why not spiritual [Archive]

Kerrie

Mar9-04, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
How do you know there is such a part of you?

mentat, the drive and inspiration to be a better person, to be more aware, the drive to learn i think can be defined as basic spirituality...we are not automatic biological robots. the desire for some of us to acheive knowledge or great feats is motivated by our spirit, thus making us spiritual-and i think spiritual is often confused with religious. let's make a loud distinction, as i think many human beings are looking for a spiritual outlet and think religion is automatically the way to it---i certainly disagree with this.

how do we know there is such a part of us (spiritual)? well, this begs the question: does biology dictate our spirit, or does the spirit dictate our biology? i don't believe we have the *technology* to discect spirit, we have come a long way, but to claim we know all about human nature is quite the ignorant one...there is nothing magical or mystical about spirit, in essence, our spirituality is the part that makes us human-whether we are artists, philosophers, or scientists---all of these have one thing in common, and that is to better ourselves as a human being.

Zero

Mar9-04, 01:02 PM

Hey! There's nothing wrong with being a biological robot, is there?!?

Fliption

Mar9-04, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
like the word consciousness?

And let's not forget the word "materialism".

Kerrie

Mar9-04, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Hey! There's nothing wrong with being a biological robot, is there?!?
not at all...but i also don't see biological robots have a great ability to play guitars either...[6)]

Zero

Mar9-04, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
not at all...but i also don't see biological robots have a great ability to play guitars either...[6)] That's unfair...I do pretty good considering I have short fingers and no formal training...

olde drunk

Mar9-04, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
How do you know there is such a part of you?
after 60+ years of looking for answers, i have mine. if you believe that this is all there is, you will become depressed and fall victim to other illnesses. no, there ain't no way to 'prove' this other than my observations thru life and how peoples beliefs influenced their life.

i am the supreme authority of what i believe and espouse. you might be able to quote a mile long list of recognized experts on any given subject. until they or you, show me, within my daily experience that your point of view or belief is better than mine, i'll retain my refined knowledge.

it is nice to fantasize about the matrix, or a computer generated world, but how does that concept help you enjoy a better tomorrow? for me, there is something beyond the physical, i've witnessed 'my proof'. experience is the only teacher. i wish you the same relevation.

peace,

Fliption

Mar9-04, 01:43 PM

What's a biological robot?

olde drunk

Mar9-04, 01:50 PM

any one know if kerrie is a mature female looking for fun??

i sure like the way s/he thinks. sorry I won't go gay.

peace,

Zero

Mar9-04, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
What's a biological robot? That's what Kerrie calls the materialistic version of a human being.

Royce

Mar9-04, 02:02 PM

I've never met a sentient biological robot. Is that something like Santa Clause? Does it own a pink unicorn?

Zero

Mar9-04, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I've never met a sentient biological robot. Is that something like Santa Clause? Does it own a pink unicorn? Very funny, Royce. I thought pink unicorns were YOUR department? You, and the rest of the non-materialist crowd, can be convinced to believe in anything that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, after all. [6)]

raptor5618

Mar9-04, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
many dictionaries, church's etc define spiritual as equal to religion...in my opinion, i feel this is incorrect...

one of my favorite quotes (don't take it too literal!):

religion is for those who fear going to hell
spirituality is for those who have been there

this quote (and i have no idea where it came from) i think helps define a little bit of a difference in the sense that religion is typically a fear based belief system, where spirituality is more of a self-made belief system...spirituality is about a person's own path down the road to self-discovery and self growth...modern religion completely lacks this, and is more of a social organization with a set of relgious rules that applies to everyone...

I think this is one of the best quotes and explainations that I have read in a long time. The only thing I would change is at the end where you say "rules that applies to everyone" I think you should have said "rules that it demands are applied to everyone" I find that much of what is considered religeous is in fact pretty hateful. Believe as they believe or else.

For instance this gay marriage thing. I have been thinking and thinking and trying to come up with one reason why it could be a bad thing. If two people are commited to each other why shouldn't they have the same rights as others who just happen to be of the opposite sex. When I hear of the awful things that happend to one side of a gay couple when one passes away I think it is a total tragedy. Ok reliegion does not have to embrace it as a religeous tie but why are they against it as a civil matter. We allow business partnerships of people of the same sex and we allow marriages of atheists.

Ok I got off track but I did what to thank you for these entry as it states very clearly what I have been trying to understand for a while.

Kerrie

Mar9-04, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That's unfair...I do pretty good considering I have short fingers and no formal training...

i am sure you do really well zero, especially considering you don't have formal training...but it's the desire and drive in you that plays and does well...and all i am saying is i think this is what spirituality is---nothing more, nothing less...

Zero

Mar9-04, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i am sure you do really well zero, especially considering you don't have formal training...but it's the desire and drive in you that plays and does well...and all i am saying is i think this is what spirituality is---nothing more, nothing less... And all I am saying is that drive is also biological.

raptor5618

Mar9-04, 02:26 PM

There is most definetly something spiritual about playing a guitar or any instrument for that matter. I picked up a guitar that was not played in many years because its owner died tragically at the age of 22. The guitar sat in its case for 10 or 15 years. I was dating his sister and said that it really should be played. I tuned it up with the old strings and it played and even sounded good. I bought new strings, tuned it and started playing.

What came out was not from me. It sounded so different than how I play and it was as if I was watching myself play. The hair stood up on my arms as I continued to play. What I played came from somewhere else that is for sure. The next time I played well that feeling was gone and it was back to me playing again. Not really proof of anything but sometimes when you play it is like you are taken over by such a feeling that what comes out seems as if it was created by another. Sure practice and ability allow this to happen but at times it only supplies part of the equation.

Zero

Mar9-04, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by raptor5618
There is most definetly something spiritual about playing a guitar or any instrument for that matter. I picked up a guitar that was not played in many years because its owner died tragically at the age of 22. The guitar sat in its case for 10 or 15 years. I was dating his sister and said that it really should be played. I tuned it up with the old strings and it played and even sounded good. I bought new strings, tuned it and started playing.

