What is a Spirit?

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

Wright said:

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Conciousness does not describe the chemical reactions, it describes the human perception, the concept of self, which is what spirt boils down to at the core. There is a gap between how that translates from the chemical reactions that we observe and for all intents and purposes they might not be distinguisable.

But you just said scientifically speaking, thought or mental processes, which is what we define conciousness by, is just complex chemical reactions. You also said spirit and conciousness is basically the same thing (one being the applied of the other); hence the conclusion of spirit = complex chemical reaction. As for the other thing, ff the gap might not be distinguisable, how could you argue that there's a gap in the first place?

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Your second premise is not true however. Viruses are the titular example of inert material, that hijacks "living" cells to make copies of itself. Viruses are complex chains of protiens but they are not defined as living.

Living systems typically do two basic things: preserve and replicating genetic information, and maintain an organized system that decreases entropy by consuming energy and increasing entropy externally. Simply put make babies, eat, and shit. But we can and have created mechanical systems that can do these things to a degree. 

 

As for this, I lack the knowledge to fully support the living thing claim, so I won't try to argue back here, even though I have the feeling that viruses are just the unexplicable exception to the rule I proposed earlier.

The second premise points at those mechanical system, but why would those mechanical systems do those things unless they were programmed to? Again, a living thing manipulating something that was never living in the first place. Just because you can construct something that is supposed to replicate what living things does doesn't make it a living thing. Why would a machine want to replicate its genetic information? If such construct would exist, then I'd need to investigate deeper, though you could make a claim that those never living things are actually the same as living things; but then again, (and not to go further from what I claimed toward OP's question) when such machine cease to exist, there's nothing left for it. There's no robotic spirit, no robotic trascendence. It would simply turn off, just like living things cease to live.

Addressing that of #2:

Programming is just a set of instructions that define behavior. The state of that programming in action and being processed is what could be considered the machine's "spriit". This metaphor, applies to lifeforms as we know them as well. DNA is just a set of instructions that describe how to build a lifeform. But then that means that the lifeform itself is just the processing of genetic instruction. 

The difference here is that in a machine, the actualization of the instructions are the programs running the machine, while for living things the machine and the program are the same thing. But in this case, there is no distiguishment between living, dead, or non-living matter.

That of #1:

Let me be specific, because I think I might have over complicated things.

We cannot observe mental processes (thought), only the chemical reactions we know to be tied to them. This is what I mean by it being indistinguishable. Not being able to tell the difference doesn't mean that they are the same. Perhaps, incomprehensible would be a better word. Rather its more likely that thought is the deciphering of those interactions but then we're leaving biology and going into psychology.