Consciousness and Spirit: What Does it Mean to Exist as 'Spirit'?.

[Jack Daydream]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

My own general point of view is that spirit exists as a form which has some impact on living beings, but I am not sure to what extent it has self-consciousness. In speaking of ego-consciouness I am speaking of a sense of personal identity or 'self'.

The issue may seem obscure. But it is relevant to the question of whether life after death exists. Also, there is the question as to whether other living beings have spirit, or even inanimate forms, including artificial intelligence. The spectrum may also include trees and plants, or even buildings, as touched upon within the philosophy of panpsychism. How different is the idea of spirit from 'soul'? How do you understand the concept of spirit and how useful is it in philosophical exploration?

[Age]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

My own general point of view is that spirit exists as a form which has some impact on living beings, but I am not sure to what extent it has self-consciousness. In speaking of ego-consciouness I am speaking of a sense of personal identity or 'self'.

The issue may seem obscure. But it is relevant to the question of whether life after death exists. Also, there is the question as to whether other living beings have spirit, or even inanimate forms, including artificial intelligence. The spectrum may also include trees and plants, or even buildings, as touched upon within the philosophy of panpsychism. How different is the idea of spirit from 'soul'? How do you understand the concept of spirit and how useful is it in philosophical exploration?

The word 'spirit' can refer to the invisible, and like Mind, soul, thought, and emotion 'spirit' is also invisible.

Now, to separate these words I just use;

The 'Spirit' word, with a capital 'S', to refer to the One Being, which is also known as a 'SAGE', or the 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', or 'Enlightenment' of and throughout different cultures/perspectives.

The 'soul' word to refer to the invisible parts within individual human bodies, or to you invisible beings, of the human being family/group.

So, that is how the difference between the idea of 'Spirit' is from 'soul', to me, exactly.

To me this concept of 'Spirit' helped tremendously in understanding, itself, knowing thy 'Self', who 'I' am, exactly, and/or in philosophical exploration.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

The critical question to ask is the reality of it.

What is real [true, factual, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

If anything spiritual is to be real, credible and objective it must possible to be verifiable and justifiable by the scientific FS at least via the science-psychological FS and supportable by science biology, neurosciences and the like.
There is no other way to justify the reality of something, is there any others?

If the above is not possible, then whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory.

Metaphysics [god, soul, immortality, supernatural beings] is an evolutionary default impulse of humans which is necessary illusion to deal therapeutically with the associate terrors re TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

While metaphysics has its pros, the cons when metaphysical beings e.g. god is insisted to be very real where it sent commands to believers to kill [commit other evil acts upon] non-believers; where believers readily carry out their very real god's command.

While spirituality of the metaphysics sense is necessary for the majority, the majority must rise to the awareness and mindfulness of its inherent limitations.

[Age]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

The critical question to ask is the reality of it.

What is real [true, factual, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

LOL The scientific community in the days when this was written claimed that the Universe, Itself, began, was once smaller, and is expanding. So, so much for credibility.

If anything spiritual is to be real, credible and objective it must possible to be verifiable and justifiable by the scientific FS at least via the science-psychological FS and supportable by science biology, neurosciences and the like.

So, although the Fact is Mind, thought, and emotions are classed within 'the spiritual', and OBVIOUSLY exist, this one needs other people and systems to verify if these things exist or not

There is no other way to justify the reality of something, is there any others?

LOL This one states and claims there is NO other way, but then, straightaway, asks, Is there any other way?

If the above is not possible, then whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory.

Here 'we' can clearly see another one who is completely and utterly CLOSED here.

Metaphysics [god, soul, immortality, supernatural beings] is an evolutionary default impulse of humans which is necessary illusion to deal therapeutically with the associate terrors re TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

As I have informed this one, previously, just because this one had some particular experiences in its past, with some Truly irrational thinking attached to them, this does NOT mean everyone else has those same Truly irrational thoughts, nor experiences.

While metaphysics has its pros, the cons when metaphysical beings e.g. god is insisted to be very real where it sent commands to believers to kill [commit other evil acts upon] non-believers; where believers readily carry out their very real god's command.

Once again what 'we' can clearly see here is this one just 'trying to get' others to accept and agree with its Truly irrational beliefs.