What came out was not from me. It sounded so different than how I play and it was as if I was watching myself play. The hair stood up on my arms as I continued to play. What I played came from somewhere else that is for sure. The next time I played well that feeling was gone and it was back to me playing again. Not really proof of anything but sometimes when you play it is like you are taken over by such a feeling that what comes out seems as if it was created by another. Sure practice and ability allow this to happen but at times it only supplies part of the equation. Of course it came from you...your mind has "hidden" levels, some of which only express themselves in art.

phoenixthoth

Mar9-04, 02:37 PM

spirituality is about a person's own path down the road to self-discovery and self growth...modern religion completely lacks this, and is more of a social organization with a set of relgious rules that applies to everyone

what do you think about the following quotes from the new testament:

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
--Matt 6:33
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
--Luke 17:21

Kerrie

Mar9-04, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And all I am saying is that drive is also biological.

well, we could argue all day of whether the spiritual motivates the biological, or the biological motivates the spirituality...it's a matter of perspective truly as we don't fully know the answer, however humanity doesn't create art, music, ideas for purely biological reasons.

Kerrie

Mar9-04, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what do you think about the following quotes from the new testament:

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
--Matt 6:33
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
--Luke 17:21

i really don't think much of the bible honestly...the language of it doesn't speak to me.

olde drunk

Mar10-04, 07:48 AM

i subscribe to the second and believe that number 1 springs from number 2.

all is within. our inner beliefs and feelings are projected outward to create our experience. this includes our understanding of a god.

peace,

Zero

Mar10-04, 08:12 AM

Mentat

Mar10-04, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Fliption

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
like the word consciousness?

And let's not forget the word "materialism".

God help us [:((][;)]

Mentat

Mar10-04, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
well, we could argue all day of whether the spiritual motivates the biological, or the biological motivates the spirituality...it's a matter of perspective truly as we don't fully know the answer, however humanity doesn't create art, music, ideas for purely biological reasons.

Wouldn't it be that much more interesting and miraculous if the "drive" that you speak of were a purely biological function of a purely biological being? Then you'd have to reconsider many of the more primary assumptions you've taken for granted (I don't mean "you" personally; I mean people in general, for the most part).

Have you seen my "Made of Meat" thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10987&highlight=theyre+made+meat)?

Kerrie

Mar10-04, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Wouldn't it be that much more interesting and miraculous if the "drive" that you speak of were a purely biological function of a purely biological being? Then you'd have to reconsider many of the more primary assumptions you've taken for granted (I don't mean "you" personally; I mean people in general, for the most part).

Have you seen my "Made of Meat" thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10987&highlight=theyre+made+meat)?

mentat, here is my perspective of it...if you have a television, that's great, now you have a tv that has the potential to provide you entertainment for hours...but without electricity, some kind of live force, it does you no good...just like a human vegetable on life support, without them being alive in the brain to make individual decisions they are just flesh being kept alive by machinery...

cutting life on earth down to just the bilogical is fine, but without the other half of it-a spirit of some sort-life would not exist...your drive to learn, understand is part biological of course, however your degree of that drive is where the human spirit kicks in...as for human instinct, yes i totally believe that is biological...

we can say this is fact: science has not been able to scientize the human or animal spirit...does this mean it doesn't exist because we can't catagorize, label and discect it?

Kerrie

Mar10-04, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Why do you make these sort of declarations?

wow zero, is that the best you could respond? it's obvious you disagree, so accept and let's move on.

Zero

Mar10-04, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
wow zero, is that the best you could respond? it's obvious you disagree, so accept and let's move on. Well, no, I really want an answer...why CAN'T things be biological? My need to eat is biological, why not my need to make music? Birds sing, animals dance as part of their mating, that is biological, isn't it?

olde drunk

Mar10-04, 03:10 PM

may i intrude?

ok, thanks. i would suggest that instinct is a part of an animals consciousness, whether human or otherwise. you cannot tell me that DNA or whatever imprints a young kangaroo to climb all the way up into the mother's pouch for a drink. possible? yes. probable? not much.

hunger, desire etc drive the young roo, but it is too immature to have a biological awareness of where to go.

logical, circumstantial information saves a ton of headaches when trying to wrap my brain around a complicated issue. mating, singing maybe biological, but the 'desire' to mate or sing is beyond physical.

peace,

Kerrie

Mar10-04, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, no, I really want an answer...why CAN'T things be biological? My need to eat is biological, why not my need to make music? Birds sing, animals dance as part of their mating, that is biological, isn't it?

because spirituality is the one thing that is indidual...the ability and drive to create art unlike another is truly spiritual in my opinion...if we were pure biological robots (and i emphasize robot as automatic and non-individualized), then the ability and drive to create your own music in your own style most likely wouldn't exist (in my opinion)

this isn't a case of biological vs spiritual, but like the yin and yang-you need both to flourish as a human being...just existing is purely biological.

zero, i personally think you exemplify a lot of spirit in these forums by expressing yourself so strongly. if you were a biological robot, you wouldn't give a damn of expressing what you say is true and right (in your opinion of course :D ).

selfAdjoint

Mar10-04, 07:48 PM

As the vegans never tire of pointing out, animals have personalities and "spirit" according to their capabilities too. It's a straw man argument to say that the antithesis of an ensouled person is a robot. Either that or begging the question, because that difference is precisely what the whole discussion is about. Can a being without a soul be "human" and creative, and all? I say yes.

Kerrie

Mar10-04, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
As the vegans never tire of pointing out, animals have personalities and "spirit" according to their capabilities too. It's a straw man argument to say that the antithesis of an ensouled person is a robot. Either that or begging the question, because that difference is precisely what the whole discussion is about. Can a being without a soul be "human" and creative, and all? I say yes.
i am naming the humanity and creativity as the spiritual, nothing more nothing less

Zero

Mar10-04, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
because spirituality is the one thing that is indidual...the ability and drive to create art unlike another is truly spiritual in my opinion...if we were pure biological robots (and i emphasize robot as automatic and non-individualized), then the ability and drive to create your own music in your own style most likely wouldn't exist (in my opinion)

this isn't a case of biological vs spiritual, but like the yin and yang-you need both to flourish as a human being...just existing is purely biological.

zero, i personally think you exemplify a lot of spirit in these forums by expressing yourself so strongly. if you were a biological robot, you wouldn't give a damn of expressing what you say is true and right (in your opinion of course :D ). Hey, robots can be individual, too. Since my hardware is biological, and each "blueprint" is unique, there's nothing in my biology that would make me anything other than an individual. Especially since brain development is based largely on environmental influences, even "identical" twins are unique.

Royce

Mar11-04, 07:21 AM

Here your wrong in degree, Zero. It has been shown time and time again that identical twins raised apart have remarkably similar tastes behaviors and lives pointing more to genes than environment.

