By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
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.



Around the Network

something to keep in mind is that even though we believe we have a comprehensive understanding of our environment scientists themselves state that over 95% of the matter around us is not measurable with our current instrumentation

imo its naive to claim that the concept of a supernatural realm that is imperceptible to us is impossible or just there to alleviate our fear of death when we admittedly have such an incomplete picture of what's going on



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.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Augen said:
As I understand it the spirit in literal religious terms is a non physical manifestation of a being that can transport itself to another dimension called the "after life" made up of three planes; paradise, purgatory, and the inferno.

I cannot speak to it beyond theological terms as never witnessed nor felt anything spiritual in my existence.

Can it be described using only positive terms? Negative terms aren't super helpful. For example, if I tell you the object I'm thinking of is not huge, is not purple, is not sharp, and is not cube-shaped, what object are you thinking of? It's a basketball.

Describing something by what it is not will tell us nothing about what it is unless we have an exhaustive list which would require omniscience.

o_O.Q said:
something to keep in mind is that even though we believe we have a comprehensive understanding of our environment scientists themselves state that over 95% of the matter around us is not measurable with our current instrumentation

imo its naive to claim that the concept of a supernatural realm that is imperceptible to us is impossible or just there to alleviate our fear of death when we admittedly have such an incomplete picture of what's going on

I think you're confused about the distinction between the negative position and the antithetical position.

The negative position is not a claim, merely a skeptical stance to a positive claim. I.E. someone claims spirits/souls exist, the negative position is to say - prove it. This is much different than the antithetical position which is to respond - no, spirits/souls do not exist.

Until one has sufficient reason to believe something is so, the appropriate rational response is doubt. This is to avoid holding potentially untrue and/or unjustified beliefs.



I think you're pushing sand up hill with this request, OP, since there is no universally agreed definition of spirit as each religious or spiritual philosophy has a different take on it. And then there is the fact that in some philosophies "spirit" and "soul" have different meanings.

For instance, in some philosophies all living things have a "spirit" which is the life force that exists independent of the biological entity. But in those same philosophies only humans have a soul. The main difference is that spirit has no individual consciousness, whereas the soul does have individuality, which remains after the person has died. But these concepts are by no means universally accepted by all people who believe in metaphysical realities.

So given there can be little chance of a general agreement on what is spirit and soul, thern there is little chance of having a meaningful discussion on what spirit and soul does and whether it is detectable or measurable by means of scientific observation and experimentation. If spirit and soul are metaphysical realities, and science is only able to investigate physical reality, then science will never be able to directly observe spirit or soul. Using the instruments of physical science to try to observe metaphysical things is like trying to see radio waves with the human eye. The capability simply does not exist.

There are experiments that can be used to infer something metaphysical, like trying to find out whether the near death experience of floating above your dead body and looking down on the scene is real or imagined. If you are in a controlled space where there is something that could only be observed from above andnot be imagined (like a random number generator on top of someone's head) then if the person experiencing the NDE observes the RNG device this strongly suggests the NDE involved a true out of body experience rather than an imagined / hallucinated one. The problem is it is difficult to create these controlled conditions, so therefore it is hard to test whether NDE's are real or hallucinated. But even then this is not absolute proof, and it also does not explain how the soul or spirit acts or has an effect on the normal living person / creature. All it does is raise more question.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
RadiantDanceMachine said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

The spirit is the electricity that makes our brain and body function. Whether it retrains consciousness once the body dies, we'll all just have to wait and see lol

Err...what? This is well understood science here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-NA86aAMvY

I am a man of science myself and as such, I have to except that until there is proof, there is no proof. Until we can die and come back from said death, we're just going to have to rely on probability and that's neither fact nor fiction.



Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

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.


Gee, I still don't truly get this. Thought I'd blame things being lost in translation rather than a confusing explanation.

 

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

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.

 

What about the fact that it's a machine? Or you think we could construct a perfectly programmed lifeform that behaves on free will, and choses to process its genetic instruction as it wishes?



o_O.Q said:
something to keep in mind is that even though we believe we have a comprehensive understanding of our environment scientists themselves state that over 95% of the matter around us is not measurable with our current instrumentation

imo its naive to claim that the concept of a supernatural realm that is imperceptible to us is impossible or just there to alleviate our fear of death when we admittedly have such an incomplete picture of what's going on

I think you're confused about the distinction between the negative position and the antithetical position.

The negative position is not a claim, merely a skeptical stance to a positive claim. I.E. someone claims spirits/souls exist, the negative position is to say - prove it. This is much different than the antithetical position which is to respond - no, spirits/souls do not exist.

Until one has sufficient reason to believe something is so, the appropriate rational response is doubt. This is to avoid holding potentially untrue and/or unjustified beliefs.

"I think you're confused about the distinction between the negative position and the antithetical position."

what makes you say that?



Wright said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

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.


Gee, I still don't truly get this. Thought I'd blame things being lost in translation rather than a confusing explanation.

 

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

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.

 

What about the fact that it's a machine? Or you think we could construct a perfectly programmed lifeform that behaves on free will, and choses to process its genetic instruction as it wishes?

If its simply a question of programming complexity, then it stands to reason that is an inevitability not a possibility. Furthermore, free will may very well be an illusion. Every choice that you make can be attributed to a response to stimuli, and that reaction is simply a result of hardwired DNA not choice or anything like that.

Even Human's, the titular intellegent being with "Free Will", has no mental choice over how their DNA creates cells in their body, it just happens. You can influence your DNA intentionally by changing your environment via epigenetics, but you can't control how that DNA is processed and controls you.

Like I said, Machine's are run by programs, the programs are the code in action.

Lifeforms themselves are both the program and the machine, DNA is the genetic code that puts lifeforms in action.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pxG-Nh9Xr0

This should answer all of your questions.



Twitter: @d21lewis