While spirituality of the metaphysics sense is necessary for the majority, the majority must rise to the awareness and mindfulness of its inherent limitations.

Yes all of you 'others' MUST rise to "veritas aequitas" level of awareness. Well according to "veritas aequitas" anyway, although it, still, cannot yet see where it is completely UNAWARE, here.

Also, and by the way, if 'whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory', then how, exactly, could this have a 'pro' to it?

[Jack Daydream]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

My own general point of view is that spirit exists as a form which has some impact on living beings, but I am not sure to what extent it has self-consciousness. In speaking of ego-consciouness I am speaking of a sense of personal identity or 'self'.

The issue may seem obscure. But it is relevant to the question of whether life after death exists. Also, there is the question as to whether other living beings have spirit, or even inanimate forms, including artificial intelligence. The spectrum may also include trees and plants, or even buildings, as touched upon within the philosophy of panpsychism. How different is the idea of spirit from 'soul'? How do you understand the concept of spirit and how useful is it in philosophical exploration?

The word 'spirit' can refer to the invisible, and like Mind, soul, thought, and emotion 'spirit' is also invisible.

Now, to separate these words I just use;

The 'Spirit' word, with a capital 'S', to refer to the One Being, which is also known as a 'SAGE', or the 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', or 'Enlightenment' of and throughout different cultures/perspectives.

The 'soul' word to refer to the invisible parts within individual human bodies, or to you invisible beings, of the human being family/group.

So, that is how the difference between the idea of 'Spirit' is from 'soul', to me, exactly.

To me this concept of 'Spirit' helped tremendously in understanding, itself, knowing thy 'Self', who 'I' am, exactly, and/or in philosophical exploration.

The idea of the invisible and unseen has been important, but is often seen as problematic. This is because there is so much scepticism about 'spirit' behind the scene, as a hidden reality. So much comes down to evidence. Part of the issue is that apart from the issue of the unseen it is about inner as opposed to outer reality. The 'I', as well as soul and self, are not entities but enigmas which are harder to pin down in a solid way. Quantum physics may be useful here.

[Jack Daydream]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

My own general point of view is that spirit exists as a form which has some impact on living beings, but I am not sure to what extent it has self-consciousness. In speaking of ego-consciouness I am speaking of a sense of personal identity or 'self'.

The issue may seem obscure. But it is relevant to the question of whether life after death exists. Also, there is the question as to whether other living beings have spirit, or even inanimate forms, including artificial intelligence. The spectrum may also include trees and plants, or even buildings, as touched upon within the philosophy of panpsychism. How different is the idea of spirit from 'soul'? How do you understand the concept of spirit and how useful is it in philosophical exploration?

The word 'spirit' can refer to the invisible, and like Mind, soul, thought, and emotion 'spirit' is also invisible.

Now, to separate these words I just use;

The 'Spirit' word, with a capital 'S', to refer to the One Being, which is also known as a 'SAGE', or the 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', or 'Enlightenment' of and throughout different cultures/perspectives.

The 'soul' word to refer to the invisible parts within individual human bodies, or to you invisible beings, of the human being family/group.

So, that is how the difference between the idea of 'Spirit' is from 'soul', to me, exactly.

To me this concept of 'Spirit' helped tremendously in understanding, itself, knowing thy 'Self', who 'I' am, exactly, and/or in philosophical exploration.

[Jack Daydream]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

The critical question to ask is the reality of it.

What is real [true, factual, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

If anything spiritual is to be real, credible and objective it must possible to be verifiable and justifiable by the scientific FS at least via the science-psychological FS and supportable by science biology, neurosciences and the like.
There is no other way to justify the reality of something, is there any others?

If the above is not possible, then whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory.

Metaphysics [god, soul, immortality, supernatural beings] is an evolutionary default impulse of humans which is necessary illusion to deal therapeutically with the associate terrors re TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

While metaphysics has its pros, the cons when metaphysical beings e.g. god is insisted to be very real where it sent commands to believers to kill [commit other evil acts upon] non-believers; where believers readily carry out their very real god's command.

While spirituality of the metaphysics sense is necessary for the majority, the majority must rise to the awareness and mindfulness of its inherent limitations.

The idea of metaphysics is of what lies beyond physics. Science is important but there are limitations of this. Both Kant and Jung realised the limits of empiricism and science.