Why does on being a biological being preclude one having a soul or spirit? If sentience, consciousness and awareness or emergent phenomena why can't spirit be emergent. I can see on no biological survival value for art and the appreciation of beauty whether music, painting, sculptor, dance, or nature. It is part of what makes us human instead of cows.

By the way, I had an anthropology teacher tell us that humans have no instincts. We have and are born with reflexes but not instincts and have to learn everything. After a lot of thought I had to agree with him for I could not think of one instinct that we are born with.

Zero

Mar11-04, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Here your wrong in degree, Zero. It has been shown time and time again that identical twins raised apart have remarkably similar tastes behaviors and lives pointing more to genes than environment.

Why does on being a biological being preclude one having a soul or spirit? If sentience, consciousness and awareness or emergent phenomena why can't spirit be emergent. I can see on no biological survival value for art and the appreciation of beauty whether music, painting, sculptor, dance, or nature. It is part of what makes us human instead of cows.

By the way, I had an anthropology teacher tell us that humans have no instincts. We have and are born with reflexes but not instincts and have to learn everything. After a lot of thought I had to agree with him for I could not think of one instinct that we are born with. You sort of contradict yourself on this one...are you saying that biological similarity would mean that "souls" are also very similar? That makes little sense.

"Spirit" is an undefinable, unprovable null phrase. Nothing precludes it, but nothing shows that it is extant or required either.

BTW, human beings absolutely do have instincts and biological programing, certain things we are hardwired for. If not, how is it that people of completely different backrounds, social situations, etc, react in the exact same way to stimulus? Listen to Loveline on the radio for a month, and notice how Dr. Drew and Adam can tell a person's "life story" in about 2 minutes of telephone conversation.

Kerrie

Mar11-04, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Hey, robots can be individual, too. Since my hardware is biological, and each "blueprint" is unique, there's nothing in my biology that would make me anything other than an individual. Especially since brain development is based largely on environmental influences, even "identical" twins are unique.

i find it interesting you didn't address my point regarding your own spirit displayed in this forum (my attempt to "prove" what i am referring to as spirit)...here i provide proof, but you perhaps don't care for the term "spirit" because of it's close relation to religion (?)...who knows, but i seem to remember a time when you proclaimed to be open minded but not so much to let your brains fall out...i thought that was quite balanced in being objective, but no more does it seem that you display this quality.

in any event, i am done trying to help you understand where i am coming from, even though i think i provided a good example of your own spirit being expressed in this forum (i can't see a robot expressing it's opinion as strongly as you do in a forum)---for now, i would like to discuss this with those who would rather share new ideas over argue over defintions and such...

bottom line is, the human life is charged from something, otherwise our flesh would literally rot...this is what is basically spiritual in my opinion.

Royce

Mar11-04, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You sort of contradict yourself on this one...are you saying that biological similarity would mean that "souls" are also very similar? That makes little sense.

Souls would be no more similar or dissimilar than personalities and appearance. I don't see the contradiction just too many typos or what your getting at.

"Spirit" is an undefinable, unprovable null phrase. Nothing precludes it, but nothing shows that it is extant or required either.

This would depend on your or my understanding of the word spirit. If, if is exists is not material or objective; therefor, a null phrase in science. Outside of science as in ever day life spirit has many meaning and is easily defined depending on usage i.e. school spirit, esprit de corps, Spirit of St. Louis etc. There is also that which make of different from your equally nonsensical biological robot, Zombie (?).

BTW, human beings absolutely do have instincts and biological programing, certain things we are hardwired for. If not, how is it that people of completely different backgrounds, social situations, etc, react in the exact same way to stimulus? Listen to Loveline on the radio for a month, and notice how Dr. Drew and Adam can tell a person's "life story" in about 2 minutes of telephone conversation.

Look up the biological definition of "instinct", essentially, an innate complex set of behavior not learned and repeated without deviation as in a computer program of true robotic instruction sets. Name one instinct that we are born with and is not learned. I couldn't. If you are a parent you should have the experience necessary. If your not a parent then you will have to ask those that are of take someone else's word for it. I am a parent and grandparent but no expert on the subject. I am only repeating what an anthropologist told me/us. Social behavior is learned not instinctive as children grown up in isolation from other humans has shown.

Zero

Mar11-04, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i find it interesting you didn't address my point regarding your own spirit displayed in this forum (my attempt to "prove" what i am referring to as spirit)...here i provide proof, but you perhaps don't care for the term "spirit" because of it's close relation to religion (?)...who knows, but i seem to remember a time when you proclaimed to be open minded but not so much to let your brains fall out...i thought that was quite balanced in being objective, but no more does it seem that you display this quality.

in any event, i am done trying to help you understand where i am coming from, even though i think i provided a good example of your own spirit being expressed in this forum (i can't see a robot expressing it's opinion as strongly as you do in a forum)---for now, i would like to discuss this with those who would rather share new ideas over argue over defintions and such...

bottom line is, the human life is charged from something, otherwise our flesh would literally rot...this is what is basically spiritual in my opinion. Awww, Kerrie...does this mean you won't be my date to the spring cotillion?[g)]

My personality comes through...I just consider it to be a manefestation of my unique wiring.

Kerrie

Mar11-04, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
My personality comes through...I just consider it to be a manefestation of my unique wiring.

i certainly agree, but without electricity, no manifestation will occur[;)] i am comparing the spirit to electricity...

Zero

Mar11-04, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i certainly agree, but without electricity, no manifestation will occur[;)] i am comparing the spirit to electricity... Bioelectricity, Kerrie! Neurons firing, signals being generated by my brain, sending directions to my fingers, typing at you at 90 words a minute(hunt and peck, no less!)

Kerrie

Mar11-04, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Bioelectricity, Kerrie! Neurons firing, signals being generated by my brain, sending directions to my fingers, typing at you at 90 words a minute(hunt and peck, no less!)

so this will to to continue on arguing about this is automatic? or does a robot have the need to continue convincing me of his side? the way we function can obviously be explained by science, however there still is the "program" that commands these functions, the pure will and desire...why is your brain commanding you to express your opinions and feelings, especially so strongly? because of your will/drive/spirit/need for your individual expression...this is why people create art, make music, philosophize, etc---the human spirit...the human being (or any sort of life for that matter) would not exist without the will to, thus you have the "marriage" of spirit and matter to make life...i would say you are well proving your spirit to express the non-existance of your spirit...how very ironic.

wow, i would have to say you are a true biological robot fundamentalist.

