Here’s my view.

Spirit: The “I”, which…
1) Makes decisions
2) Maintains and operates the mind
Mind:
1) The information storage and processing mechanism for “I”
2) The control mechanism for the body
Body:
1) The input sensor for the mind
2) The output device that receives and executes instructions coming from the mind

Now to make an analogy.

Compare that to a car, driver controls, and driver.

The driver controls would be basically “all the parts of the car that the driver uses to control and maintain the car”, such as steering wheel, brake, radio buttons, window switches, A/C controls and even such things as the gas, oil and coolant openings.

The car would be all other parts of the car that are indirectly controlled by the driver through the driver controls.

And of course, the driver would be “I”, who decides where to go and operates and maintains the car.

Personally, I find these definitions to be very concise and workable.

And now I like to hear what everyone else’s views are on what spirit, mind and body are and how they relate to each other (if they do).

The three sums that make up the whole.

Mind: thinks, reasons, decides
body: maintains, reacts, holds together
spirit: the god-ness within each one of us

It's the way a person feels,an be the one they want to be...

Oneday we have to Face the higher power.

Be true to yourself!

Thanks for the input Unique.

A couple questions if I may, for my own edification.

1. Can any of the three exist without the other two?

2. If so, what happens to the god-ness and the mind when the body dies? Do they go somewhere else? Do they just disappear? Do they decay slowly away as the body decays? Or something else?

I'm sorry Agrant. I didn't understand that.

What is the "It" you refer to in "It's the way..."?

The spirit/mind live in the human form for a time. I believe we go on to another life; that we are here to learn certain lessons to progress to perfection. We choose each life we will live and how long that life will last on earth. We choose from The Book of Life, a life that will allow us new experiences and life lessons, then we return to earth once again.

A spirit, as an individual "eye" (observer) of infinity. It is an observer that collects information (and experience.)

Mind: The Spirit eye generates a unified field (via vibration) which is the mind. This field (mind) collects, stores, and organizes information and experience -(memory.)

A Body or form - a manifestation generated by Spirit and mind for the purpose of operating inside of other fields. (Universe or matrix)

my mind forms the thoughts that make me who i am and unique. my body provides nourishment to my mind and transports it where my mind wants to go and defends itself along the way. no evidence that such things as spirits exist.

Sky,

Before I begin my thesis let me take a moment to thank you for posting this question at this particular point in time. It was just what I needed to ponder tonight and so I am very glad to have found this stimulating inquiry.

Obviously these terms, with the possible exception of body are quite abstract and unimpeded semantically, so with this in *mind (if you'll excuse the pun) I would very much like to give you my perception of these concepts.

*note: As I type this I just realized the my very use of the term mind above fits in perfectly with what I'm about say.

Having said all of the above, allow me to also offer two possible views. I do this simply because I am agnostic. As an agnostic I must consider the possibility of spirit being a valid concept, and the possibility of spirit being a farce.

****
My spiritual view these three concepts is as follows:

Spirit:
The eternal essence of being we often refer to as "conscious awareness".

Mind:
The act and ability of spirit to focus its conscious awareness.

Body:
A temporary vehicle through which spirit can focus its conscious awareness.

In answer to your belated question: "Can any of the three exist without the other two?"

Well, in this view, by definition, mind is but a property of spirit so anytime spirit exists, then mind also exists. Mind is nothing more than a description of what the spirit is consciously aware of.

Again, by definition, spirit is eternal and thus so is mind.

Body is obviously a fleeting temporary manifestation which spirit evidently connects to with some tenacity for some mysterious reason which no one has yet been able to explain. However, even spirits who are closely associated with bodies have described experiences of "out of body" experiences, etc. So the ability for spirit to consciously leave a body is a phenomenon that hasn't gone unnoticed.

****

Just for completeness I must also give my atheistic view. Although in truth I'm finding it more and more difficult to imagine this following scenario being possible.

Spirit:
Not applicable. Unless we want to change this definition to simply be the fleeting temporary conscious awareness of the body, brain, or nervous system.

Mind:
The ability of the body, brain, or nervous system to focus its conscious awareness.

Body:
A temporary vehicle through which the body, brain, or nervous system can focus its conscious awareness.