The logical positivists, especially AJ Ayer saw metaphysics as being undemonstratable metaphysics. However, I have read that Ayer had a near death experiences before he died, which he saw as challenging. I don't think that there is clear information of this testimony because Ayer died shortly afterwards, so it is based on what he said before death.

As I said to Age, part of the problem is that the idea of spirit is based on inner reality. The map of this territory is so different from the physical world which is subject to empirical investigation.

[Age]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

My own general point of view is that spirit exists as a form which has some impact on living beings, but I am not sure to what extent it has self-consciousness. In speaking of ego-consciouness I am speaking of a sense of personal identity or 'self'.

The issue may seem obscure. But it is relevant to the question of whether life after death exists. Also, there is the question as to whether other living beings have spirit, or even inanimate forms, including artificial intelligence. The spectrum may also include trees and plants, or even buildings, as touched upon within the philosophy of panpsychism. How different is the idea of spirit from 'soul'? How do you understand the concept of spirit and how useful is it in philosophical exploration?

The word 'spirit' can refer to the invisible, and like Mind, soul, thought, and emotion 'spirit' is also invisible.

Now, to separate these words I just use;

The 'Spirit' word, with a capital 'S', to refer to the One Being, which is also known as a 'SAGE', or the 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', or 'Enlightenment' of and throughout different cultures/perspectives.

The 'soul' word to refer to the invisible parts within individual human bodies, or to you invisible beings, of the human being family/group.

So, that is how the difference between the idea of 'Spirit' is from 'soul', to me, exactly.

To me this concept of 'Spirit' helped tremendously in understanding, itself, knowing thy 'Self', who 'I' am, exactly, and/or in philosophical exploration.

The idea of the invisible and unseen has been important, but is often seen as problematic. This is because there is so much scepticism about 'spirit' behind the scene, as a hidden reality. So much comes down to evidence. Part of the issue is that apart from the issue of the unseen it is about inner as opposed to outer reality. The 'I', as well as soul and self, are not entities but enigmas which are harder to pin down in a solid way. Quantum physics may be useful here.

But they have been 'pinned down', irrefutably, and already.

If you would like to discuss this, then just let me know.

[Impenitent]

living in a bottle

-Imp

[margii]

The universe is a complex but absolutely integrated system of phenomena, which include physical, chemical, biological, psychic phenomena... that moves infallibly, it does not fail, there are no contradictions.

We are seeing, through science and the models that we are building, that there is something that cannot be explained. For example, universal laws are not physical, chemical, or biological, etc... they are invisible mandates that order everything... That the moon and the earth attract each other is an essentially physical phenomenon, but the law of gravity cannot be explained except as a result of the phenomenon. We do not see the law itself, we know that it exists, but we cannot understand where it comes from, what determines this order that we call gravity.

If we go deeper, we will see that before the Big Bang nothing could have existed...if the laws were modified, in a random way, they would do so in an uncoordinated manner, and there would be destructive contradictions in the universe, which would imply its annihilation. And this does not happen, since everything is super-ordered...

Super-ordered means that we only see an ordered Universe, but the system that orders it is superior to our psychic reach, it is beyond our psyche.

We do not have to believe in any religion to understand that the immaterial governs the material...

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am asking this question to look at the various different meanings of what existence as 'spirit' entails or means. It is a question which arose to me during the thread on mysticism and transformation. However, it is a separate question.

The critical question to ask is the reality of it.

What is real [true, factual, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

If anything spiritual is to be real, credible and objective it must possible to be verifiable and justifiable by the scientific FS at least via the science-psychological FS and supportable by science biology, neurosciences and the like.
There is no other way to justify the reality of something, is there any others?

If the above is not possible, then whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory.

Metaphysics [god, soul, immortality, supernatural beings] is an evolutionary default impulse of humans which is necessary illusion to deal therapeutically with the associate terrors re TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

While metaphysics has its pros, the cons when metaphysical beings e.g. god is insisted to be very real where it sent commands to believers to kill [commit other evil acts upon] non-believers; where believers readily carry out their very real god's command.

While spirituality of the metaphysics sense is necessary for the majority, the majority must rise to the awareness and mindfulness of its inherent limitations.

The idea of metaphysics is of what lies beyond physics. Science is important but there are limitations of this. Both Kant and Jung realised the limits of empiricism and science.

