non-scientific word "soul" and replacing it with "and experiences the phenomenon of consciousness"

This is precisely the concept that I'm interested in testing. So this definition of spirit should work well for this experiment.


Preliminary Scientific Knowledge and Theories:

Before proceeding to the experiment we need to understand the current scientific view of "spirit".
What does science currently have to say about this concept of spirit (as defined above)

Well, to the best of my knowledge it goes as follows:

1. The human brain is nothing more than a complex biological computer.
2. This high-level of complexity gives rise to "thoughts"
3. These high-level "thoughts" are an emergent property of this computer.
4. It is these high-level emerging complex thoughts that experience consciousness.
5. No further explanation required. Thoughts are experiencing themselves.

In other words, the thoughts themselves are what is having the experience of being conscious.
But that's a bit circular is it not?
So maybe some extremely mysterious abstract idea of an "emergent property" is experiencing these thoughts?
But that's a bit speculative is it not?
To the best of my knowledge science has no detailed explanation of how this is actually accomplished.
In short, it's not based on any sort of scientific "proof".
The current scientific "theory" is nothing more than pure speculation that something along these lings is going on.
But they certainly have no clue what that something might be.

This brings us to the actual experiment.

The Actual Experiment:

Ok, to begin with I did not invent this experiment. On the contrary it's older than the hills.
It's really quite simple.
Still your mind.
Ignore every thought that emerges from your complex biological computer (i.e. your brain)
Simply don't pay any attention to them.
Don't focus on them.
Don't give them your attention.
Don't think about anything.
Just experience the thoughts that emerge from your biological computer as a river flowing past your attention.
Then ask yourself what is it that is experiencing this state of affairs?
What is this silent presence that requires nary a thought to exist?
What is it that even has an attention that can be focused?

Are the thoughts that emerge from your brain thinking of themselves?
Surely that's clearly not the case since you are not your thoughts.
You are the entity that is perceiving thought and focusing attention.

What does this experiment demonstrate?

Well it certainly appears to me to demonstrate that you are not your thoughts. That's clearly a given.
You can ignore your thoughts even during the waking state yet your 'spirit' still exists (based on our working definition of spirit)
In other words, you are still able to perceive and experience consciousness even when not thinking about it.
Therefore what sense does it make to proclaim that you are a product of thought, or that you even need a brain to exist at all?

Clearly you must be something else.

Spirit (i.e. the seat of experience) must be independent of thought and thus independent of any biological computer.

[RW_9]

I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you've redefined spirit as consciousness then no experiment or further evidence is required, consciousness exists.

You've misrepresented current understanding of the matter. Those high level thoughts aren't experiencing consciousness, they are consciousness. The rest of your comments on this matter are based upon this misrepresentation, so your criticism of the current understanding is baseless. In short, straw man due to a fuzzy understanding of the subject.

Your "experiment" simply assumes that your brain is experiencing something eternal. You're asking us to think without thinking. To focus without exerting the mental effort required to focus. To pay attention without paying attention etc etc. I have to ask, if we have to use our biological machines to conduct this experiment how can we be sure that what we are experiencing is external to those machines in the first place? Where are our blinds, double blinds? What are the parameters, what are we attempting to achieve, what results should we expect?

What you've described as a given, no, "clearly a given" is no such thing, at least not based upon this "experiment"...which isn't an experiment at all....

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion?

Well, I tried,but things got a bit tense between Abra and me. Don't think I'll bother again.

[Anomalocaris]

I am not inclined to take any abracadabra seriously, much less one who says what this one says with a straight face.

[Epimethean]

I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion?

Well, I tried,but things got a bit tense between Abra and me. Don't think I'll bother again.

Did he turn you into a newt?

[Abracadabra]

Those high level thoughts aren't experiencing consciousness, they are consciousness

How can thoughts be consciousness if you can chose to ignore them?

What about this mysterious presence who can chose to ignore thoughts, or that supposedly has the free will to chose between them?

