Life of Pi

[mdsimpson92]

hanks for trying to answer, but now I have to ask what "spirit" is. I believe that meaning comes from within, it's something that arises in the space between human beings (or other things, actually, if you allow a more general conceptualization of "meaning"). I believe that only physical things like matter and energy exist, but that they can exist in configurations and patterns that have meaning and purpose*. If you wish, you can call that phenomenon "spirit". "Spirituality" is what I would call the quest for meaning, higher purpose, and inner peace.

If I understand you correctly, the only difference in our beliefs is that you believe in a God-given purpose for the universe and human beings, meaning and purpose handed down from above, whereas I believe that meaning and purpose just sort of "show up" naturally where possible.

My personal theism aside. I actually largely agree in terms of meaning coming from human beings. Especially in terms of human morality. It arises out of relationships between other human beings. It does not come from a vacuum.

Now granted, I am not a physicalist I personally find that the term "physical" and "natural" to be vague and ill defined to the point that it loses a lot of practical meaning (kind of like God sometimes, as Tillich once pointed out ). That being said, that does kind of have a fun kind of emergentism-like view on reality.

[KR Wordgazer]

hanks for trying to answer, but now I have to ask what "spirit" is. I believe that meaning comes from within, it's something that arises in the space between human beings (or other things, actually, if you allow a more general conceptualization of "meaning"). I believe that only physical things like matter and energy exist, but that they can exist in configurations and patterns that have meaning and purpose*. If you wish, you can call that phenomenon "spirit". "Spirituality" is what I would call the quest for meaning, higher purpose, and inner peace.

If I understand you correctly, the only difference in our beliefs is that you believe in a God-given purpose for the universe and human beings, meaning and purpose handed down from above, whereas I believe that meaning and purpose just sort of "show up" naturally where possible.

I suppose that would be the only difference in our beliefs if I accepted your definition of "spirit," which for you is something that arises out of matter. I don't think I do accept that definition-- but if the only things to which you will grant reality are matter and energy, then you will not accept a definition of "spirit" that believes it to be something other than matter or energy.

"Spirit" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." If you don't like that definition, I suppose I could turn the tables and ask what "matter" and "energy" are. As MD Simpson says,

Now granted, I am not a physicalist I personally find that the term "physical" and "natural" to be vague and ill defined to the point that it loses a lot of practical meaning (kind of like God sometimes, as Tillich once pointed out ).

As for this, MD:

My personal theism aside. I actually largely agree in terms of meaning coming from human beings. Especially in terms of human morality. It arises out of relationships between other human beings. It does not come from a vacuum.

I didn't mean that meaning does not or cannot come from human beings. But I was speaking in terms of transcendent meaning-- which QT does not admit the existence of.

[QuantumTroll]

KR, I think that the underlying reason for the difference in our beliefs is the simple and obvious thing: your worldview includes God, and mine does not. If I did, then transcendent meaning would be a critical part of that. If you didn't believe in God, then neither could you believe in a transcendent meaning. Either case makes perfect sense in its own context, and there doesn't seem to be a way of actually confirming or denying the existence of transcendent meaning...

Be that as it may, it's nice to explore these ideas in this way.

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

I suppose that would be the only difference in our beliefs if I accepted your definition of "spirit," which for you is something that arises out of matter. I don't think I do accept that definition-- but if the only things to which you will grant reality are matter and energy, then you will not accept a definition of "spirit" that believes it to be something other than matter or energy.

What is spirit, if not matter or energy or a product of matter and energy? Actually, never mind, that's not a good question. But I'll leave it here as food for thought

"Spirit" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." If you don't like that definition, I suppose I could turn the tables and ask what "matter" and "energy" are.

Before I answer yours, here's one for you: why did you think that I would not like that definition?