In answer to your belated question in this case: "Can any of the three exist without the other two?":

Clearly in this scenario it is the ultimately the body, brain, or nervous system that is doing the perceiving and experiencing the conscious awareness, so clearly when the body dies and decays then so does the body, brain, or nervous system. So the whole condition was but a brief *meaningless existence.

*Note: I say meaningless in this case because I'm referring to the past tense of the body. Once the body dies there is no longer any conscious awareness, nor is there any conscious awareness that there ever was any conscious awareness. Thus once the body is deceased in this scenario, it was all for naught. The only time that it was 'meaningful' was during the very brief flash of time that the body actually existed. So at best it could only be said to have been 'temporarily meaningful' and that doesn't mean much after the body is gone.

So, I tend to be very interested in the possibility of the existence of spirit if only because, if there is no spirit, then life is basically meaningless in the long haul.

So why bother with such a meaningless concept? Even if true, it wouldn't be worth the conscious attention of the physical mind to ponder such a futile and hopeless situation, for nothing could be done about it anyway. It if is true we'd be better off not knowing it.

After all, if life itself is but a mere irresponsible fleeting accident, then why should any living being give a hoot about responsiblity?

In fact, there's even some deep philosophical notion there. If humans even care about a notion of 'responsibility' that seems to fly in the face of the very idea that they grew out of some 'irresponsible' muck.

So, for me personally, there are far more reasons, both aesthetically and rationally, to consider the spiritual scenario over the atheistic (or non-spiritual) scenario.

Although, to retain honesty (even with respect to my own conciousness), I must confess that I do not know the answer with absolute certainty, and therefore I must always confess that I am ultimately agnostic. To claim otherwise would be a lie.

Ironically many religious people believe that lying to one's self is a good thing. They highly recommend placing absolute 'faith' in the spiritual scenario even though we can't know for certain that it's actually true.

Perhaps they are right. Perhaps there are times when lying to one's self is a good thing.

It's pretty sad to be so honest that a person finds it even hard to lie to themselves about spirituality huh?

Although in truth, I do find it far more difficult to have 'faith' in atheism. So maybe I should just focus on deying that absurdity instead.

Sorry for the extended ramble. Just shows how thought-provoking your questions are.

Jeannie,

In your definition of spirit you say that spirit is an observer that collects information (and experience).

May I ask, from whench does spirit collect these things?

Just as a side note, I see that your definitions are along similar lines as mine. The only reason I ask, is because you have specifically stated that spirit 'collects' information. This implies to me that there also exists something 'external' to spirit from whence spirit can 'collect' information and experiences.

When I created my definition, I simply defined spirit as "conscious awareness" and gave no description of "how that works". I did this on purpose because I don't know how it works. However, I felt that the definition is flexible enough that any 'information' or experiences could potentially emanant from the self-same spirit itself.

In other words, in the strictest sense, I've created my definition in a way that would potentially allow spirit to be "all that exists".

Just from reading your definition it seems to 'imply' that something external from spirit must also exist, otherwise spirit would have no information to 'collect'.

So I'm just curious as to why you chose that definition? Is this one that you constructed yourself, of is it a definition that you obtained from another mind?

Do you feel that "spirit" is but a small element in an even larger scenario?

I must confess that when creating my defintion I allowed for the posibility of "spirit" to be the "alpha and omega" of all that exists. I don't pretend to have any reason to know that this should be the case. I guess it's my own personal need for "closure". If I can imagine "spirit" as being the totality of all things, then I can imagine that I have reached the bottom of the perverbial stack of turtles (at least in concept).

But this may very well be a concept that is totally unrequired and potentially untrue, that's for sure.

My definitions are nothing more than my own personal guesses I openly confess this.

Body: The biological clockworks...

Mind: Our perception of ourselves as thinking while the body clockworks percolates. It is produced by the body - the brain part of the body. When the brain goes...umm so does the mind.

Spirit: GO TEAM - lol

The spirit is more of a collective thing - it does not reside in a single individual. I view it as our memories and inspiration from ourselves and others entwined with those who live with us now and who have influenced us in the past. In this sense it is eternal and larger than any individual...Eh?

