Philosophical question

[Phreak101]

Im bored @ work so I present this question...

Does the body house the spirit? Or does the spirit create the body?

Modern quantum physics loosely tells us that the experience of "being" is only an illusion produced by our mind...so what is real? Do our bodies create our soul, or the other way around?

Johan I need some input...

[MoneyAddyct]

I'm a philosophy major and I've taken several courses including metaphysics which address questions of this nature. What I've come to learn through philosophical study is that no one really knows. (duh)

I'd have to say I'm not sure. Your question presupposes a belief in the existence of a "soul" which, I'm not sure I believe in to begin with.

If you're interested in questions of this type you might want to look at a book called Contemporary Metaphysics by Michael Jubien. He goes into depth in a great variety of topics including: propositions, possible worlds theories, the nature of colors and numbers, identity, time/space, and the mind/body connection.

A similiar question to yours which he addresses is "What exactly is the mind?" Is it the brain or is it something different? Where is the mind? etc etc.

Sorry I couldn't be of much help. I'm not a huge fan of metaphysics to begin with. I prefer existentialism, philosophy of law and ethical philosophical theory.

[Phreak101]

I'm a philosophy major and I've taken several courses including metaphysics which address questions of this nature. What I've come to learn through philosophical study is that no one really knows. (duh)

I'd have to say I'm not sure. Your question presupposes a belief in the existence of a "soul" which, I'm not sure I believe in to begin with.

If you're interested in questions of this type you might want to look at a book called Contemporary Metaphysics by Michael Jubien. He goes into depth in a great variety of topics including: propositions, possible worlds theories, the nature of colors and numbers, identity, time/space, and the mind/body connection.

A similiar question to yours which he addresses is "What exactly is the mind?" Is it the brain or is it something different? Where is the mind? etc etc.

Sorry I couldn't be of much help. I'm not a huge fan of metaphysics to begin with. I prefer existentialism, philosophy of law and ethical philosophical theory.

Hey that's a good start, I too am also a huge fan of metaphysics. I saw "What the bleep do we know" about a year ago and was hooked. The religious part of it was kinda out there, but the science of it was fascinating. I'll definitely check out that book.

MoneyAddyct, what do you think of fact that we can remember the past but not know the future? After all time is just an element. In black holes and such time and space have no meaning, so in essence shouldn't we be able to have the same access to both past and future?

[TesticularFortitude]

I thikn it was Renee Descartes who through a certain line of question said:

I think, therfore I am

This is one of the few fundamental truths we know. He searches for a fact that cannot be disputed, seeing as we know nothing execept for our own ignorance.

Here is a metaphysical puzzle (has to do with the ontological argument)

In definin God, we learn he/she is all powerful.
question: can God create a rock so large that he himself cannot move it

if so and he cannot move the rock, then he is not all powerful

if not, then he cannot create the rock, and is again not all powerful

tf

[Mizfit]

Im bored @ work so I present this question...

Does the body house the spirit? Or does the spirit create the body?

Modern quantum physics loosely tells us that the experience of "being" is only an illusion produced by our mind...so what is real? Do our bodies create our soul, or the other way around?

Johan I need some input...

Neither

[Phreak101]

Neither

Explain....

[Phreak101]

I thikn it was Renee Descartes who through a certain line of question said:

I think, therfore I am

This is one of the few fundamental truths we know. He searches for a fact that cannot be disputed, seeing as we know nothing execept for our own ignorance. VERY VERY TRUE!

Here is a metaphysical puzzle (has to do with the ontological argument)

In definin God, we learn he/she is all powerful.
question: can God create a rock so large that he himself cannot move it

if so and he cannot move the rock, then he is not all powerful

if not, then he cannot create the rock, and is again not all powerful

tf

I love Descartes but his logic is flawed...his logic was something along the lines of "If I kick this rock, it hurts, I feel the pain, that's real, it's a real thing"

But he is still flawed as that pain and that experience is still being filtered by the mind. It is only as real as the mind makes it to be...

As for God making a rock he cannot move, I left that question behind when i realized I do not have a high enough level of consciousness to understand what God is...and even if someone told me what God is, I don't think I have the mental capacity to appreciate the answer...

[Mizfit]

Explain....

a spirit can not be housed..

We try to use logic to explain it but it can't be explained.. there is way too much too the humman mind/spirit.

