Everyone has an opinion James. I would - and have - shown you exactly where your arguments do not connect, are illogical, but it obviously offends you. You have yet to give a valid refutation. You also continue to deliberately say personal things about me, and not about what has been written, which is against forum rules.

I do not come into your threads, I ignored you for a very long time in this one as well.

Please, reciprocate.

Well, this shows crystal clear that you did not comprehend my presentation.

You could not use my arguments to prove anything, because my arguments were not aruments of proofs of any kind.

I made it prefectly clear in several places during my presentation that all I was establishing was plausibility arguments.

And yes, you may very well be able to come up with similar plausibility arguments for totally ficticious creatures (especially if you are careful to define them in ways that don't carry with them them attributes that can show to be false).

In any case, my assessment of your conclusions was right on the money!

You did not comprehend what I had even said.

You're now talking about using my arguments to prove the existence of things, when my entire argument was focused entirely on making a case of plausiblity and NOT of any "Proof" of anything.

So clearly you just have bad reading comprehension skills. And I don't say that in a derogatory way, but it's just clear by the fact of what you are attempting to claim about what I had presented.

My presentation was not 'illogical'. You simply didn't comprehend what I said obviously.

With all due respect Abracadabra, given all of the above things which you have claimed here, I do not understand where you stand on anything concerning this discussion.



I must be one who is guilty of all of the personal remarks you've given me.

Quantum field does not equal spirit. Illogical.

That is precisely correct.

You have shown (and confessed) that you are unable to comprehend my presentations and you find them confusing.

Therefore you are in no position to pass judgment on their logical validity.

Other people have clearly understood my presentations and have even commented on how lucid and convincing they are:



Thank you Sky.

So now we can see that Creative is in no position to pass judgment on how 'logical' or 'illogical' my posts are since, by his very own admission, he is confused by them and obviously can't comprehend them clearly.

I can certainly accept that.

NOT what I wrote.



Show me the connection between quantum anything and spirit, creativity, or thought.

Well, since there are no words without thoughts. Id say its perfectly logical to correlate how one thinks with what they say
(in written or verbal form). The exception would be fiction , but even that has to stem from the authors actual thoughts in some way.

msharmony,

Yes, the correlation has to be there. I am unsure how much of the actual topic you've read, it has been discussed to some degree. I think the focus has been on what kind of evidence it takes in order for one to be able to safely draw the conclusion that what the reader thinks about the writer is accurate.

Oh , sorry, i dont generally read threads this long because somewhere along the way they seem to turn into personal arguments. I think my evidence is being a writer myself, so its possibly not the most objective opinion. I put myself, my experiences, the experiences of those around me ,,into my work. I cant imagine how anyone could write without doing that to some degree. Depending upon the type of assumption being made about a writer, Id say, a reader has as good a chance at drawing accurate conclusions as they do inaccurate. For instance, I could conclude that Stephen King has a vivid imagination. From his length of work and its context, that would be a spot on opinion. I could also say, Stephen King has a murderous mind. That may not be accurate, because not all of his published work is about murder but it may be spot on because perhaps the bulk of his work has been unpublished and about murder.

I think a reader really needs to observe a string of pieces by an author over a period of time to have the best chance of drawing accurate conclusions about the author,,,,,if that makes sense

It makes perfect sense. The reader's ability to logically draw conclusions plays a role as well, wouldn't you agree? How much of the reflection is accurate is really the root of the issue at hand.

Jb,

Since you asked earlier...

This is the root of the problem given with Abracadabra's reasoning, for you and/or anyone who is interested...



If it can be done, it is illogical/invalid, as a matter of fact being able to do that is what makes it so.

Giving a logically sound argument requires giving sufficient grounds to be able to draw conclusions throughout the argument as it progresses to the ultimate conclusion... connecting the dots along the way. Equivocating between Quantum anything and *anything else* is a huge logical fallacy, and this is why...

Carefully defining *something* by using a known scientific postulate as the definition is not logical. All that amounts to is changing a scientific postulate - which is a known definition/proposition stemming from fact - in such a way that it no longer represents itself but instead represents *something* else - opinion?

The reason this is not done is because it no longer represents itself. It no longer maintains it's validity. The only reason that it is a valid proposition to begin with is because of the very specific things which have came to define or give rise to it.

*Any* argument of that type amounts to this...

1.) Quantum so and so exists and in my opinion that is just like whatever is in my imagination, therefore whatever is in my imagination equals quantum so and so.

That is the first mistake... equivocation of completely different things.

It is not a valid definition. As a matter of fact it exchanges what was with something entirely unrelated that does not and cannot support the original reasons why the postulate exists. Using that method, one could change the definition to any imaginable absurdity.

2.) Therefore... whatever is in my imagination is plausible.

That is the second mistake, stemming from the first. A false premise cannot logically lead to a true conclusion and vice-versa.