Matter and energy are the stuff that the universe is made out of. Fundamentally, they behave in a way that is pretty closely described by the Standard Model. The universe itself also has an (probably infinite) extent in space and time, which provides the domain in which matter and energy do their thing. We can keep digging deeper, asking what spacetime is and why stuff seems to behave in the way we observe, and my belief is that the universe exists in the way it does because that's what it does. Why would it not exist? It's a bit like asking why there exists a three-sided polygon, and why does it have three corners, too? Or like asking why God exists, maybe.

Now granted, I am not a physicalist I personally find that the term "physical" and "natural" to be vague and ill defined to the point that it loses a lot of practical meaning (kind of like God sometimes, as Tillich once pointed out ).

It gets like that when you deal with borderline cases like pantheism. We're not far from that point here, I think. Still, I think we can differentiate between things coming from within the universe (call this natural or physical) and things coming from outside (call this supernatural or transcendent). A pantheist might disagree, but as long as we understand each other it's fine, right?

[Metacrock]

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

I basically agree with you about spirit being in nature, but not totally becuase God is spirit, God can't be subject to nature. I agree to the extent that we don't need a Casper the friendly ghost inside our heads or guts called "spirit." Mind is spirit. in fact what is overlooked the actual Greek word meaning "spirit" (Penuma) is always defined as meaning wind or breath but it also means mind.

Of course that leaves the definition of "mind" as open ended. If God is mind that's why I understand God as mind and us as thoughts produce by that mind. That means what you take to be "nature" is nothing more than an idea. just thought. it's not the solid knock on it substance we think it is. It's no more solid than a day dream.

there is no way to know. nothing scientific you could to do tell would necessarily be outside the day dream. so there is no way to know.

I have good reasons to think it's true even if I can't prove it.

[QuantumTroll]

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

I basically agree with you about spirit being in nature, but not totally becuase God is spirit, God can't be subject to nature. I agree to the extent that we don't need a Casper the friendly ghost inside our heads or guts called "spirit." Mind is spirit. in fact what is overlooked the actual Greek word meaning "spirit" (Penuma) is always defined as meaning wind or breath but it also means mind.

Of course that leaves the definition of "mind" as open ended. If God is mind that's why I understand God as mind and us as thoughts produce by that mind. That means what you take to be "nature" is nothing more than an idea. just thought. it's not the solid knock on it substance we think it is. It's no more solid than a day dream.

there is no way to know. nothing scientific you could to do tell would necessarily be outside the day dream. so there is no way to know.

I have good reasons to think it's true even if I can't prove it.

Well, you're not far off. Since the universe appears to be self-consistent, it can be described mathematically. This is a finding from physics. Computation theory (a branch of maths) tells us that computers can simulate mathematical constructs. It's a perfectly plausible premise to believe that our entire universe is essentially a program being run on a transcendent computer of some sort. Our brains are computers, and our minds the program. Who can say what kind of computer the universe runs on, but if you call that God then the universe would be the mind of God. Yay science and math!

You can use the above argument for God, if you like. The response you'll get from atheists (or me,mat least) is that a "universe computer" isn't something I would call God. You should know me well enough by now to know why I wouldn't, but I can tell you if you want me to

[KR Wordgazer]

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

Before I answer yours, here's one for you: why did you think that I would not like that definition?

Because spirit is a "principle" or "force," which does not necessitate its being either matter or energy (unless you're previously committed to these being all there is that it can be). It's interesting how the two of us can look at the same definition and see different things in it.

Well, you're not far off. Since the universe appears to be self-consistent, it can be described mathematically. This is a finding from physics. Computation theory (a branch of maths) tells us that computers can simulate mathematical constructs. It's a perfectly plausible premise to believe that our entire universe is essentially a program being run on a transcendent computer of some sort. Our brains are computers, and our minds the program. Who can say what kind of computer the universe runs on, but if you call that God then the universe would be the mind of God. Yay science and math!

You can use the above argument for God, if you like. The response you'll get from atheists (or me,mat least) is that a "universe computer" isn't something I would call God. You should know me well enough by now to know why I wouldn't, but I can tell you if you want me to

[/quote][/quote]

And yet you are willing to call humans computers. Why the difference?

