🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 8, 2:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> BuddyThunder wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 3:48�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>> BuddyThunder wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 6, 12:58 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> Well, look spirit up in the dictionary. �If you do not believe in
> >>>>> spirit, then there is no way to explain it to you.
> >>>> I looked it up and found lots of vague notions of intermediaries
> >>>> between
> >>>> body and soul. That kind of nonsense.
> >>>> So there is no meaningful definition of "spirit" in reality? You made a
> >>>> positive claim about my "spirit", then choosing to define it in
> >>>> terms of
> >>>> itself. A kind of "spirit is spirit, what's wrong with you" argument.
> >>>> I'm none the wiser as to what you're actually referring to.
> >>> The mediaeval understanding of spirit,was essentially what we today
> >>> would call the mind, as distinct and somewhat independent of, the body.
> >>> The concept of the 'objective observer' grew out of this particular
> >>> worldview. Science owes religious philosophy that much, at least.-
> >>> Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Spirit could also be called intelligence.
>
> > Why not simply use "intelligence" then? It's a much less nebulous word.
> > Intelligence is emergent from normal brain-activity (in many animals
> > including humans) and doesn't seem to be supernatural at all.
>
> THat is ony one way to skin the cat.
> And its probably more nearly correct to identify spirit with consciousness.
>
> Now whether consciousness is emergent from physical reality, or physical
> reality is emergent from consciousness, is a very moot point indeed.
>
> Classic materialism assumes the former, but neuroscience and indeed
> quantum effects suggest to some extent at least subjective physical
> reality is more or less constructed by consciousnes.
>
> Now the materialist will say thet subjective physical reality is 100%
> correlated with real physical reality, but the justifications of this
> are about as concrete as taking the bible literally. I.e. there is no
> real objective perception out there at all.
>
> Without modifying consciousness to see how that affects the perceptions
> of physical reality it is not possible to say whether our notion of
> physical reality exists outside of the way we happen to perceive it:
> eastern mystical traditions which concentrate on the methodologies to
> change consciousness, tend to claim that the apparent reality of the
> physical world, is certainly not as secure as our normal perceptual
> apparatus makes us feel.
>
> This was all part of the original Xtian/Judaic mysticism as well, but
> sadly the church no longer plays in this arena. Neither does Islam,
> outside of the Dervish movement.
>
> Which is all a sad waste, as, philosophically, there are, I think, great
> strides in understanding of both science and religion to be made by
> re-examining the basis on which we build our notions of what is real and
> what is not, and in what way.
>
> The Church however, seems more preocupied with secular morality, than
> philosophical investigation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So are you saying that morality is a bad thing?
Robert B. Winn