Zero

Mar11-04, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
so this will to to continue on arguing about this is automatic? or does a robot have the need to continue convincing me of his side? the way we function can obviously be explained by science, however there still is the "program" that commands these functions, the pure will and desire...why is your brain commanding you to express your opinions and feelings, especially so strongly? because of your will/drive/spirit/need for your individual expression...this is why people create art, make music, philosophize, etc---the human spirit...the human being (or any sort of life for that matter) would not exist without the will to, thus you have the "marriage" of spirit and matter to make life...i would say you are well proving your spirit to express the non-existance of your spirit...how very ironic.

wow, i would have to say you are a true biological robot fundamentalist. Most things I do are completely automatic. I assume (so correct me if I am wrong) but most of the things that we all do are automatic, with just a nudge of what you call "will" to get things rolling.

I'm going to be mostly polite about the whole "need to create art" business, except for this: why do guys learn to play guitar?

*edited to add* I think it is interesting that being a bio-robot doesn't bother me a bit. Certainly, it doesn't bother me as much as it bothers some people that I suggest it.

Deeviant

Mar11-04, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie

wow, i would have to say you are a true biological robot fundamentalist.

I just so happen to be a card carrying member of the biological robot fundamentalists so try to be just alittle more sensitive to our insensitivity.

Oh yeah, I play guitar too. I learned guitar and seek to be a performer because it will allow me to... ah.. express myself. Yup, thats it, express myself.

Zero

Mar11-04, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Deeviant
I just so happen to be a card carrying member of the biological robot fundamentalists so try to be just alittle more sensitive to our insensitivity.

Oh yeah, I play guitar too. I learned guitar and seek to be a performer because it will allow me to... ah.. express myself. Yup, thats it, express myself. You lying POS!!

Kerrie

Mar11-04, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You lying POS!!

zero, as a mentor, you need to set an example and also follow the rules...this clearly violates PF guidelines...you can't expect others to obey PF rules in your forum if they see this type of talk from a mentor himself.

the "nudge" of will is what i feel is the human spirit...the need to eat, sleep, have sex etc is definitely biological...the desire to create something beyond the basic functions of humanity-art, music, great ideas is something i feel reached beyond the programming of our biological functions. don't get me wrong, as earlier i stated that spirit shouldn't be made out as some mystical religous aspect of humanity, but if that "will" to create beautiful art and music or whatever the individual desires to create unlike another is encouraged, then i think this is beautiful and needs to be appreciated.

can you honestly say and prove that your desire to play guitar is biological, or something you have a will to do for your (and maybe others') benefit? can you honestly say and prove that your desire to express yourself in this forum is purely a biological automatic response, or a will you have?

Zero

Mar11-04, 06:44 PM

??? Kerrie, I'm sorry, I should have called him a lying "piece o' crap". I'll know better in the future.

And, to remain on topic, I feel that all those things you talk about are extensions of the biological, simply expanded and refined over the millenia. Birds sing, animals make marks to let other animals know they have been there, etc.

Oh, and don't mistake my "biological machine" concept as not including free will, because I believe it exists, within the confines of biological strictures.

Deeviant

Mar11-04, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
can you honestly say and prove that your desire to play guitar is biological, or something you have a will to do for your (and maybe others') benefit? can you honestly say and prove that your desire to express yourself in this forum is purely a biological automatic response, or a will you have?

I really did have quite a fit of laughter when zero mentioned guitar playing as I remember picking it up after imagining having to peel beautiful willing women off me after a paticularly masterful solo.

I would have to admit after my fantasies didn't quite work out I continued to play, to express myself. Although this expression is really just is the spreading of my ideas and thus the advancement of my agenda. I don't really feel anything spiritual although I find a strong emotional gratification out of playing and belting out a errant set of vocals now and then.

edit: spelling

phoenixthoth

Mar11-04, 08:27 PM

i don't know why i am learning to play the guitar but it certainly ain't what i think zero thinks all guys learn for.

thought the "automatic" lyrics might be appropriate here:
Look what you're doing to me
I'm utterly at your whim
All of my defenses down
Your camera looks through me
With its X-ray vision
And all systems run aground
All I can manage to push from my lips
Is a stream of absurdities
Every word I intended to speak
Wind up locked in the circuitry

Chorus:
No way to control it
It's totally automatic
Whenever you're around
I'm walking blindfolded
Completely automatic
All of my systems are down
Down down down
Automatic
Automatic

What is this madness
That makes my motor run
And my legs too weak to stand
I go from sadness
To exhilaration
Like a robot at your command
My hands perspire and shake like a leaf
Up and down goes my temperature
I summon doctors to get some relief
But they tell me there is no cure
They tell me

Chorus

on a different note, there are those that think some people are droids (not literally androids but more of a way of being) and others are of a different variety, called beings.

http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=21

Kerrie

Mar11-04, 09:55 PM

phoenixtoth...very interesting link, i just skimmed it, but what jumped out at me was the droid vs being...i think that is another great perspective of the difference between those who just are, and those who be...

Zero

Mar12-04, 06:16 AM

On the other hand, you folks can enjoy "being", I'll be busy "doing"...action is better than just existing.

olde drunk

Mar12-04, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, you folks can enjoy "being", I'll be busy "doing"...action is better than just existing.
sorry to burst your bubble, but, being IS doing!

i'm not affaird of any bio-robot existence, there might be one in the universe. i just don't think we are it.

it serves no useful purpose to apply that idea on this reality. it is mind candy or mental masturbation (your playing with your mind, by yourself). have fun.

imho, these boards are for us to have fun and explore useful, beyond the box, ideas. bio-robots don't enhance my experience or expand practical ideas.

zero, you need glasses yet?

peace,

Deeviant

Mar12-04, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by olde drunk
sorry to burst your bubble, but, being IS doing!

i'm not affaird of any bio-robot existence, there might be one in the universe. i just don't think we are it.

it serves no useful purpose to apply that idea on this reality. it is mind candy or mental masturbation (your playing with your mind, by yourself). have fun.

imho, these boards are for us to have fun and explore useful, beyond the box, ideas. bio-robots don't enhance my experience or expand practical ideas.

zero, you need glasses yet?

peace,

I, for one, welcome our new bio-robot overloards!