I can't see humans as just mind programs running on brain computers. It seems to me to be somewhat analogous to looking at a Van Gogh painting and saying that what it really is, is certain chemical compounds dried onto a piece of canvas. I agree with Metacrock that mind and spirit are possibly the same thing in humans. But I think all living things have some form of spirit-- even things like trees that have no brains and certainly appear to have no minds.

[QuantumTroll]

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

Before I answer yours, here's one for you: why did you think that I would not like that definition?

Because spirit is a "principle" or "force," which does not necessitate its being either matter or energy (unless you're previously committed to these being all there is that it can be). It's interesting how the two of us can look at the same definition and see different things in it.

Indeed!

Well, you're not far off. Since the universe appears to be self-consistent, it can be described mathematically. This is a finding from physics. Computation theory (a branch of maths) tells us that computers can simulate mathematical constructs. It's a perfectly plausible premise to believe that our entire universe is essentially a program being run on a transcendent computer of some sort. Our brains are computers, and our minds the program. Who can say what kind of computer the universe runs on, but if you call that God then the universe would be the mind of God. Yay science and math!

You can use the above argument for God, if you like. The response you'll get from atheists (or me,mat least) is that a "universe computer" isn't something I would call God. You should know me well enough by now to know why I wouldn't, but I can tell you if you want me to

And yet you are willing to call humans computers. Why the difference?

Whatever else a human being is, we are also computers. That is, our brains perform large numbers of computations all the time, taking data from senses and memory and turning it into experiences and activating muscles. Thinking, cognition, is an act of computation, because at the very least it involves "reading" and "writing" data in our brains. God must also be a computer, because he also thinks (in my opinion he must think). But a computer isn't necessarily a human, the same way a computer isn't necessarily God and a computer isn't necessarily a laptop running Windows XP.

I can't see humans as just mind programs running on brain computers. It seems to me to be somewhat analogous to looking at a Van Gogh painting and saying that what it really is, is certain chemical compounds dried onto a piece of canvas. I agree with Metacrock that mind and spirit are possibly the same thing in humans. But I think all living things have some form of spirit-- even things like trees that have no brains and certainly appear to have no minds.

I don't see it as shallow or meaningless to be a computer. I'm a mammal, too, after all . Remember how I believe that spirit comes from the relationship of the parts that make up a thing. The tree and the painting both have a meaningful arrangement of compounds and a spirit to match. I like this because I feel that your "spirit" is kind of an empty word, whereas mine actually is something. You probably feel the reverse, I guess

[Metacrock]

Spirit, "the vital principle or animating force within living beings." I can accept that definition. I like it, even. Spirit is within living beings. Spirit is within living beings. Here is how I see it: a proper arrangement of matter and energy will interact with itself in such a way as to continue being a proper arrangement of matter and energy, and the arrangement and the interaction are called a living being and its spirit. There's no spirit outside of living beings like ghosts or angels or magic.

I basically agree with you about spirit being in nature, but not totally becuase God is spirit, God can't be subject to nature. I agree to the extent that we don't need a Casper the friendly ghost inside our heads or guts called "spirit." Mind is spirit. in fact what is overlooked the actual Greek word meaning "spirit" (Penuma) is always defined as meaning wind or breath but it also means mind.

Of course that leaves the definition of "mind" as open ended. If God is mind that's why I understand God as mind and us as thoughts produce by that mind. That means what you take to be "nature" is nothing more than an idea. just thought. it's not the solid knock on it substance we think it is. It's no more solid than a day dream.

there is no way to know. nothing scientific you could to do tell would necessarily be outside the day dream. so there is no way to know.

I have good reasons to think it's true even if I can't prove it.