I guess when i think question the first though that comes to mind is that of someone who si severely mentally challenged - yes we know that they may lack motor skills and may only function at a very young mental capacity, but there is something in their eyes that can't be denied - to me this is the spirit - the body is not neccesaily housing it - because it hasn't shaped or frame the spirti that has formed.

Not sure if this make sense. i ramble it's close to home time

[TesticularFortitude]

As for God making a rock he cannot move, I left that question behind when i realized I do not have a high enough level of consciousness to understand what God is...and even if someone told me what God is, I don't think I have the mental capacity to appreciate the answer...

^^ Exactly my thoughts and response to that question... we are not equipt to understand somethi8ng as complex and mu,ltilayerd as the divine

most philosophers have faulty theories, but its the refining of all those fallible ideas that lead them to the refined theories...

Zeno i believe had many mathmatical tricks that were disproved

[Phreak101]

a spirit can not be housed..

We try to use logic to explain it but it can't be explained.. there is way too much too the humman mind/spirit.

I guess when i think question the first though that comes to mind is that of someone who si severely mentally challenged - yes we know that they may lack motor skills and may only function at a very young mental capacity, but there is something in their eyes that can't be denied - to me this is the spirit - the body is not neccesaily housing it - because it hasn't shaped or frame the spirti that has formed.

Not sure if this make sense. i ramble it's close to home time

The idea makes sense, and I completely agree...my question was a step further from this idea, which was, is the mind making these people handicapped simply by choosing to do so (unbeknownst to the person of course), or are these people handicapped simply because they were born that way.

It sounds like a lot of hoopla, but think of this way...what are your thoughts made of? What physcially makes up a decision? Or a memory?

[ShnouzedUp]

Is the mind/body connection a philosophical question or a psychological one?

[shortie]

Modern quantum physics loosely tells us that the experience of "being" is only an illusion produced by our mind...so what is real? Do our bodies create our soul, or the other way around?

So just chop off a finger and then imagine the thing back on-if it grows back physics wins.

[Phreak101]

Is the mind/body connection a philosophical question or a psychological one?

Both...but it's more philosphical in the fact that your mind and the plant outside your window are made up of the exact same building blocks, so in essence everything is just particles....so what, then, are the indentities we carry made of. Who are "we"? What makes you, "you"? If you could not see, taste, touch, hear, or smell, would you even exist outside of your mind? What would your world be? your mind?

[Phreak101]

So just chop off a finger and then imagine the thing back on-if it grows back physics wins.

I'd love to do that, but I already have a predetermined notion that is so fundamental to my existence that I can't imagine it not happening. It is literally impossible for me to truly believe that my finger will grow back if I chop it off because I have been programmed to believe it will not.

Ironically enough it may be physically possible somewhere outside of this blue marble we call Earth to regenerate a lost limb simply by "making it happen", but we'll never know.

That's called a paradigm.

[guest589745]

Skullsmashers head hurts..........

Him go bench now...............

[Phreak101]

Skullsmashers head hurts..........

Him go bench now...............

That's about where I end up after thinking about this stuff for too long...

[beuleux]

I think... therefore I am!

Problem solved

[Psychotron]

The biggest flaw here is assuming you have a spirit.

[Phreak101]

The biggest flaw here is assuming you have a spirit.

By spirit, I mean the identity of you. You are self-aware, you are aware you exist. There is no physical part of your body that gives you the ability to do that, nor is there any other life form on this planet that is aware of it's own existence. You are consciously conscious.

So what, exactly, are "you"? I just call it a spirit because there really isn't anything esle I can think of to call "it".

[Phreak101]

I think... therefore I am!

Problem solved

Not necessarily, your thoughts and experiences are only as real as the boundaries of your mind. Your thoughts are only yours, and the world you create for yourself is only as real as your mind permits.

Again, if you could not speak, hear, smell, taste, or feel touch...what then, would your reality be?

[beuleux]

Reality (as in the world around u) would remain the same wether u could walk, talk, smell, hear, see or whatever only ones perception of it would be different, for example the rock would still hurt ur foot when you kicked it but how u arrived at that decision may vary, even if you had no feeling ur foot would still be broken and u wouldnt be able to walk on it so the outcome would be the same.

We dont know for a fact that animals arnt self aware because they cant tell us one way or another, the only way we know other ppl are self aware is because they tell us.

[Phreak101]

Reality (as in the world around u) would remain the same wether u could walk, talk, smell, hear, see or whatever only ones perception of it would be different, for example the rock would still hurt ur foot when you kicked it but how u arrived at that decision may vary, even if you had no feeling ur foot would still be broken and u wouldnt be able to walk on it so the outcome would be the same.