Kerrie

Mar12-04, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, you folks can enjoy "being", I'll be busy "doing"...action is better than just existing.

action of a biological robot is just existing...[:D]

oldedrunk...

imho, these boards are for us to have fun and explore useful, beyond the box, ideas. bio-robots don't enhance my experience or expand practical ideas.

well said, as i tried to point out to zero, his will and drive to express himself on these boards is a perfct example of spirit...the "biological robot" does not have this desire to express him or herself...i think the term "spiritual" truly scares him, for some silly reason...

Zero

Mar12-04, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
action of a biological robot is just existing...[:D]

oldedrunk...

well said, as i tried to point out to zero, his will and drive to express himself on these boards is a perfct example of spirit...the "biological robot" does not have this desire to express him or herself...i think the term "spiritual" truly scares him, for some silly reason... [6)] Nah, it just strikes me as something that isn't needed to explain me...I hope you realize I'm not trying to attack you here.

You equate "biological robot" with something different from what I do, probably because you also don't believe that a sufficiently advanced computer could gain sentience. I think that my "will" and "spirit" are manefestations of my biological programming. I come at it from the perspective that, as social animals, we have the biological urge to commune with our fellow humans. You choose to see it in a different way, which is equally cool and groovy(not in equal parts, though...you lean heavier towards grooviness, while I'm stacked more towards the cool-itude)

Royce

Mar12-04, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Zero
[BOh, and don't mistake my "biological machine" concept as not including free will, because I believe it exists, within the confines of biological strictures. [/B]

A sentient biological robot with free will! Isn't that a contraction of terms? Aren't they mutually exclusive? Where will it end? Next thing we know it will have a heart and soul with creative drive and feelings, be conscious and aware. Is spirit next? Come on, Zero, give us a break ad admit you human with feelings desires and creative needs, with heart and soul and even spirit.
As in our previous discussions free will may be limited by biology and environment, nurture and nature; but is still free will and I glad you finally admit that you have it. But, how can you be a biological robot and still have free will?

Kerrie

Mar12-04, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Royce
A sentient biological robot with free will! Isn't that a contraction of terms? Aren't they mutually exclusive? Where will it end? Next thing we know it will have a heart and soul with creative drive and feelings, be conscious and aware. Is spirit next? Come on, Zero, give us a break ad admit you human with feelings desires and creative needs, with heart and soul and even spirit.
As in our previous discussions free will may be limited by biology and environment, nurture and nature; but is still free will and I glad you finally admit that you have it. But, how can you be a biological robot and still have free will?

royce,

like those who are secure with their faith in a god, some are secure with the absoluteness our current science...current science cannot describe human spirit and free will, thus it must not exist...what we forget though is science is a progress, and not absolute at our current development...with the attitude of "if science cannot explain it now, so it must not exist", we are automatically shutting the doors to tangible proof of spirit...i thought i made pretty good logical proof of spirit with the will, desires, and expressions of all those who partake in this forum...

Zero

Mar12-04, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Royce
A sentient biological robot with free will! Isn't that a contraction of terms? Aren't they mutually exclusive? Where will it end? Next thing we know it will have a heart and soul with creative drive and feelings, be conscious and aware. Is spirit next? Come on, Zero, give us a break ad admit you human with feelings desires and creative needs, with heart and soul and even spirit.
As in our previous discussions free will may be limited by biology and environment, nurture and nature; but is still free will and I glad you finally admit that you have it. But, how can you be a biological robot and still have free will? Random numbers, buddy...my brain has a bazillion connections, who knows what will happen next, huh? Isn't it neat? I've got all that stuff, it's the combination of my hardware and software...and if it is something else, cool, but I don't see the purpose in assuming it.

phoenixthoth

Mar12-04, 08:24 PM

do we have souls or not? that seems to be the question occupying us.

well, here's my two cents. i think that the whole soul concept is one viable model for the observations one can collect about people. you know, the gestaltist type thing the whole being greater than the sum of its parts (with the difference between the whole and sum of parts is the soul). of course, it's to some people by definition intangible and thus the claim "i have a soul" not falsifiable and therefore, not a subject science can by definition address for science only deals with observables and falsifiable claims. we can speculate about the chronoton particles in star trek and predict how we would observe them, try to observe them, and then go from there. that's science. but souls are to some people not observable and thus we'll never observe a soul directly (and if we do, a scientist will possibly dismiss that as a hallucination).

i dont' see a problem with believing in a soul, something nonphysical, etc. i have witnessed things you would call hallucinations (not drug induced, btw); i have made my own observations. i conclude that there is a soul of some kind but i realize i'm not very scientific. however, i can tell you what i did to observe what i observed and ask you if you observe the same thing. you may witness it and you may not and even if you do, you would probably have a different interpretation of it. let me tell you that i am firstly a mathematician and have strict standards of proof but i can't deny what i continually witness on a daily basis; i don't know if there are words to describe what i witness. it doesn't matter to me if you believe what i believe; i don't need outside confirmation for what is my own personal truth. the truth is i witness and observe things that i probably can't explain or describe. that's it. then i'm left to try and figure out what i witness is and what it means but now i'm in the phase of just letting it be and happen for the most part.

on the other hand, maybe there is no soul. if you haven't read max tegmark's "ensemble theory of everything" article yet, i'd recommend it to you now. its hypothesis is twofold (if i got it): 1 that mathematical existence is physical existence and 2 that there are math "entities" that are self-aware structures. supposing we could feed these structures into a computer and all that jazz, we'd be able to demonstrate its self awareness. this opens a huge can of worms (or pandora's box): what is self-awareness? what is consciousness? how is it even conceivable that that integral sign might be self-aware? stuff like that and that's the tip of the iceburg. well, in this paradigm, the way i see it is that between math objects (which are physical objects by hypothesis) there is a relationship: abstract and concrete. groups are more abstract than natural numbers, for example. categories are more abstract than sets. or in other words, sets are more concrete than categories. the heirarchy that has already been developed here is immense. anyways, i figure that in this theory, our "souls" are just more abstract self-aware structures than our conscious minds are. so i go by the habit of usually referring to "spirits" as abstracts and nonspirits as concretes.

i believe that all structures have something more abstract than it (ie everything has a soul) and something more concrete that it (or maybe not). in some sense, binary logic is more abstract than even categories and in that sense, logic is the spirit of category theory; the spirit of math. this connects up with God being spoken of as Logos, The Word. the concept of language is more abstract than logic for logic is a language. so language, The Word, is the soul of lots of things (the anthropic principle (or at least a linguistic version of it) is in here somewhere).