The logical positivists, especially AJ Ayer saw metaphysics as being undemonstratable metaphysics. However, I have read that Ayer had a near death experiences before he died, which he saw as challenging. I don't think that there is clear information of this testimony because Ayer died shortly afterwards, so it is based on what he said before death.

As I said to Age, part of the problem is that the idea of spirit is based on inner reality. The map of this territory is so different from the physical world which is subject to empirical investigation.

In the Prolegomena, Kant asked three main question [paraphrased];

1. Is Science Possible as real?
2. Is Mathematics Possible as real?
3. Is Metaphysics possible as a science?

Kant argued convincingly Science and Mathematics are possible to be naturally real but metaphysics is impossible to be naturally real as Science.

But as I said, the scientific framework and system [FS] (with its inherent limitations*) is the most credible and objective to make a claim of natural realness.
* according to Popper whatever are scientific truths, they are merely polished conjectures, guess works and beliefs [justified true beliefs].

But what other FS has better credibility and objectivity than Science to claim natural realness?
There is no other, so we have to rely on the best we have, i.e. Science.

Kant argued convincingly all metaphysics claims are naturally false, thus are illusions when reified as real.
The point is whenever you make any reference to metaphysical claims, do you accept they are naturally false i.e. merely illusory?

AJ Ayer claimed outright all metaphysical claims [non-scientific] are nonsense with !!! and will condemn anyone who insist upon metaphysical claims.
ALL death-death experiences or whatever supernatural experiences, all human experiences has an empirical ground, i.e. human nature is possibly and basically empirical.
Ayer would have made a false illusory claim if he assert 'God Exists' as real naturally.

Kant discovered metaphysical claims are inherently necessary, thus, whilst they are illusory, they are useful illusions which are critical for basic survival which is optimal at present [not future].

Question:
If you make any reference to or accept metaphysical claims, do you accept they are naturally false i.e. merely illusory?

[Age]

What does it mean to exist as 'spirit' just means to exist as 'invisible'.

Which is, exactly, how 'you', people, and 'I' actually do exist.

The human body is visible, but which is NOT what a 'person' is. A 'person' is the invisible thoughts, and invisible emotions, within a human body.

[Jack Daydream]

The word 'spirit' can refer to the invisible, and like Mind, soul, thought, and emotion 'spirit' is also invisible.

Now, to separate these words I just use;

The 'Spirit' word, with a capital 'S', to refer to the One Being, which is also known as a 'SAGE', or the 'Spirit', 'Allah', 'God', or 'Enlightenment' of and throughout different cultures/perspectives.

The 'soul' word to refer to the invisible parts within individual human bodies, or to you invisible beings, of the human being family/group.

So, that is how the difference between the idea of 'Spirit' is from 'soul', to me, exactly.

To me this concept of 'Spirit' helped tremendously in understanding, itself, knowing thy 'Self', who 'I' am, exactly, and/or in philosophical exploration.

The idea of the invisible and unseen has been important, but is often seen as problematic. This is because there is so much scepticism about 'spirit' behind the scene, as a hidden reality. So much comes down to evidence. Part of the issue is that apart from the issue of the unseen it is about inner as opposed to outer reality. The 'I', as well as soul and self, are not entities but enigmas which are harder to pin down in a solid way. Quantum physics may be useful here.

But they have been 'pinned down', irrefutably, and already.

If you would like to discuss this, then just let me know.

When I say that the idea of the soul and self have not been pinned down, what I mean is that many disagree with subjective experience. I see it as being about qualitative understanding of mental states. There is also the link between the individual mind and the collective unconscious. This involves the link between the individual mind and the idea of 'ultimate reality', which can be referred to as 'God', or the One. Plotinus's ideas on the One are relevant to the idea of the unconscious, and consciousness within the unconscious.

[Jack Daydream]

The universe is a complex but absolutely integrated system of phenomena, which include physical, chemical, biological, psychic phenomena... that moves infallibly, it does not fail, there are no contradictions.

We are seeing, through science and the models that we are building, that there is something that cannot be explained. For example, universal laws are not physical, chemical, or biological, etc... they are invisible mandates that order everything... That the moon and the earth attract each other is an essentially physical phenomenon, but the law of gravity cannot be explained except as a result of the phenomenon. We do not see the law itself, we know that it exists, but we cannot understand where it comes from, what determines this order that we call gravity.