We dont know for a fact that animals arnt self aware because they cant tell us one way or another, the only way we know other ppl are self aware is because they tell us.

That's not a correct statement, that is a false way of thinking based on old scientific thinking. It goes back to the old saying "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?" Expand your thinking a little bit. How can there be a sound if no one is able to hear it? How can the sound even exist if it cannot be experienced?

Reality is only as real as your mind makes it out to be, this is a fact. In a black hole, time and space have no meaning, so does that mean reality in a black hole is different than reality here on earth? Of course not..what it DOES mean is that your definition of what is real is so predefined by mankind's limited history here on earth that it is impossible to comprehend anything differently. Yes your foot would break here, but would it break elsewhere? What if you could use your mind to heal your foot? No one knows!

Remember 500 years ago, reality was a flat world that was the center of the universe.

As far as animals go, when was the last time you saw an animal commit suicide? (Outside of it's instinct of course). Animals are not capable of cognitive decision making. You can never convince an animal that it will die one day, because they very fabric of what makes up an animal's mind is self preservation. Hell even HUMANS have trouble accepting it...look at all the cigarette smokers! We KNOW this shit will kill us and we still do it!

Only humans have the ability to communicate the idea of the future. That is what makes us self aware. By understanding that you can change the outcome of your own reality simply by acting a certain way or doing a certain thing, you become aware of the idea that what you do NOW will change what happens THEN. This is being aware of your own presence, hence the term "self-aware".

[beuleux]

Man u can be as metaphysical as you like but of course the tree makes a sound when it falls, its like saying is it still dark when youre asleep... of course it is. Its true our understanding of the world or reality expands along with scientific discoveries which are based on studies to establish hard facts not wild suppositions. This is one reason metaphysics will never be taken seriously as a science, because its a pile of mumbo jumbo b/s LOL

[Phreak101]

Man u can be as metaphysical as you like but of course the tree makes a sound when it falls, its like saying is it still dark when youre asleep... of course it is. Its true our understanding of the world or reality expands along with scientific discoveries which are based on studies to establish hard facts not wild suppositions. This is one reason metaphysics will never be taken seriously as a science, because its a pile of mumbo jumbo b/s LOL

Mumbo jumbo b/s? Define a "hard fact". Scientists 100 years go could have never even begun to imagine that time will SLOW DOWN if you come closer to the spped of light. That is mindblowing! A "hard fact" 600 years ago was a flat earth. Here, I'll break it down even more. Quantum Superpositioning is a fact. It has been proven. This is, loosely defined, the phenomenon of a particle being able to pop in and out of existence as needed to create something. Scientists at CERN have PROVEN that particles pop in and out of existence as needed. They even have photos of an object large enough to be seen by the naked eye that is in two different points of existence at the exact same time. How is this possible?

The only rational explanation for this type of particle behavior is that the particles are only in existence when they are needed, and the only time they are needed is when they are being experienced by an observer. Hence, in theory, there would be no sound if a tree was falling and no one is around because there would be no one around to experience it! This is a very elemntary example that I don't expect to prove what I'm talking about, but in other examples it makes sense. You are basing all of your decisions and "facts" on a method of science that has been proven antiquated bu quantum physics. Until a unified theory between general relativity and subatomic physics can be found, you and I cannot be right or wrong with any of what we say, because no one really knows! Agreed?

[stik]

Check out Aristotle's Laws of the First Principles.
And C.S. Lewis' book Miracles. It will all make sense. Its the age old question of eastern thought versus western logic. Personally I take the
logical road. But we will all find out in the end. Pascal's wager.

[Phreak101]

Check out Aristotle's Laws of the First Principles.
And C.S. Lewis' book Miracles. It will all make sense. Its the age old question of eastern thought versus western logic. Personally I take the
logical road. But we will all find out in the end. Pascal's wager.

Modern science is supporting eastern philosophy. ALbert Einstein has been quoted saying Buddishm is the religion of science.

[Phreak101]

Wow 9 people viewing this mofo, glad to see people are taking an interest in the big picture!