i could though define spirit in any crazy way i want and then say that by definition everything has a spirit. honestly, i really don't care for definitons or the process of defining something. i love how words that have multiple meanings can be used and i sometimes use those words and mean all that it can mean all at once. well, anyway, in some form (mathematical or not) or another, i personally believe we have souls though if it is mathematical and we are SASs then there's nothing too mysterious or magical about it. assuming mathematical existence is physical existence, of course.

kinda makes one wonder though about the universal set and russell's paradox.... but that's a whole nother thread.

another model for what makes us tick is that rather than calling it a soul to call it our true selves without attributing a physical location or energetic frequencies to this "true self." this true self may very well just be deeply intertwined with the currents in our skulls along with the neurotransmitters and all that good stuff. if you just call it your true self, there's nothing mystical about that: it's just the real you, the who you are. is it obvious or not that we as a race don't often know our true selves? to me it is like an iceburg with infinte depth (maybe) and what we know of our true selves scratches the surface in most cases. if you could suddenly know yourslef, the deep dark stuff and the bright stuff, would you put all you've got into knowing yourself? would you persist for as long as it takes to finally figure out who it is that you really are? well, that's what you would have to do to witness what i've witnessed going back to what i said earlier; it's not that i've found myself completely but i'm on the journey, the path towards self. and when i look for it then i see it.

or maybe we're all just dust in the wind and just a pile of molecules. well, them molecules sure are amazin, huh?

Royce

Mar13-04, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
royce,

like those who are secure with their faith in a god, some are secure with the absoluteness our current science...current science cannot describe human spirit and free will, thus it must not exist...what we forget though is science is a progress, and not absolute at our current development...with the attitude of "if science cannot explain it now, so it must not exist", we are automatically shutting the doors to tangible proof of spirit...i thought i made pretty good logical proof of spirit with the will, desires, and expressions of all those who partake in this forum...

Kerrie, I always look forward to your posts. Not sucking up as Zero would say but simply expressing appreciation for one who thinks somewhat as I do. Not that we always agree but if not on the same page we are at least in the same book.

I too thought that you made your point very well. You were able to do it without referring to the mystical or spiritual. I can't separate them though I am aware of the different meanings of the word spirit.
I don't think that we can be human without spirit or soul whether we believe in God or religion or not. It is one of our characteristics that make us human.

It saddens me that so many have so much faith in science that they close their eyes and minds to everything else. I understand it but cannot condone it. There is so much more to being alive, being human, to reality than the mere human tool of science. I repeatedly tell Zero and Mentat and others; For Gods sake and your own open your eyes and mind and see what is. It is so obvious to me, so undeniable to me that I can't see why they can't or won't see.

Les Sleeth

Mar13-04, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
do we have souls or not? that seems to be the question occupying us. . . . i believe that all structures have something more abstract than it (ie everything has a soul) and something more concrete that it (or maybe not). in some sense, binary logic is more abstract than even categories and in that sense, logic is the spirit of category theory; the spirit of math. this connects up with God being spoken of as Logos, The Word. the concept of language is more abstract than logic for logic is a language. so language, The Word, is the soul of lots of things (the anthropic principle (or at least a linguistic version of it) is in here somewhere). . . . well, anyway, in some form (mathematical or not) or another, i personally believe we have souls though if it is mathematical and we are SASs then there's nothing too mysterious or magical about it. assuming mathematical existence is physical existence, of course. . . .or maybe we're all just dust in the wind and just a pile of molecules. well, them molecules sure are amazin, huh?

I enjoyed your post, particularly your thought that "all structures have something more abstract than it (ie everything has a soul) and something more concrete that it (or maybe not)."

I like to think of the abstract thing as "potentiality." I reason, all that exists in time (i.e., had a beginning and has an end) had to have arisen from some potential to exist. That is, the potential for something's existence precedes it existence. It could be that all that exists arises from some single potentiality (and returns there too). If that is true, then we should be able to say this potenial is the absolute since nothing can exist which is not a manifestation of that originating potentiality.

Since we can see that a great assortment of things exists, most with some pretty amazing qualities, then absolute potentiality, or the "abstract" as you call it, is really something. Today the trend seems to be understanding "the more concrete." But there are those who find potentiality more interesting.

phoenixthoth

Mar13-04, 10:41 AM

let me ask you a question. something i'm trying to figure out. suppose that everything that is in the "potential realm" has already been "created" but the process of creation is really a process of revelation, the revelation of "creation" to our awareness. what do you think?

(the reason i use quotes around creation and created is that if all that is potential already exists but it just reveals itself to us in increments then it's not a creation at all because it's always been there and no one created it.)

the tegmark article with all these hypotheses spelled out can be found here: http://www.alephnulldimension.net/matharticles/theory%20of%20everything.pdf . tegmark did this while at the institute for advanced study and his hypotheses will take quite a while to test out...

well, let's pretend as in the paper that tegmark is correct and mathematical existence is physical existence.

ponder this: do we create math or do we discover math?

do you see the implications behind that question?

under the hypothesis, if we can create math, then that means we can create physical existence. if we discover math that is already there, then "creation" has always been there just waiting for someone to reveal it to us.

this ties in to my original question about there really being no potential: it's all all there already, waiting to be discovered. that's the direction i lead towards, that we discover math rather than create it. but if we can create math, then that's also interesting!

hey, maybe those greek pythagoreans were on to something (not that i agree with the last tenet):
(1) that at its deepest level, reality is mathematical in nature,
(2) that philosophy can be used for spiritual purification,
(3) that the soul can rise to union with the divine,
(4) that certain symbols have a mystical significance, and
(5) that all brothers of the order should observe strict loyalty and secrecy.

and this was known to them 2000 years ago. i wonder how they might have known that...

Les Sleeth

Mar13-04, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
let me ask you a question. something i'm trying to figure out. suppose that everything that is in the "potential realm" has already been "created" but the process of creation is really a process of revelation, the revelation of "creation" to our awareness. what do you think?

. . . well, let's pretend as in the paper that tegmark is correct and mathematical existence is physical existence.

ponder this: do we create math or do we discover math?

do you see the implications behind that question?

under the hypothesis, if we can create math, then that means we can create physical existence. if we discover math that is already there, then "creation" has always been there just waiting for someone to reveal it to us.

this ties in to my original question about there really being no potential: it's all all there already, waiting to be discovered. that's the direction i lead towards, that we discover math rather than create it. but if we can create math, then that's also interesting!

The way I would put it is that we discover potentials. If something is not manifest, then to me it doesn't yet exist (althought the potenial for it might exist). If you are saying that the potential for all possible manifestation already exists, then I might agree.

