Well is it prudent to tell people that their logic is faulty when all you truly mean is that you personally disagree with their starting premise?

Why not just say that you disagree with their starting premise and leave it at that. Otherwise it appears that you're attempting to assert that you have a better handle on something than they do, which is highly unlikely.

Ok. Forgive my misunderstanding then.

.. sure looks like an insistence, smells like an insistence, feels like an insistence...

MUST BE AN INSISTENCE!!!

Abracadabra...



And...



Judging whether another will be personally offended by the use of impersonal terminology can be difficult to correctly ascertain. It is the recognition of that possibility that gives me pause. I am not looking to offend.

We do have an agreement here.

Human creativity exists...

Could you show me how you go from that to this?

...therefore, spirit must exist.

The word "spirit" invokes religious associations that aren't quite acceptable to most of the atheistic people (including myself). Maybe it's possible substituting the term "intuition" (or "essence") instead of the spirit? For example:

(or by the essence )...

Would that be more plausable than "spirit"

I don't necessarily do that. Perhaps that's a source misunderstanding.

To begin with, I think you've read enough of my posts by now that you should be well aware that I'm ultimately agnostic. I don't assert that spirit must exist.

So I may not be drawing the conclusions that you have presumed that I might be drawing.

My main position is simply that I feel there is much evidence and indications that a concept of spirit seems to me to be more plausible than not.

And so, from that point of view, I see it as being a quite valid concept to consider. That's far from asserting that spirit must exist.

The only thing that I truly demand is respect for the consideration that spirit may indeed be plausible. I reject the notion that it's an illogical or irrational idea simply because it hasn't yet been proven to exist. And I give the quantum field in science as an example where concepts that cannot be directly detected have also been given consideration, and even named, and even given mathematical behavioral descriptions where the behavior of something that cannot even be directly shown to actually exist is being considered.

I feel that the concept of spirit has at least equal merit.

Another place where there may be much misunderstanding is with the very word 'spirit' itself.

I use the term quite abstractly. I don't even pretend to have a completely definition of spirit anymore than scientists claim to have a complete definition of the quantum field.

In physics, the quantum field is decribed by nothing more that the properties it must possess to give rise to what we observe.

None the less, if we insist that this undetectable thing exists then we are faced with recognizing that it must have certain properties as well as potentially lacking others. For example, the quantum field gives rise to the phenomena that give us a very notion of time, it also can do this in ways that defy our notions of time. Therefore it seems that for this quantum field to have the properties that it exhibits the very concept of time itself must be either non-existent to the quantum field, or so malleable as to have no meaning to us in any conventional sense.

If I bring that notion over to the concept of spirit (which I do since I see the quantum field and spirit as being essentially the same thing), then I can feel fairly confident that spirit is "eternal" (i.e. time is a meaningless concept to spirit. Spirit creates time just as the quantum field creates time). After all, for me, spirit and the quantum field are one in the same, so whatever one can do, so then must the other be able to do.

So from that I can feel somewhat safe in presuming that spirit is eternal (timeless).

Also, if the quantum field gives rise to all physical phenomena, then it must also give rise to all psyche phenomena, even if through the physical phenomena.

In other words, from my point of view, whatever is giving rise to physicality is giving rise to everything. Moreover, if the quantum field is the thing (as abstract or intangible as it may seem) that becomes this universe, then it makes sense to me that it is also the thing that is ultimately experiencing the journey.

Therefore, if I can experience anything at all, I must be the quantum field. What else could I be? Nothing else exists.

In fact, what we refer to as existence itself, is nothing more than patterns in the quantum field.

It's like we are waves on an ocean. We call the waves "reality" and the deny the existence of the deeper ocean because it's 'undetectable' at the surface other than by the waves that it creates.

If all the waves settle down to a perfectly flat smooth surface, and we consider only 'waves' to be reality. Then at that point we would claim that 'nothing exists'. Of course if there were no waves at all we wouldn't be able to claim anything, but this is one of those weird thought experiments where you're supposed to ignore the existence of the experimenter.

Of course, QM tells us that we can't do that. We can't seperate the experiment from the experimenter (and the above mind experiment vividly shows why this is the case). This is the very foundation for ideas of 'observer-created' reality. An observer must be present before anything can be observed.

In fact, this is a rather interesting point, I think, as it drives home the very essence of the spiritual point of view (at least as I see it anyway), and that is that the quantum field itself must necessarily be able to preceive even when there is "nothing" to perceive.

In other words, the ocean must be able to know itself even when there are no waves on it's surface. But clearly that essence is an essence that we can't know, at least not in the sense of physicality. That experience resides in the gap between thoughts and between sensations. But it's hard for us to get into that gap when we are constantly being bombarded with both thoughts and sensations.