The OP seems to be rendering a representation of his philosophy ingrained in the metaphysical. Copernicus challenged the geocentric ideology of the world by suggesting that the Earth was not stationary and not the center of the universe.

The vast majority of people before the Copernican revolution, continuing today with current creation scientists, are required to make the answers to every single question reflect an ideology consistent with their beliefs in God.

The OP is doing something similar because the premise from which he begins is that of a spiritual ideology, so the answers to all questions must be consistent with the belief that the spiritual world exists.

A different view might be to define the words with less emphasis on a belief and more emphasis on the knowledge we have accumulated through scientific means.

Body – the entire physical structure of an organism (ie. animal)

Mind – all the processes, conscious and unconscious, that affect the mental and physical behavior of an organism.

Spirit – the supernatural force which is associated with the incorporeal consciousness, or with metaphysical entities.



This is an illogical comparison as an organism is a life form, and a car is not. So the car does not “literally” have a body.

More than that the comparison, even by the OP standards has not been well stated nor is it conclusive in supporting the definitions the OP has given for the three words. What is the body, the car or the person? Where does the OP place “mind” in this equation? And what role does spirit play in a person driving a car?

I don’t quite agree with that. I consider it more of a complete hypothesis containing multiple propositions as opposed to a single premise with which all conclusions must be consistent.

Now maybe I have not worded it very well. I personally don’t think it is worded well enough to express the exact concepts that I have in my head. But it is about as close as I can come without volumes of sub-definitions to address what I think would be unintended connotations.

But in any case, thanks for the input and know that I understand that it is not a fully complete and perfectly presented philosophical hypothesis. It is extremely abbreviated.

I can see that. Using those definitions I would paraphrase the body/mind difference as: the body is the matter and energy and the mind is the interactions of that matter and energy. Is that an acceptable paraphrase of what you intended?

Now as to “knowledge we have accumulated through scientific means”…

My philosophy is based on what I have observed (which includes scientific information that I have heard from others). And so far, I have not seen or heard of any scientific evidence that directly contradicts anything in my philosophy.

But if you know of any such scientific evidence I would welcome the input.

I think you may have misunderstood the analogy. Either that or I’m going to have to disagree with your assertion of illogic comparison.

First of all, both the body and the car have definitely quantifiable physical attributes, so that at least puts them in the same category in that sense.

Second, while the spirit and driver are obviously not in the same category of physical quantifiability. they are in the same category of being the original causes of the actions of the body and driver.

Third, my analogy equated the body with the car, and the spirit with driver. So if any thing could be said to “have” a car, it would be the driver, not the car - just as the “I” would “have” a body.

If that is your belief then I can only conclude that you do not know what the standards were for the OP.

The comparison was only intended to be illustrative or exemplary, not “conclusive”. That is, the anaolgy was only intended to illustrate the relationships between the three components of the two systems. Not to illustrate the structure of any of the three components.

And as to “well stated”, see below and let me know if you think that states it any better.

But realize that the OP was not intended to elicit any attempts at “logical proofs” or “scientifically supported positions” “or “sound reasoning”. It was only intended to elicit expressions of personal opinion.

However that’s not to say that I don’t want to discuss or debate the logical or scientific implications of anything I say. Quite the contrary. I welcome it because that is exactly what has been most instrumental in my development of my philosophy.

The body is the car. The person is the driver.

Yes, I’ll agree that the analogy is weakest where the mind/driver controls comparison come in. So let me try something else – as an adjunct, not a replacement. How about the word “interface”. The driver controls are “the interface between the car and the driver” as the mind is “the interfce between the ‘I’ and the body”. Does that help?

Hmmm… how about this:

The intended comparisons between the three components of each of the two systems are:
spirit=driver
mind=driver controls (or interface between driver and car)
car = body

Does that help?

not necessarily. my answer simply denies the premise. now my answers in future posts in this thread will be consistent with only my thought processes which is that i've seen no evidence that the spiritual world exists.

It is from a small essay or book that I wrote called "The eyes of infinity" about ten years ago, so it is my own definition.

Like you, I see one spirit entity or one primary observer at the core of all existence. I see that same thing at the core of my existence. But that observer can and does divide itself to exist in infinite number; perhaps it does this in a fractal manner, branching off infinitely. Perhaps it is similar to a holographic image whereby the entire image is contained in each fractured part.