[stik]

Buddishm is an offshoot of hinduiism. Study the Vedas and im sure you'll agree
its ridiculous B.S. And God can do anything as long as its not self-contradictory, because it cancels itself out and therefore doesn't exist, ie
"this statement is false" or "everything i say is a lie"

[Phreak101]

Buddishm is an offshoot of hinduiism. Study the Vedas and im sure you'll agree
its ridiculous B.S. And God can do anything as long as its not self-contradictory, because it cancels itself out and therefore doesn't exist, ie
"this statement is false" or "everything i say is a lie"

This I do know, and the flaw in Buddhism is trying to put an entity behind the everything and the nothing. If all is one and one is all, ying, yang, all that jazz, then who is running the show?

I do feel Buddhism and Hinduism are very good representations of the physical reality though. The messages they preach about reality as a whole are far more useful than modern Christianity and the like....

[Grappler13]

Check out Aristotle's Laws of the First Principles.
And C.S. Lewis' book Miracles. It will all make sense. Its the age old question of eastern thought versus western logic. Personally I take the
logical road. But we will all find out in the end. Pascal's wager.

Basic Matrix as follows:

God exists God does not exist
Wager for God Gain all Status quo
Wager against God Misery Status quo

But: How can you wager for god and still adhere to the faith aspects of the religion (ex. Christianity's claim for the divinity of Jesus, the Trininty, early Pauline Creeds, etc..): How can you "have faith" when you have really just chosen a safe route. I'm assuming that faith is unbridled and personal but logical rational faith isn't faith at all. One could rigourously adhere to a particular god-based religion whilst still recognizing his participation as solely a wager on the existence of god. This presupposes that there is no genuine faith or adherence in the personal sense and would argue that the benefits gifted to believers (assuming god does exist) might be restricted to those actual believers rather than a guy who goes through the motions like paying an insurance bill.

[Grappler13]

This from a mind that organically created probability theory. Strange.

[Kärnfysikern]

Gonna give the input on the physics like you asked

In black holes and such time and space have no meaning, so in essence shouldn't we be able to have the same access to both past and future?

Its not quite right to say time and space doesnt have any meaning. General relativity breaks down in a singularity. So in essence we just dont know what happens inside a black hole. We need a theory of quantum gravity before we know.

BTW be carefull when watching what the bleep do we know. I havent seen it myself but I have seen that movied discussed on a physics forum and its cram packed with bad science

By spirit, I mean the identity of you. You are self-aware, you are aware you exist. There is no physical part of your body that gives you the ability to do that, nor is there any other life form on this planet that is aware of it's own existence. You are consciously conscious.

So what, exactly, are "you"? I just call it a spirit because there really isn't anything esle I can think of to call "it".

Dont quote me on it. but I am quite sure dolphins and monkies are self aware...
Identity is just a function of some parts of the brain. Brain damages can cause that sense of identity to become distorted. A person can for instance stop recognising his arm. No matter if he looks in a mirror and se it attached to him and no matter if people tell him it is realy his arm he will blatantly refuse to accept that it is in fact his arm.

Quantum Superpositioning is a fact. It has been proven. This is, loosely defined, the phenomenon of a particle being able to pop in and out of existence as needed to create something. Scientists at CERN have PROVEN that particles pop in and out of existence as needed. They even have photos of an object large enough to be seen by the naked eye that is in two different points of existence at the exact same time. How is this possible?

Quantum superpositioning is baiscly when a particle has 2 different energy, position, momentum at the same time because of superposition of the wavefunction. But this is just because of the wave nature of particles. If you however make some kind of measurement on the particle the superposition will collapse and the particle will assume randomly one of the 2 different states it posessed.

What is important to note however is that before you do the measurement you dont know anything about the particle. So its not right to realy claim it has two positions at the same time. We dont know what it do or where it is. The superposition is just what the mathematics claim the particle is doing. Its the quantum equvivalent of wave superposition(when two waves meet there amplitudes adds).
All we can ever know is that after we make our measurement we will find the particle in one of those two positions and the probability of it beeing at one place or the other is given by the equations.

So speaking of what it does before the measurement isnt realy physics, its meta-physics. Because no test can ever be devised to know what it does. The moment a measurement is made the superposition collapses.

I prefer to look at it as a mathematical oddity.

This is what einstein objected to, he could not accept that any object can have a undefined position.

About that object that could be seen with the naked eye. Do you have any link to it or anywhere I can read about it? It should not be possible because macroscopic objects dont exhibit quantum effects and just observing the object would force it into one or the other position. It sounds wierd...

[Kärnfysikern]

Beuleux I deleted your post because frankly it all seems like just a atempt to stir shit in this thread, no reason for that.