In any case, from the point of view of 'logic', I think it's 'illogical' to try claim that only waves count and the ocean doesn't when it's clear that an ocean is required before waves even make sense.

So from that point of view, I believe that I could make a good argument that a concept of spirit actually has more basis in logic than a claim that denies it.

So I offer this only as an opinion and nothing more than that.

But I will argue vehemently that it's an opinion that at least holds respectable merit, even if it may not be provable in any iron-clad sense. And so from that point of view, I see off-the-cuff dismissals of the concept of spirit as being totally without merit.

I mean if someone would like to argue for a universe where we are something other than spirit, more power to them. But to denounce the concept of spirit as being illogical is utter nonsense, IMHO.

So that's where I'm coming from. I'm not attempting to assert that spirit must exist. But I do confess that I personally feel there are more reasons to believe in spirit than not.

I take that as a "No."

Well, I think it's better to recognize that I never made the claim that you were referring to in the first place.

I address the things that you specifically deny. (i.e. You try to make out like spirit is a logical invalid concept to discuss even in terms of plausibility).

You appear to always attempt to try twist things around in a way that makes it appear as if you had a valid point when in fact you never did.

I never even made the assertion that you're attempting to get me to say "no" to. So that was a totally misleading conversation right there.

So no, I never even claimed that "spirit must exist".

I have no idea where you even got that from.

You specifically said:



I don't go from that to this as you had suggested.

That was a misunderstanding on your part from the word GO.

I'm agnostic and I have always held that position consistently.

The only thing that I have ever argued for at any time is the plausibily of the existence of spirit.

I've also tried to make this clear to you on many occassions but obviously I'm not getting through because you still seem to think that I'm somehow demanding that spirit exists which has never been my position ever.

So no, I can't show you how I came to that conclusion, because I never did come to that conclusion.

However, I will confess that I'm increasingly finding more and more evidence that points to that conclusion. At some point in the future I just may give into it on the grounds that the evidence is so overwhelming that I simply find it compelling. I think I'm actually pretty close to that point already to be quite honest about it.

In the meantime I feel that it's at least on equal footing with the concept of the quantum field. So if that qualitfies as a conclusion, by your assessment, then I actually did show you what you had asked for.

However, that would be entirely based on how much validity you give to the concept of the quantum field.

In other words, if you feel that the quantum field must exist, then I've shown you reason why spirit must also exist.

On the other hand, if you feel that the quantum field is an unnecessary and unjustified concept, then I suppose you should feel the same way about spirit.

Since I have no clue how you feel about the quantum field, I can have no clue what you require before you can say that something must exist.

I address the logical respectability of considering the concept of spirit as being plausible. That's all I address. I don't even think in terms of what must or must not "exist". I think the very concept of "exist" is a slippery concept in it's own right. Exists in what sense? Even the quantum field doesn't 'exist' in a physical sense. It only exists as an abstract concept that gives rise to physical phenomena, yet without it we'd have no "explanation" of from where physical "existence" arises.

I don't see where that is any different from the concept of spirit whatsoever. So in a sense I did "Show" what you had requested even though I had never asserted it in the first place.

Although now that you've inspired me to make the case for it, maybe I should start asserting it. After all, I have shown that it's every bit as valid as the quantum field so I can at least assert that if the quantum field exists then so does spirit.

Although I'm not big on making assertions. I perfer to just offer insights and let people come to their own conclusions.

James I like your comparison to spirit and the quantum field. I also like your question :

"Well is it prudent to tell people that their logic is faulty when all you truly mean is that you personally disagree with their starting premise? "

This is where a discussion transforms into an argument that states, "you are at fault and I am right..."

I would have to ask what is logic? Does everyone's logic work the same way? Is what seems logical one person, not logical to another?

Doesn't logic follow a given premise?

Perhaps its not "faulty logic" at all. Perhaps you just disagree with the basic premise.

Abracadabra...



There was no misunderstanding. It is exactly what you claimed.



You do and you did.



I presumed nothing. I quoted your words exactly. Here it again.



There it is... your claim which asserts that you "are perfectly within the realm of using logic correctly." Going on to claim that the "...observation of creativity is sufficient evidence to lead to the conclusion that spirit must exist.

I presumed nothing.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.

Your claim has no more logical grounding than one which attributes the observation of creativity to a pink and black elephantic smooge. It is the very same argument with the same amount(or lack thereof) of validity. Neither smooge nor spirit have been shown to exist, therefore, one cannot possibly attempt to say that either one is the source of human creativity and hold to being logical.