Regarding the idea of math being physical existence, to me that seems like an incomplete idea. Matter (and the physical laws which bring about matter) is not math even if physical behavior can be described and predicted by math (although, as I am sure you know, there are aspects of physical movement which cannot be precisely predicted). I suspect math is ultimately determined by the universe's oscillatory nature. Everything, without exception, oscillates, and it does so rhythmically. The pervasiveness of oscillation is the only "foundational" area of existence I can see that could serve as a basis for math; that is, the predictiablity of rhythm and the symmetry of oscillatory effects (such as polarity) could be what math represents.

Oscillation and oscillatory effects might be foundational, but could they be the "absolute potential" I spoke of? It seems to me that the "most" foundational thing is some sort of substance which can arise from pure potentiality to take many shapes. Some people have suggested atoms or energy as most foundational, but I Iike light as a candidate for what's most foundational (for this idea to work, light has to have a formless "ground state").

Atoms disappear all the time, in stellar fusion for example, and scientists estimate even protons, the stalwart spine of atoms, will decay in something like 10^50 years. If atoms have a life span, we would assume that in their demise they lose all structure, or form. But what is a formless atom—energy?

In science, energy is more of a mathematical and measuring tool of movement than anything actual. The thermodynamic law that states energy is “never created or destroyed” is really meant to support calculations that gauge and record the path of movement power. However, after work is done, where is all that energy just used? Maybe it wasn’t destroyed, but it is gone from the system and it is gone for good. If it did survive, no one knows where it went, or even what that movement power actually was in the first place.

While atoms and energy disappear, the same cannot be said of light. The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1964 has since led to the conclusion it is left over from the earliest moments of the universe. After billions of years this radiation has not lost its nature as light; it has, however, lost energy and oscillatory enthusiasm because as the universe expands, it “stretches” the wavelength of that cosmic background radiation and slows down its oscillation rate. Another interesting tidbit is that the proportion of light to nuclear particles is hugely in favor of light, and growing more so every moment. Steven Weinberg has estimated the comparative densities to be, “. . . depending on the actual value of the particle density . . . between 100 million and 20,000 million photons for every nuclear particle in the universe today.” And yet one more tasty fact is that by colliding two powerful light beams, matter has been created (as particle-antiparticle pairs).

And then, what is consciousness? Might it be an evolved form of light?

Kerrie

Mar13-04, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Royce
It saddens me that so many have so much faith in science that they close their eyes and minds to everything else. I understand it but cannot condone it. There is so much more to being alive, being human, to reality than the mere human tool of science. I repeatedly tell Zero and Mentat and others; For Gods sake and your own open your eyes and mind and see what is. It is so obvious to me, so undeniable to me that I can't see why they can't or won't see.

eloquently said les...when i use the term spirituality i truly am referring to what makes humanity wonderful, what gives us our uniqueness from one another although we are "wired" the same...we all pulse at our own frequency, and this in my opinion is what makes being human wonderful...perhaps those who feel we are just biological robots have yet to understand their own creative pulse...

phoenixthoth

Mar13-04, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The way I would put it is that we discover potentials. If something is not manifest, then to me it doesn't yet exist (althought the potenial for it might exist). If you are saying that the potential for all possible manifestation already exists, then I might agree.

Regarding the idea of math being physical existence, to me that seems like an incomplete idea. Matter (and the physical laws which bring about matter) is not math even if physical behavior can be described and predicted by math (although, as I am sure you know, there are aspects of physical movement which cannot be precisely predicted). I suspect math is ultimately determined by the universe's oscillatory nature. Everything, without exception, oscillates, and it does so rhythmically. The pervasiveness of oscillation is the only "foundational" area of existence I can see that could serve as a basis for math; that is, the predictiablity of rhythm and the symmetry of oscillatory effects (such as polarity) could be what math represents.

Oscillation and oscillatory effects might be foundational, but could they be the "absolute potential" I spoke of? It seems to me that the "most" foundational thing is some sort of substance which can arise from pure potentiality to take many shapes. Some people have suggested atoms or energy as most foundational, but I Iike light as a candidate for what's most foundational (for this idea to work, light has to have a formless "ground state").

Atoms disappear all the time, in stellar fusion for example, and scientists estimate even protons, the stalwart spine of atoms, will decay in something like 10^50 years. If atoms have a life span, we would assume that in their demise they lose all structure, or form. But what is a formless atom—energy?

In science, energy is more of a mathematical and measuring tool of movement than anything actual. The thermodynamic law that states energy is “never created or destroyed” is really meant to support calculations that gauge and record the path of movement power. However, after work is done, where is all that energy just used? Maybe it wasn’t destroyed, but it is gone from the system and it is gone for good. If it did survive, no one knows where it went, or even what that movement power actually was in the first place.

While atoms and energy disappear, the same cannot be said of light. The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1964 has since led to the conclusion it is left over from the earliest moments of the universe. After billions of years this radiation has not lost its nature as light; it has, however, lost energy and oscillatory enthusiasm because as the universe expands, it “stretches” the wavelength of that cosmic background radiation and slows down its oscillation rate. Another interesting tidbit is that the proportion of light to nuclear particles is hugely in favor of light, and growing more so every moment. Steven Weinberg has estimated the comparative densities to be, “. . . depending on the actual value of the particle density . . . between 100 million and 20,000 million photons for every nuclear particle in the universe today.” And yet one more tasty fact is that by colliding two powerful light beams, matter has been created (as particle-antiparticle pairs).

And then, what is consciousness? Might it be an evolved form of light?

i know two things about science, jack and jack. so i'll just have to go "hmm" regarding most of your post. i don't know if it's true what you say because i haven't see it for myself. i trust that you were careful in collecting your data and give you the benefit of the doubt.

i have something to say about the first and last paragraphs.

If you are saying that the potential for all possible manifestation already exists, then I might agree.
that is my hypothesis, yes. like your conservation of energy just being a convention to make the calculations go smoothly, so you say, i think potential energy is also a convention. but what do i know, i'm not a scientist?