Using that kind of argument, one could also make a claim of constituting sufficient grounds to warrant a conclusion of the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, a pink and black elephantic smooge, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or anything else that we know does not exist.

Just because I may think and claim that my idea of Santa Claus has all of the known attributes, properties, and features of Quantum foam, that does not make my argument for Santa equal to nor as strong an argument as the one for Quantum foam.

It is not a logical construct.

Creative saidSee now here’s what I don’t get. As far as I know, the “quantum foam/field” is not proven to exist. It has never been measured or observed. All that has been measured or observed are the effects of it. So all science has done is make up a label (quantum field) and said “(label) is the thing that causes those effects. It’s not even assumption. It is simply definition. And wasn’t it you that objected so strongly to “defining a thing into existence?”

Assuming “spirit” as a source is no more illogical than assuming “quantum field” as a source. As I said, it's not even "assuming", it's "defining".

Creative saidBut y'know what?

It's not illogical.

there is no such evidence. in this case only the writer knows what is accurate. here is where we are often led astray when we read what is not there. i recall watching the debates with my mother. at one point hilary said, "every child in america deserves adequate health care." my mom said, "see, if hilary wins every child in america will have health care."

hilary never said that and certainly did not think that. whenever i THINK I KNOW WHAT SOMEONE IS SAYING, i begin asking questions and never assume what i think is accurate. at least i try to.

ignoring is most successful when one doesn't acknowledge the one being ignored. you cannot reply with posts such as this if you actually ignored the post that provoked your reply. you simply encourage further provocation and you're plea for reciprocation is taken as less than genuine.

That's perfectly correct. That is indeed the definition that was put forth.

It's perfectly logical.

In fact, many of things that I had mentioned that Creative is arguing against as being "illogical" are actually known scientific facts and not my opinions at all.

For example, the fact that science has observationally recognized that quantum foam exists within, and between, every atom in the universe (which naturally includes the atoms in our brains) is based on science. That's not even part of my argument, that's just an appeal to what science has already observed to demonstrate the recognized connection between the substance of our brains and the quantum field.

For example, Creative suggests that following totally unrelated analogies:



The above objection is totally misplaced and doesn't even come close to applying to this situation.

It has not been well-established by science that Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or some pink and black elephanic smooge has been observationally verified to exist in all the homes in the universe.

So how do those ideas even come close to comparing with the quantum field? They don't!

It's an extremely unrelated idea that is coming from someone who clearly didn't even understand the original argument.

OUR BRAINS ARE MADE OF ATOMS!

This makes the attributes of quantum foam (and the properties of the quantum field) significant and undeniably important in any discussions of the human psyche.

What I've suggested is a solid indisputable connection between the human brain and the quantum field. Our brains are totally bathed in the stuff (that's a scientific fact, not my hypothesis), and the stuff is known to have measurable and observable affects on the behavior of atoms. These are all considered to be accepted scientific facts

Comparing this with things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can only be seen as the objection of someone who didn't even understand the original presentation at all.

The connection between quantum foam and the human brain is a given simply because human brains are indeed made of atoms. There's no getting around it.

Therefore it's absolutely logically sound to consider that the properties possessed by the quantum field are potentially available to the human brain.

That's is a logically valid concept to consider! And that's the only argument that is being put forth.

These constant claims that this is illogical are themselves totally ungrounded. It's perfectly logical.

Someone obviously just has a phobia of the term "spirit" and is out to denounce that term at all cost.

As Sky clearly explained in the quote at the top of this post, the only thing that is being discussed here is the logical validity of considering a concept of spirit. The point that has been well-established here, is that to consider a concept of spirit is not any less logical than to consider a concept of a quantum field. It's not the slightest bit less logical.

Therefore if modern science can be considered to be "logical", then so can discussions of spirit when spirit is being considered and defined in this way.

It's not an argument that attempts to "prove" anything.

It's just an explanation, and definition, of the concept, for anyone who wishes to consider it. To claim that it's illogical is to do nothing more than demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of what's being presented. Also, to even talk about the idea of "proving" anything shows a complete ignorance, because it has absolutely nothing to do with "proving" the existence of anything.

Although, as was clearly pointed out. If spirit is recognized in this way, then the concept of spirit automatically takes on the very same "status of existence" as the quantum field. It has to, because the quantum field is indeed being recognized here as the interface medium or the entire entity of spirit itself.

So any discussions of spirit along these lines are every bit as valid as the scientific notion of a quantum field. How can it possibly be otherwise? As Sky points out, it's just a definition of a concept!

It's also not more (or less) well-defined than the quantum field itself. By this definition whatever is true for the quantum field must also be true for spirit. It can't be denied, by definition!

The only thing a person can do is to reject this approach to spirit on personal grounds. But to claim that it's an illogical approach is to do nothing more than to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of how the concept is being defined.

So accept it, or reject it, on personal grounds. But claiming that it's an illogical approach is nonsense.

And comparing it with Santa Claus just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what's being proposed.