The brain does exist. There are specific areas in the brain, that when damaged, the subject shows marked differences in all different types of cognitive functioning, depending upon which area is damaged... including creativity.

Now, is it more logical to attribute creativity, thought, opinion, and other forms of cognitive functioning to some undisclosed and unproven thing/idea, or to the brain?



Pink and black elephantic smooge exists because the quantum field does.

We all know that that claim is nonsense.

It is extremely illogical to divert known properties from scientifically proven or postulated things to a thing/idea which has yet to have been proven to exist, and then go on to illogically claim an equally proven grounding.



Incorrect must not mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

The pathways are the logic. How one goes from premise to conclusion, in thought and on paper is how it is displayed and what is measured in order to assess the validity of a claim. That and that alone constitutes logic.

I hold some illogical beliefs as well. There are things which I have personally experienced that are not logical, yet I know with absolute certainty that they happened. However, I do not bullsh*t myself into believing otherwise, and I certainly would not assist in perpetuating another's confusion between what is and what is not - logical - any more than I would my own children.

Abracadabra...

Please reference your own posting for where you made the claim that you are now attempting to deny.

It is here...Sun 10/11/09 01:20 PM





And then all of this...



There is much written here with little truth, and you address my claims even less. You obviously cannot remember what you write from one post to the next in the same day. I find no reason to continue what is supposed to be a logical conversation with you.

Creative said
Phooey.

That’s a blatant misrepresentation of what he said through careful misquoting.

You very conviently left out the two parts that prove he didn't assert that spirit must exist: “many people” and “to argue that”.

It’s quite clear to me that he didn’t assert that "spirit must exist", He asserted that "many people could argue that spirit must exist".

Now...

This is becoming ridiculous.

"Us" includes the author. That is exactly what he wrote, and exactly how he wrote it, including the italicized, underlined, and bolded. Go look for yourself. It's on page 10 near the bottom, in the upper middle portion the post itself directly underneath the second quote box.

Sky...



It is quite clear to me that your emotional attachment is clouding your judgment. Blatant?

Gimme a break man... I did not put his foot in his mouth, he did. Now, you have as well by incorrectly accusing me of what you are guilty of. I did not leave out the parts that you are falsely claiming. I left out the irrelevant reference to my earlier quote...

Here is exactly how I quoted it at first, leaving intact all of the relevant wording necessary to recognize that he was claiming for "us"... just as I had referenced 'us', meaning those with my view, in the post of mine which he was referring to.



Tell me how you arrive at the claim that I left out those two things?

I did not. I corrected for him the term 'of' which came immediately before the term 'observation' only so it would be more sensical.

You misrepresented what I wrote. I did not do that, and I am certainly not going to say that you did it blatantly by carefully misquoting.



Any more completely unwarranted personal remarks about me? Geeez!

That is EXACTLY what I was going to point out. I can see why Creative has a problem communicating. He needs to take a refresher course in English and sentence structure. He clearly does not understand what is written.

THE STATEMENT:

"....many people are perfectly within the realm of using logic correctly to argue that the observation of creativity is sufficient evidence to lead us to the conclusion that spirit must exist."

This statement is talking about "many people" and how they are "within the realm of using logic correctly" by arguing that the observation of creativity is sufficient evidence (to them) to lead (them/us) to the conclusion that spirit must exist."

No where does James say that spirit must exist.

He is simply saying that the logic is being used correctly (and that this logic can lead to the conclusion that spirit must exist.)

That the logic is being used correctly is the entire subject of the above statement.

It is not about any claim that spirit must exist.

Creative did not fail to quote him correctly, he simply failed to read and understand the subject of the statement correctly. He misinterpreted it.

Yeah, I clearly do not understand that 'us' includes the author...

The phrase 'to lead us' was bolded for emphasis...

Any more brilliant observations?

Ditto.

Yes.

Here’s a quote from you:
In which you substituted “you” with “many people” and “claim that” with “argue that”.

Well…since I have yet to make any personal remarks about you, there can’t be “more”. But since you have now made a personal remark about me, if you have “more”, then I can come up with just as many as you can. So I’ll give you your first one free and you can stop there. Up to you.

You clearly do not understand the subject of the statement.

"Us" does not have to include the author but even if it did, the statement still does not state that the author concluded that "spirit must exist." It only states (implies) that the logic that leads to that conclusion is sound, not faulty.

It is about your claim that someone was using "faulty logic" not about the argument of whether 'spirit exists."

Instead of laughing, you should try to learn something about the English language and the subject of a statement and maybe you could communicate better.