And then, what is consciousness? Might it be an evolved form of light?

got 4 words for you.

let there be light.

i think that the universe is just light and absence of light. darkness doesn't really exist, per se; darkness is just absence of light. of course, the proton, for example, is not "normal" light, whatever that means, but light in a different form and i think the oscillation the universe undergoes is light from one form to another in a complex dance of names and natures.

so if consciousness is light, too, and the universe is all light, then consciousness is really all there is. just consciousness in different forms. i do think though that one could say it, this subuniverse, started with darkness, total and complete emptiness and for once something came from nothing but in reality it was just flowing from another sub universe into this one. hmm... maybe not. i don't know. there's a first time for everything, right? just cuz it never happened again doesn't prove it's impossible.

now if you're lucky enough to be conscious, then you already can tap in... umm... well, i think i'll stop here rather than ramble all day. when i ramble all day i tend to get banned from boards...

Deeviant

Mar13-04, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Royce
It saddens me that so many have so much faith in science that they close their eyes and minds to everything else. I understand it but cannot condone it. There is so much more to being alive, being human, to reality than the mere human tool of science. I repeatedly tell Zero and Mentat and others; For Gods sake and your own open your eyes and mind and see what is. It is so obvious to me, so undeniable to me that I can't see why they can't or won't see.

It saddens me that people can't be happy with reality and so often feel the need to create their own, or believe others that have. The only thing that accomplishes is stunting the growth of our race.

Metaphysical beliefs, by definition, can not be "obvious." You can call it "engrained" or "beaten into your head" but not obvious, if it was obvious nearly everybody would be able to reach the same conclusion.

Science leads to truth. Religion attempts to personify truth, while basing their "truthfulness" on absolutely nothing but "I got this feeling that..."

Well have about this; I got this feeling that there is no god.

edit: spelling

phoenixthoth

Mar13-04, 03:55 PM

Metaphysical beliefs, by definition, can not be "obvious." You can call it "engrained" or "beaten into your head" but not obvious, if it was obvious nearly everybody would be able to reach the same conclusion.

actually, rather than being obvious (and it is far from obvious to some people that God exists, for example), it is self-evident.

Kerrie

Mar13-04, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Deeviant
`Science leads to truth. Religion attempts to personify truth, while basing their "truthfulness" on absolutely nothing but "I got this feeling that..."

Well have about this; I got this feeling that there is no god.

edit: spelling
WHY DOES SPIRITUALITY HAVE TO BE TIED TO RELIGION?????

have you not read any of this thread, or only picked and chose posts that suited you??? if you are gonna claim that science is the way to truth, then please at least read what everyone has to say! otherwise you are putting forward the biggest example of bias!

the whole point of this thread was to SEGRAGATE spirituality from religion and "celebrate" it as being human and the energy of being human...

geez...

phoenixthoth

Mar13-04, 10:40 PM

are feelings observations? i mean, does one observe their feelings? do you observe your observations?

what do scientists do when they all observe the same thing?

science is never going to lead you to higher truth. and you know why? because it's incredibly boring. :P

Royce

Mar14-04, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Deeviant
Metaphysical beliefs, by definition, can not be "obvious." You can call it "engrained" or "beaten into your head" but not obvious, if it was obvious nearly everybody would be able to reach the same conclusion.

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I said that it is obvious to me. Nor was I speaking strickly of religion but the spirit that makes us human and that here is so much more to life and reality than material objective science. I make nothing up nor invent anything. I only report and share what I personally ,and many others report and share, that I have seen and experienced.

Science leads to truth. Religion attempts to personify truth, while basing their "truthfulness" on absolutely nothing but "I got this feeling that..."

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about metaphysics, the subjective and spiritual (for lack of a better word) realms of reality, of being human and aware of our humanity and oneness, aware of the richness of that which is other than science.

edit: spelling [/B][/QUOTE]

Deeviant

Mar14-04, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Royce
If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I said that it is obvious to me. Nor was I speaking strickly of religion but the spirit that makes us human and that here is so much more to life and reality than material objective science. I make nothing up nor invent anything. I only report and share what I personally ,and many others report and share, that I have seen and experienced.

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about metaphysics, the subjective and spiritual (for lack of a better word) realms of reality, of being human and aware of our humanity and oneness, aware of the richness of that which is other than science.

edit: spelling [/B][/QUOTE]

If you having such a problem with me calling your metaphysical beliefs a "religion" then ok call it spirituality and repond to them as such. But it really doesn't change anything.

Zero

Mar14-04, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
eloquently said les...when i use the term spirituality i truly am referring to what makes humanity wonderful, what gives us our uniqueness from one another although we are "wired" the same...we all pulse at our own frequency, and this in my opinion is what makes being human wonderful...perhaps those who feel we are just biological robots have yet to understand their own creative pulse... We don't deny that, we just deny that it is a magic trick...

That's what this all comes down to, IMO. Some people think the world is a wonderous place, full of mysteries that can be solved, ever new and greater wonders to be seen. Then, there are the "spiritual" people, who think the whole thing is a damned magic trick.

phoenixthoth

Mar14-04, 11:37 AM

not like this matters much to you necessarily, but i for one don't believe in the supernatural. there is no mystical force guiding my destiny, i choose it with my God-given free will, damn it! ;P

and i don't believe in magic. i do believe in hypnosis, the power of suggestion, the placebo effect, phantom limb syndrome, and all that stuff, but not in the supernatural. to be honest, i don't think we really know the explaination for these things and so we call them supernatural. that places a limit on our thinking, imo. it's all natural, imo.

Zero

Mar14-04, 01:23 PM

LOL!

"God-given" is a mystical, magic-trick answer...and you know how I feel about that!

phoenixthoth

Mar14-04, 01:35 PM

;P

like you, i call 'em as i see 'em. they're just my opinions. you have yours and i have mine.

Kerrie

Mar14-04, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
We don't deny that, we just deny that it is a magic trick...

That's what this all comes down to, IMO. Some people think the world is a wonderous place, full of mysteries that can be solved, ever new and greater wonders to be seen. Then, there are the "spiritual" people, who think the whole thing is a damned magic trick.

zero, are you a selective reader? i was attempting to "re" define spirituality, and it is clearly evident you still do not understand where i am coming from:

there is nothing magical or mystical about spirit, in essence, our spirituality is the part that makes us human-whether we are artists, philosophers, or scientists

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND MYSTICSISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

does this defintion imply a magic trick? again, this thread is about spirituality, and it's true meaning as human beings

...the will and desire to utilize our minds to their max potential--which is a choice when it comes down to it...it seems today that there are so many mindless masses of people, who just exist and do not utilize their potential of will to be the best person they can be...again, you still haven't addressed my example of your spirituality being expressed in these forums...it's truly not a wonder why some get frustrated with you in this forum zero.