Well, you're not far off. Since the universe appears to be self-consistent, it can be described mathematically. This is a finding from physics. Computation theory (a branch of maths) tells us that computers can simulate mathematical constructs. It's a perfectly plausible premise to believe that our entire universe is essentially a program being run on a transcendent computer of some sort. Our brains are computers, and our minds the program. Who can say what kind of computer the universe runs on, but if you call that God then the universe would be the mind of God. Yay science and math!

You can use the above argument for God, if you like. The response you'll get from atheists (or me,mat least) is that a "universe computer" isn't something I would call God. You should know me well enough by now to know why I wouldn't, but I can tell you if you want me to

We have to make our analogies. We can't really think except analogically. We can't speak except to use metaphors. Yet we have some kind of tacit knowing limiter in our brains that distinguishes metaphor from literalism. I lose my patience with people who think we know everything (not aimed at you QT).

our sample of what's out there is still very limited.

[Metacrock]

I don't see it as shallow or meaningless to be a computer. I'm a mammal, too, after all .

computers are made by people and programed by them. they dont' control themselves. they don't own themselves. who designed and programmed you QT? computers don't feel and they can't have compassion so why should they value it?

Remember how I believe that spirit comes from the relationship of the parts that make up a thing. The tree and the painting both have a meaningful arrangement of compounds and a spirit to match. I like this because I feel that your "spirit" is kind of an empty word, whereas mine actually is something. You probably feel the reverse, I guess

that's what people say when they wont control and they can't have it. that's the reductionist trick. that must not exist. reduce it out of existence lose the phenomena and pretend it's not there.

It's a big pretense to think is some pristine endeavor that has no self delusion and no pitfalls, no ideology. If Something exist we just know all about it becuase we know everything.

Our data base is still extremely limited. When Is ay spirit is mind I don't mean it's brain chemistry or "wiring' or an amalgam brain function. we don't know what consciousness is. we don't know that it's any of those things.

why can't it be come totally different? we can't study or measure it or judge becuase we seeing through it. remember my fish seeing through the water analogy?

It's wearing glasses and trying to look at the lenses without things the things beyond the lenses, while wearing them.

[QuantumTroll]

I don't see it as shallow or meaningless to be a computer. I'm a mammal, too, after all .

computers are made by people and programed by them. they dont' control themselves. they don't own themselves. who designed and programmed you QT? computers don't feel and they can't have compassion so why should they value it?

You're thinking too narrowly about computers. A computer is anything that takes in data and spits it back out again, including your brain or a mouse brain. Moreover, computers can program themselves, even simple human-built computers. Brains are programmed in the process of growth and continually while they live. Why do you say that computers don't feel and can't have compassion? Compassion is seen even in lots of animals with much simpler minds than ours.

Remember how I believe that spirit comes from the relationship of the parts that make up a thing. The tree and the painting both have a meaningful arrangement of compounds and a spirit to match. I like this because I feel that your "spirit" is kind of an empty word, whereas mine actually is something. You probably feel the reverse, I guess

that's what people say when they wont control and they can't have it. that's the reductionist trick. that must not exist. reduce it out of existence lose the phenomena and pretend it's not there.

If I were a reductionist, would I be giving emergent behavior such importance?

It's a big pretense to think is some pristine endeavor that has no self delusion and no pitfalls, no ideology. If Something exist we just know all about it becuase we know everything.

Our data base is still extremely limited. When Is ay spirit is mind I don't mean it's brain chemistry or "wiring' or an amalgam brain function. we don't know what consciousness is. we don't know that it's any of those things.

why can't it be come totally different? we can't study or measure it or judge becuase we seeing through it. remember my fish seeing through the water analogy?

It's wearing glasses and trying to look at the lenses without things the things beyond the lenses, while wearing them.

Instead of arguing, KR and I have been productively and charitably examining our beliefs to see how they differ and how they're alike. We've found that there's really just one point of difference (the existence of God), and all the other apparent conflicts are a natural consequence of that one. So we really agree with each other's viewpoint on all counts but one, which is a marvel.

No one can say which one of us is right, so why argue? Instead, try to see how the other viewpoint makes its own kind of sense.