Exploring the Fear of Using "Spiritual

[Kerrie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, that's it, express myself.

 

[Zero]

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, that's it, express myself.

You lying POS!

 

[Kerrie]

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]

? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[olde drunk]

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]

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]

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...

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]

Originally posted by Kerrie
action of a biological robot is just existing...

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 itself 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 infinite 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]

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]

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]

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 of everything.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 into 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]

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 into 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]

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]

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 because 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...