Back to Spirituality

@neilarini said
Man created language in order to communicate.

As did every creature on the planet. Using a broad definition of language of course. Humans communicate through more than just words as do all creatures. Words are just our form of direct communication and mostly we aren’t too good at it especially in complex situations.

@petewxyz said
Interestingly to me evolution also does not explain how we arrived at consciousness. So if the 'we' you are talking about is our conscious selves you run into problems about when and how we actually began that are not properly understood.

Evolution explains the development of physical structures like our bodies and our brains, but the seat of consciousness is not explain ...[text shortened]... Then consciousness is a property of all matter needing the physical structures to bring it to life.

By consciousness do you mean the state of awareness of, and ability to evaluate, our internal and external environment? I would have thought that was the result of a bunch of sensors relaying information to a central processing unit.
Or do you mean self awareness in its more intangible sense.

@secondson said
I pose these questions: what, if any, difference is there between the supernatural and the spiritual?
Is Spirit a supernatural thing? Or is the term 'spiritual' just an adjective, a word used to describe a wistful concept, but without supernatural substance?

Or, does that which is spiritual contain supernatural substance not perceivable by the physical senses?
I assert ...[text shortened]... ch is supernatural is 'spiritual', and has substance not physically perceived, how then is it known?

Spirituality is a realm of the supernatural, perhaps the only realm. If there is no supernatural then there is no spirituality. One cannot deny the existence of the supernatural while claiming to hold to spirituality; that’s a contradiction.

@kevcvs57 said
By consciousness do you mean the state of awareness of, and ability to evaluate, our internal and external environment? I would have thought that was the result of a bunch of sensors relaying information to a central processing unit.
Or do you mean self awareness in its more intangible sense.

The sense of self. The being. Meaning that literally as in to be. The observer and not the machinery that makes the observation possible. Bizarrely it turns out not to be in any specific physical structure of the brain or to have an obvious physical seat where it begins. If you study neuroanatomy every area and structure that is identified turns out to be functionally subservient but never the actual seat or house of consciousness. If it were a computer the question would be who is actually looking at the screen, because functionally all the areas of brain that get mapped just turn out to be the computer.

@petewxyz said
The sense of self. The being. Meaning that literally as in to be. The observer and not the machinery that makes the observation possible. Bizarrely it turns out not to be in any specific physical structure of the brain or to have an obvious physical seat where it begins. If you study neuroanatomy every area and structure that is identified turns out to be functionally subser ...[text shortened]... creen, because functionally all the areas of brain that get mapped just turn out to be the computer.

Would it need need to be set in a physical structure for it to be corporal in nature. Isn’t it just the result of certain of these functional nodes working in unison to produce the illusion of self for survival purposes.
Also aren’t we still a long way from understanding the totality of the brain and how it works.

@kevcvs57 said
Would it need need to be set in a physical structure for it to be corporal in nature. Isn’t it just the result of certain of these functional nodes working in unison to produce the illusion of self for survival purposes.
Also aren’t we still a long way from understanding the totality of the brain and how it works.

Absolutely, but we are getting better. I'm referring to good quality functional neuroscience research when I raise this issue. The notion of finding a seat of consciousness has pretty much been rejected through the developing understanding of the brain and like you suggest people appear to be talking much more of existence within electrochemical patterns that pass rapidly through the various structures, but why does a pattern have self awareness and to what extent is a pattern bound to the physical structure that happen to house it??

@divegeester said
Spirituality is a realm of the supernatural, perhaps the only realm. If there is no supernatural then there is no spirituality. One cannot deny the existence of the supernatural while claiming to hold to spirituality; that’s a contradiction.

So do you believe that someone who lacks belief in "the supernatural" - or believes it does not exist - consequently has no "spiritual" dimension, or do you think they do, but they simply deny it and/or unaware of it?

@petewxyz said
Absolutely, but we are getting better. I'm referring to good quality functional neuroscience research when I raise this issue. The notion of finding a seat of consciousness has pretty much been rejected through the developing understanding of the brain and like you suggest people appear to be talking much more of existence within electrochemical patterns that pass rapidly th ...[text shortened]... awareness and to what extent is a pattern bound to the physical structure that happen to house it??

When I saw your original post I typed a rambling (based on ignorance) post concerning the differences between and the interactions of ROM and RAM in computing wondering if consciousness was analogous with RAM then kept my finger on the back button until it went away. I’m now wondering again. 🤔

@kevcvs57 said
When I saw your original post I typed a rambling (based on ignorance) post concerning the differences between and the interactions of ROM and RAM in computing wondering if consciousness was analogous with RAM then kept my finger on the back button until it went away. I’m now wondering again. 🤔

My knowledge of computing is a bit weak to run with the analogy, but my instinct is to say that in computing consciousness is within the user of the computer. The components of the computer make some moves based on a clock or a programme saying they are due, but that all came from the humans. Perhaps that's analogous with reflex aspects of life which can even happen in the spinal cord, but the self aware being making things happen through considered decisions regarding responding to it's needs is the human user of the computer every time for me.