If we go deeper, we will see that before the Big Bang nothing could have existed...if the laws were modified, in a random way, they would do so in an uncoordinated manner, and there would be destructive contradictions in the universe, which would imply its annihilation. And this does not happen, since everything is super-ordered...

Super-ordered means that we only see an ordered Universe, but the system that orders it is superior to our psychic reach, it is beyond our psyche.

We do not have to believe in any religion to understand that the immaterial governs the material...

There are laws which are underlying all that happens, even if it is memory in nature. There is also the law of manifestation, which may explain so much, including the issue of why there is something rather than nothing.

[Jack Daydream]

The critical question to ask is the reality of it.

What is real [true, factual, knowledge] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

If anything spiritual is to be real, credible and objective it must possible to be verifiable and justifiable by the scientific FS at least via the science-psychological FS and supportable by science biology, neurosciences and the like.
There is no other way to justify the reality of something, is there any others?

If the above is not possible, then whatever is spiritual is not natural, so it is metaphysical, thus false and illusory.

Metaphysics [god, soul, immortality, supernatural beings] is an evolutionary default impulse of humans which is necessary illusion to deal therapeutically with the associate terrors re TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

While metaphysics has its pros, the cons when metaphysical beings e.g. god is insisted to be very real where it sent commands to believers to kill [commit other evil acts upon] non-believers; where believers readily carry out their very real god's command.

While spirituality of the metaphysics sense is necessary for the majority, the majority must rise to the awareness and mindfulness of its inherent limitations.

The idea of metaphysics is of what lies beyond physics. Science is important but there are limitations of this. Both Kant and Jung realised the limits of empiricism and science.

The logical positivists, especially AJ Ayer saw metaphysics as being undemonstratable metaphysics. However, I have read that Ayer had a near death experiences before he died, which he saw as challenging. I don't think that there is clear information of this testimony because Ayer died shortly afterwards, so it is based on what he said before death.

As I said to Age, part of the problem is that the idea of spirit is based on inner reality. The map of this territory is so different from the physical world which is subject to empirical investigation.

In the Prolegomena, Kant asked three main question [paraphrased];

1. Is Science Possible as real?
2. Is Mathematics Possible as real?
3. Is Metaphysics possible as a science?

Kant argued convincingly Science and Mathematics are possible to be naturally real but metaphysics is impossible to be naturally real as Science.

But as I said, the scientific framework and system [FS] (with its inherent limitations*) is the most credible and objective to make a claim of natural realness.
* according to Popper whatever are scientific truths, they are merely polished conjectures, guess works and beliefs [justified true beliefs].

But what other FS has better credibility and objectivity than Science to claim natural realness?
There is no other, so we have to rely on the best we have, i.e. Science.

Kant argued convincingly all metaphysics claims are naturally false, thus are illusions when reified as real.
The point is whenever you make any reference to metaphysical claims, do you accept they are naturally false i.e. merely illusory?

AJ Ayer claimed outright all metaphysical claims [non-scientific] are nonsense with !!! and will condemn anyone who insist upon metaphysical claims.
ALL death-death experiences or whatever supernatural experiences, all human experiences has an empirical ground, i.e. human nature is possibly and basically empirical.
Ayer would have made a false illusory claim if he assert 'God Exists' as real naturally.

Kant discovered metaphysical claims are inherently necessary, thus, whilst they are illusory, they are useful illusions which are critical for basic survival which is optimal at present [not future].

Question:
If you make any reference to or accept metaphysical claims, do you accept they are naturally false i.e. merely illusory?

The a priori and a posteri of Kant are relevant, but there are limits. Often, people seek to ask whether the idea of God's existence is logical or illogical. The difficulty of this results in agnosticism for some.

There is also the approach of Carl Jung, who when asked if he believed in God, in an interview with John Freeman on television, replied 'I don't believe, I know'. He was speaking of inner religious experiences. They may not be experienced by all so have some validity as psychological 'truth'. Psychological truth is a dimension aside from the scientific approach of behaviorism and neuroscience. It may indicate a pluralism of each person having access to inner awareness of varying perceptions and perspective within the larger system of human consciousness.