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

[Age]

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.

So what?

Who the 'I', as well as soul and self, are, exactly, as I just explained to you, are ALREADY KNOWN, and again, IRREFUTABLY too.

Now, again, if anyone would like to discuss this, then let 'us' proceed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Logical or illogical is too superficial, where Garbage in Garbage Out [GIGO] is a possibility.

Kant had argued God is illusory [beyond a posteriori & a priori], an illusion and it is delusional to insist God is a real [as defined above] entity. Note, my argument:

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Whenever anyone insist God is real, know it is real, or is agnostic, the whole process is expressed from a fallible human being which is subjective, thus not credible nor objective.
Why anyone would want to insist God or other supernatural spiritual entities exist is due to psychological desperation driven by TMT.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

The only way to convince anyone that a thing or entity is real is via the human-based [collective of subject] scientific mode, there is no other way; can your demonstrate what other way you can provide reasonable credible and objectivity to any claim of truths, facts or knowledge?