Each part is also an observer and it is identical to the whole and identical to the primary or first observer. You cannot tell them apart! (This is why you cannot know God, or find God, the primary source, because all observers at their core are identical to that.)

This is probably also why it has been said that to "find God," you must go within.



They (we) all have the capacity of free will and that is what sets them (us) apart from each other as individuals and that is what allows for diversity in what they (we) manifest.

We observe each other and all that proceeds as a result of our manifestations and separation. We collect information from each other.




"Small and Large" is really meaningless with no frame of reference.

As far as size is concerned, you have to name a particular system and identify a particular frame of reference within that particular system before you can call a thing "small or large." Because small and large, as you know, are totally relative.

But if YOU (and your reality) are the frame of reference:

In an infinite system or universe such as ours, there will be infinitely larger things than yourself and also infinitely smaller things that yourself.....infinitely.

I see everything existing within everything else all at once at the same time. Difficult to grasp, I know, but so is infinity.

Sometimes I see individual 'spirit' entities as being storage units of information.

In a computer, all information is stored and has a specific 'address' where a program will locate it. The information is stored in "bits and bites... etc."

We are like a bit, storing a bit of information within the infinite whole. But we are more than just a bit of information, we are the address. We are the source, and we are identical to the prime source. We manifest.

WE MANIFEST.

These are my own personal ideas.

Thanks for the clarifications. I can see where Abra has taken this and appreciate the contrast between ideas. But I'm just beginning to learn more about some simple science surrounding universality.

So I'd like to think out loud in the following words:

Sky - In your analogy the organism that is the human component of the interface is not capable of self-determinism without an outside energy force called spirit. But the organism, (the human) itself, is driven by its own internal energy force which imbibes it with potential for action.

Are you suggesting the two energy forces “spirit and organism” must be present in order that the energy of both can be directed for the purpose of maintaining some kind of logical pattern of order?

I’m not sure that could be well substantiated because the energy force which gives pattern to the universe while it may have destructive qualities those qualities are necessary to achieving the universal pattern. The lack of known organisms which exist on planets would indicate that the energy force which gives pattern to the universe either does not require animal presence or that it does not see this presence as a threat to universal qualities and allows it to evolve sort of a by-product of its need to maintain a pattern of order.

To consider that ‘universal energy’ has some all encompassing need or use for a limited number of organisms (life-forms) seems to invoke a philosophy consistent with geocentrism. Namely, we are here, and spirit drives us, therefore we must be very important components to the universal consciousness which creates the patterns of universal unity.

Obviously that kind of thinking provides an individual with a sense of superiroity and some personal connection with the almighty energy forces of universality.

But we don't need that kind of geocentric thought because science itselft has proven that we are a part of the pattern, even if only in being a by-product. What seems to arize is the need of individuals to feel less a byproduct and more like an inegral part of the universal pattern itself.

I think this is what Einstein was working on. An attempt to dissociate the god power (energy) from the individuation which humans apply to all living organisms. While trying prove that unity factors exist in all matter without the need for all matter to be of absolute necessity for the transfer and conversion of energy itself.

So I suppose the questions surrounding spirit come down to - Is spirit pure energy, and is energy a living organism? We might also add questions such as, What would be the purpose for universal energy
to create living organisms - unless the question of (is spirit a living organism) answered affirmatively. But then we are right back into metaphysical philosophy and geocentric frame of mind.

I think you would have to be "form" to be defined as an "organism."
So is spirit a "form?" I don't think we normally define spirit as form.

ANSWER: NO, SPIRIT IS NOT A LIVING ORGANISM.

Is spirit energy? I guess that would depend on how you define energy.




The purpose of "creating" (correction: we don't create, we manifest..) living organisms is to exist and to live and breathe and to be acknowledged. To be or not to be... that is the question. To exist!

Why should spirit remain spirit when it can manifest life and form?

TO LIVE, TO BE TO EXIST.

Geocentric frame of mind???



Whether we are important or not, of course is an opinion. What is important, is that we can have an opinion. What is important is that we can exist.

Are we "just a by product?" An accident? I don't think so, given that we have free will and that we manifest.