Maybe the way the hippocampus links complex memories of stimuli to current complex stimuli is something to do with the immediate stuff held in RAM if I get what RAM is about. Maybe that is a cache and not RAM?? But consciousness is making use of the hippocampus rather than living there. There is certainly interesting stuff about when the hippocampus is disordered with hypodensity, so a lack of cells, which seems to link up with people misperceiving reality. Again it is the impact of the hippocampal function rather than being the hippocampus.

It just fascinates me when people try and define spiritual existence and wish to look to the supernatural when actually there is a problem locating it within the physical or the natural perhaps.

(rambling and playing around with ideas can be the fun of forum posting imo, enjoy the freedom of this being a chess site after all)

@fmf said
So do you believe that someone who lacks belief in "the supernatural" - or believes it does not exist - consequently has no "spiritual" dimension, or do you think they do, but they simply deny it and/or unaware of it?

I believe that person might be confused and not realise that their spirituality is in fact a supernatural dimension.

Of course in the same way that atheists view theists as being deluded into believing in the supernatural, a “spiritual” atheist could in fact be similarly deluding them self and what they perceive as their spirituality is nothing more than thoughts and feelings.

@divegeester said
Of course in the same way that atheists view theists as being deluded into believing in the supernatural, a “spiritual” atheist could in fact be similarly deluding them self and what they perceive as their spirituality is nothing more than thoughts and feelings.

Well, I am an atheist and I don't think that people who believe in supernatural things are deluded.

And, corresponding to that, I don't think that proposing the idea that the human capacities that result in belief or non-belief in supernatural things are the same capacities and that, whichever way they go beliefs-wise, is the seat of human spirituality - I don't think proposing this idea is deluded.

I take the word "spirit" from the term "human spirit". I realize it's not conventional and I only offer it for the sake of discussion and perspective [I am not seeking to update the dictionary].

I propose that your "thoughts and feelings" ~ and your beliefs ~ about the supernatural are "theism". I believe that both yours and my perceptions of the supernatural 'realm' stem from our capacity for "spirituality" ~ which I think is an amalgam of our facility for abstraction, philosophy (metaphysics), consciousness of selves, morality, curiosity about our origin and purpose etc.

An unconventional take [I admit] on what "spirituality" actually is when you dissect it, rather than a "deluded" take.

@secondson said
Seems this forum has gone adrift. At least to my way of thinking. A lot of discussion being made, but with little or no spiritual premise or content.

It's interesting how you started this thread and then bailed out of it immediately whilst continuing to ooze plenty more highly personalized forum banter elsewhere... stuff, I'd think, even you would admit comprises posts that have little or no spiritual premise or content.

What's wrong with this thread that you yourself started with such a distinct pong of hypocritical sanctimony?

@kevcvs57 said
Thanks for summarising my stance 😊

Interesting to me is why we have each grown in different directions from that same given. I have faith and have gone so far as to call faith 'the other side of the knowledge coin', yet you have gone the way of not accepting the faith. I have no beef with this, it is just interesting to me.

Edit: I know I said that you do not accept the faith, but perhaps it's more just not being "all in" with the idea. I can understand agnosticism. I haven't heard you talk about this much here, so I am not real sure if it is atheism or agnosticism.

@suzianne said
Interesting to me is why we have each grown in different directions from that same given. I have faith and have gone so far as to call faith 'the other side of the knowledge coin', yet you have gone the way of not accepting the faith. I have no beef with this, it is just interesting to me.

Edit: I know I said that you do not accept the faith, but perhaps it's more just ...[text shortened]... haven't heard you talk about this much here, so I am not real sure if it is atheism or agnosticism.

I’m an agnostic I don’t reject anything other than models that have been contradicted by empirical evidence. I’ve always got the impression that you do not hang your faith on a literal interpretation of religious texts.
I’m confident that evolution explains how we got from single cell organisms to the moon landings and that the Big Bang theory concerning the origins of our Universe is more or less correct but neither of those rule out the existence of a creator or a spiritual aspect to our existence, anymore than I can convince myself that a creator is a necessity for either event.

@kevcvs57 said
I’m an agnostic I don’t reject anything other than models that have been contradicted by empirical evidence. I’ve always got the impression that you do not hang your faith on a literal interpretation of religious texts.
I’m confident that evolution explains how we got from single cell organisms to the moon landings and that the Big Bang theory concerning the origins of our ...[text shortened]... to our existence, anymore than I can convince myself that a creator is a necessity for either event.

You are fundamentally correct in what I believe. I'm not big on literalism. I feel that those who are make the Bible their God, which is not at all what God meant for us. My position on evolution and the BBT is just as you said earlier, it really only acts as an answer to "how" God "did it". I go a little deeper, assigning to God a motive for using natural systems; to wit, to secure our free will choice of God, or "not-God". Since both are possible, it comes down to a question only of faith. What seems clear to me is that choice is individual, and mocking someone for their choice is not helpful, to put it mildly. So yes, we have more in common on this issue than it appears at a first look.