Spirit has no more scientific basis in fact than any of those other things. That is the point! The rest of the counter-argument is rhetoric.

You just keep demonstrating clearly that you haven't understood my presentation one iota.

Sky understands:



It's all about definitions! Exactly!

What I did was define spirit in such a way as to give it the very same legitimacy and rigor as the quantum field. As Sky points out above, I did this using precisely the same methods that science uses to defined the quantum field.

It's not a 'proof' of anything. It's just a workable definition of spirit that can be used for rigorous discussions.

I'm not out to 'prove' the existence of spirit. I'm only intersted in considering the possiblities!

Michael, when you say:



What definition of 'spirit' are you referring to? The Christian definition? The pantheistic definition. Deepak Chopra's definition?

You can't just deny the term 'spirit' in general without defining precisely what you are denouncing.

That's an illogical act in itself.

The whole point of my presentation was to offer a definition of spirit that holds precisely the same logical consistency as the scientific notion of a quantum field. This allows rigorous discussions of a concept that is at least as well-defined as the quantum field.

I've done that.

Sky recognizes what I have done.

You clearly do not!

It's not about trying to 'prove' whether spirit exists or not.

That's YOUR THING!

I'm not interested in attempting prove any such thing.

I'm interested in far more practical aspects. I'm interested in defining spirit in a rigious and meaningful way so as to facilitate discussions of its potentiality.

It's a constructive approach that has been panning out for me personally in many insightful ways. And, as Sky has recognized, it's every bit as logically sound as the concept of the quantum field (which also had never been proven to exist).

So proof of existence isn't even required for a meaningful and insightful discussion. The properties of spirit can be legitimately addressed just like the properties of a quantum field can be addressed.

You seem to be entirely hung up on the concept of proof of existence which has utterly nothing at all to do with anything that I've even proposed.

So your continued objections totally miss the point altogether.

And again we're back to what one decides to accept as scientific basis. Personally, I consider the Princeton Enginerring Anomalies Reaseach to be scientific. The studies of Remote Viewing a that Stanford Research Institute is another one. And it doesn't take but a few minutes of Googling to find several more.

So all I'm really hearing here is simply a refusal to acknowledge anything that doesn't align with a preconceived notion.

Which is hardly much different from a fanatic religious belief.

I would like to add that "what the reader thinks about the writer is the reader's business.

(Whether it is 'accurate' or not is not important. Unless of course the 'reader' is testifying under oath to the character of the writer.)

Impressions are made, opinions are owned, that is just the way things are. We all have a right to think what we want, and we all have a right to our opinions.

As they say: You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

That goes for a lot of things.

James,

It is really simple. You want to give an argument which you do not accept yourself, but will not recognize that the same faulty reasoning applies to both - yours and mine. I used your argument to define Santa Claus. You rejected that argument, even though it has just as much validity as your definition of spirit. It is the same definition and has the exact same 'grounding' and lack of validity.

If you reject my claim for the plausibility of Santa Claus because Santa has no scientific basis in fact, then why does the same not apply to your proposition of spirit?



Just because you may think and claim that your idea of spirit has all of the known attributes, properties, and features of Quantum foam, that does not make your grounds equal to nor as strong as the grounds for the argument of quantum field/foam.

For you to claim that I do not understand your claim is hilarious, to be honest with you. I completely understand exactly what the grounds for your claim is, I wonder if you do. I showed you already, and will here once again. Would you be so intellectually honest as to directly quote and address it?

I am showing you that there are no logical grounds upon which your argument can stand. It is a false premise to begin with, and can be shown as such.

This is your argument.

1.) Quantum so and so exists and in my opinion that is just like whatever is in my imagination(your case 'spirit' and my case Santa), therefore whatever is in my imagination equals quantum so and so.

2.) Therefore... whatever is in my imagination(spirit in your case and Santa in mine) is plausible.

#1.) is the first mistake... the equivocation of two independent, unrelated, and completely different things. It is a false premise James. There are no two ways about it. You can talk until your face turns blue, but unless you can make a logical connection between quantum postulates and spirit, you have no connection, and you have no logical grounds upon which to contemplate further.

It assumes the existence of spirit. The same fallacious argument is given for the existence of 'God'. It presupposes the conclusion in the premise. That is fallacious reasoning. Redefining spirit as the quantum field does not give it more validity. Your better off just being honest with yourself and admitting that "Spirit exists" is presupposed, and stop running around in circles attempting to justify your belief. I am not expecting nor wanting you to feel like you have to do such a thing. There is nothing wrong with someone who presupposes spirit's existence.

It is not a valid definition. As a matter of fact it exchanges what was with something entirely unrelated that does not and cannot support the original reasons why the postulate exists. That is the same argument that you used against my claim for Santa Claus. It applies to both. Using that method, one could change the definition to any imaginable absurdity, as I did intentionally in order to show the fallacious nature of the construct which you are falsely claiming is logical.