You guys make light of this, but you don't seem to have any concrete answers for these kinds of questions yourselves.

I am not inclined to take any abracadabra seriously, much less one who says what this one says with a straight face.

If you think that the topic of consciousness is no mystery and science has it all sewn up, then perhaps it's I who should wonder if you can keep a straight face when making that claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't understand the question Abra (I don't think you understand what you're asking either).

Are you asking me why we can't "turn off" our consciousness? We sometimes can, and do, to an extent. Can you ignore your own thoughts? Can you go blank, radio silent, comatose at will, if you will? What mysterious presence? What free will?

I'm not just going to give you anything at all. If you want to invoke science here do science. Demonstrate something.

[Cyberman]

Could it be that what we call the spirit (or soul, or mind or whatever) is merely the brain's way of experiencing what it feels like to be a brain? After all, we can examine the brain's structure physically and measure its functions electronically, but only the organ's owner truly knows what it feels like from the inside.

[Abracadabra]

I'm not just going to give you anything at all. If you want to invoke science here do science. Demonstrate something.

Gee whiz Rhytmn, why should you feel that you need to 'give me' anything?

I mean think about it. I post my thoughts on a forum as "Food for Thought" for anyone who might be interested.

Yet, here you are acting like if you give my thoughts any merit at all you'd be somehow supporting me personally.

It's truly unfortunate that Internet forums tend to be like this. Everyone is at 'war' trying to prove their views are right and everyone else's views are wrong.

It's just food for thought, that's all.

I don't understand the question Abra (I don't think you understand what you're asking either).

I'll try to address your questions, in the spirit of "Food for Thought".

I'll give you my answers. Not intended as an argument. They are simply my answers to these questions:

Are you asking me why we can't "turn off" our consciousness?

No.

"We sometimes can, and do, to an extent.

Well we can ignore our thoughts.

But that's not the same as turning off consciousness.

As far as I know the only way to turn off conscious is to either go to sleep, or physically pass out. But even then we can't be sure that we are truly not conscious of those states. All we can be sure of is that we don't remember having been conscious when we reawaken. Perhaps all that's really going on during those times is that we aren't filing away memories of being conscious during those times?

Just food for thought.

Can you ignore your own thoughts?

I believe so. It's not easy, but yes, I believe that I have achieved states of meditation where I was not having any 'thoughts' at all. Certainly not any analytical thoughts. Just pure awareness without thinking about it.

Yes. I do believe I can ignore my own thoughts if I chose to.

Can you go blank, radio silent, comatose at will, if you will?

Not exactly but I have fallen asleep whilst meditating on occasion. (ha ha)

What mysterious presence?

The very presence that I can't simply make go away by pure will.

What free will?

Well, I don't know about you but I chose between thoughts all the time. In fact, if I didn't need to chose between thoughts I'd never have any choices to make at all.

The mere fact that I have to make choices seems to me to be concrete proof that I must choose between thoughts.

Precisely how free that process is, is clearly open to controversy.

Personally I believe in free will, but I'll probably get laughed at for believing in that too.

---

Could it be that what we call the spirit (or soul, or mind or whatever) is merely the brain's way of experiencing what it feels like to be a brain? After all, we can examine the brain's structure physically and measure its functions electronically, but only the organ's owner truly knows what it feels like from the inside.

Yes, that most certainly is a possibility. In fact, that is the current secular view right? The only problem I personally have with this idea is the problem associated with the "brain" itself experiencing anything?

What is it that is actually having this experience?

The brain is supposedly made of atoms. Atoms themselves cannot experience anything. So why should a large collection of them suddenly be able to have an 'experience'.

What is it that is having this experience?

The secular notion is that it's an 'emergent property' that has arisen from complexity. So what they are basically asking me to accept is the idea that an abstract notion of an "emergent property" is what is actually having the experience.

I find that concept hard to grasp.