[guest589745]

Gonna give the input on the physics like you asked



Its not quite right to say time and space doesnt have any meaning. General relativity breaks down in a singularity. So in essence we just dont know what happens inside a black hole. We need a theory of quantum gravity before we know.

BTW be carefull when watching what the bleep do we know. I havent seen it myself but I have seen that movied discussed on a physics forum and its cram packed with bad science



Dont quote me on it. but I am quite sure dolphins and monkies are self aware...
Identity is just a function of some parts of the brain. Brain damages can cause that sense of identity to become distorted. A person can for instance stop recognising his arm. No matter if he looks in a mirror and se it attached to him and no matter if people tell him it is realy his arm he will blatantly refuse to accept that it is in fact his arm.



Quantum superpositioning is baiscly when a particle has 2 different energy, position, momentum at the same time because of superposition of the wavefunction. But this is just because of the wave nature of particles. If you however make some kind of measurement on the particle the superposition will collapse and the particle will assume randomly one of the 2 different states it posessed.

What is important to note however is that before you do the measurement you dont know anything about the particle. So its not right to realy claim it has two positions at the same time. We dont know what it do or where it is. The superposition is just what the mathematics claim the particle is doing. Its the quantum equvivalent of wave superposition(when two waves meet there amplitudes adds).
All we can ever know is that after we make our measurement we will find the particle in one of those two positions and the probability of it beeing at one place or the other is given by the equations.

So speaking of what it does before the measurement isnt realy physics, its meta-physics. Because no test can ever be devised to know what it does. The moment a measurement is made the superposition collapses.

I prefer to look at it as a mathematical oddity.

This is what einstein objected to, he could not accept that any object can have a undefined position.

About that object that could be seen with the naked eye. Do you have any link to it or anywhere I can read about it? It should not be possible because macroscopic objects dont exhibit quantum effects and just observing the object would force it into one or the other position. It sounds wierd...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

[Kärnfysikern]

The only rational explanation for this type of particle behavior is that the particles are only in existence when they are needed, and the only time they are needed is when they are being experienced by an observer. Hence, in theory, there would be no sound if a tree was falling and no one is around because there would be no one around to experience it! This is a very elemntary example that I don't expect to prove what I'm talking about, but in other examples it makes sense. You are basing all of your decisions and "facts" on a method of science that has been proven antiquated bu quantum physics. Until a unified theory between general relativity and subatomic physics can be found, you and I cannot be right or wrong with any of what we say, because no one really knows! Agreed?

Its always very hard to try and draw conclusions about our everday world from quantum mechanics. Because quantum mechanical effects doesnt seem to exist in macroscopic objects. Some great physcisist have discussed these things. I belive there is a semi famous quote(cant remember who said it) about the moon not beeing there when not looking at it.

Im a practical guy myself so I choose not to think in those ways. Because its like I said earlier. The only way we can ever get any info about anything is by observing. We only know something when we observe and after a observation. So what happens before the observation is and will always be unknown to us.

There are different intepretations of quantum mechanics for this though. The most normal is the Copenhagen interpretation that more or less states that the only thing that should be bothered about is the results of the measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenha...ntum_mechanics

The other second most comon is the many worlds intepretation that states that for every collapse of a superposition 2 alternative worlds are created. So both position becomes real but in different worlds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

There are loads of other interpretations I am not familiat with, but I think you would like to read about them. Try to google interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The important thing to remember here is that all intepretations give exactly equal results so there is no way in telling what is right or wrong

[beuleux]

Beuleux I deleted your post because frankly it all seems like just a atempt to stir shit in this thread, no reason for that.

Ok Im not argueing... with ur post (which is quite enlightening) or with ur decision to delete my post, I was reacting to being insulted without resorting to insults myself. I see u have also deleted the posts which insulted me in the first place. Both our posts deleted... just and fair.

[Kärnfysikern]

Ok Im not argueing... with ur post (which is quite enlightening) or with ur decision to delete my post, I was reacting to being insulted without resorting to insults myself. I see u have also deleted the posts which insulted me in the first place. Both our posts deleted... just and fair.

thanks

[Phreak101]

Johan, excellent explanation, thank you for your help. My science is rusty, but the philosphical questions arising from such breakthroughs in science are astounding, hence the line of questioning that comes along with it...

I will do my best to find that link for you.

[Phreak101]

BTW, the many worlds theory is what is demonstrated by the "cat in the box" no? Schroedingers cat I think it's called?

[alphaman]

You guys are lucky I only got four hours of sleep last night...... or maybe the opposite is true.