Sauwelios
You are correct, light is not atoms but is photons which is the result of the interaction of the electrons in atoms with other photons. And photons do exist in space. I am no expert about these matters so take into accounts my ignorance about Quantum Physics.
Sauwelios
Sorry I posted without answering your last question. I think that only material things exist. I would add that ideas, which are constructs of neural cells, exist in the neural cells. As to something called spirit exists I do not think so but of course such is beyond proof so I guess ‘to each his or her own’.
============
Two things enter my mind when this question is asked.
I think mind is a spiritual immaterial entity that can become material. It has a duality: an energy, a force that can change to a form. For example: my mind consciousness is dictating my fingers to type this message. This message is the (form) which developed from the (force) of my desire to answer your post. I think mind occupies space but it is not a separate entity. It is equal part of body,mind and soul.
Yep. I absolutely agree with this: We can debate and speculate all day where consciousness lies in relation to the material, but until we die we can never possibly know its intimacy to or inseparability from same.
At the same time:
Is mind a spiritual (non-material) entity?
We all know that if you incrementally vivisect a conscious brain, the subject dies slowly and surely. Is this the same as loss of mind?
It would seem to very clearly indicate that mind = consciousness = nothing more magical or “spiritual” than an incredibly intricate and complex matrix of neurons, electrical impulses and connecting nerve tissues.
-GNJ-
What’s up Justly. waves
Define soul.
The answer cannot ever be known.
All we can be sure of is the fact that this one thought constantly emerges among different nations–(it has found expression in Brahmanism, Judaism, Mazdaism/Zoroastrianism, in Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and in the writings of the Greek and Roman sages, as well as in Christianity and Mohammedanism)–namely, that in every individual a spiritual element is manifested that gives life to all that exists.
The mere fact that this thought has sprung up among different nations and at different times indicates that it is inherent in human nature and contains the truth.
All else is mere conjecture.
Regards,
Peter
That something is inherent in human nature does not mean that it contains the truth. Something can be an error and still be inherent in human nature.
I’d like to say both metaphorically and cosmologically speaking- if you will- that the mind is a spiritual force/energy in the same way someone can say “all events must have a cause”. Seemingly outside the realm of formal logic…I wonder what the essence of electricity is… 
When I think of totally wireless devices such as laptops and cellphones I tend to have brain fades…
So, then, what, it is just a fortuitous coincidence? Is that what you’re saying? It’s just a happy accident that diverse peoples should arrive at the same idea?
Come on! I know that logic would probably be on your side but truth and probability?
It must be inherent in human nature somehow.
There must be some element of truth in it. Why should human nature be untrue?
Regards,
Peter
I think the right word is “untruthful”. And I think the answer is: “In order to flourish.”
“Will To Power [WTP] is opposed to Social Darwinism [SD]; whereas SD talks of evolution’s will to survival, Nietzsche argued that Nature does not seek to so much survive, as to FLOURISH.
WTP describes that constant expansion of things even to the point of their own extinction and destruction [and hence not always to survival].”
[Moody Lawless.]
Not at all Wise. Quite the contrary. Spirituality and the intellectual meme it has developed through is the result of a gradual process of changing vocabularies; the ends of your religious thoughts extend to the limits of your vocabulary, and this esoteric manner of concieving the world creates meaning…in your case, simple metaphors.
In short, you have been conditioned to respond and react with certain speech patterns to external language. Nonetheless you are existing just as anyone has ever existed before such languages ever developed.
What is universal to each of you is not the meme you participate in but the existential circumstances of your material life. What you “say” or “think” doesn’t mean anything.
You, me, them…we’re already dead, Wise, so lighten up.
“Do not become young too late!”- Fritz
What détrop just said, in a rather bizarre way (“we’re dead”? lol) is that before man ever had the intelligence to devise a God, there he was–man, that is–so that the meme of spirituality came to flourish in man only after his diverse peoples could arrive at the idea.
-GNJ-
I couldn’t have said it better myself, GNJ.
Could you speak for me more often?
===============
well first get a lamp remove the shade and expose the light bulb. the lightbulb is analogous to a physical body. (Gen.2:7 and God formed man from the dust of the ground) then plug the wire into the outlet (and God breath into his nostrils the breath of life) and man became a living soul(light). The soul is both visible when alive and invisible when it leaves the body. The soul is not lost or destroyed. It is looking for another temple, a physical body. The material rots, and the soul wants a change of address. How often do you change the light bulb?
If the concept of truth does not include human experience, how can it be meaningful for humans? The first error in all of this is seeing truth as a stopping place, an eternal rest, for evolving creatures such as we are. The second error is trying to split knower from the known in order to retain such static definitions of reality. From these errors we get such b.s. as things in themselves and "I’s estranged from subject/object interface.
Since I was informed of the nonexistence of the personal “I” POV, my computer has had to respond to these debates by trying to guess what my intentions might be. My dreams have no narrator/hero or subject involved in their narrations. My thoughts do not come from me. And my cat does not have to react to his personalized other.
Body to mind to spirit is the only evolution I experence.
Sauwelios wrote
I think the right word is “untruthful”. And I think the answer is: “In order to flourish.”
For me man flourishes only when he is true to his nature, (and his nature is to be human.)
Man cannot behave in any way that is not human. It is not possible. He is always true to his own nature.
But that is to deal with the nature of his nature not with the content of his thought!
Besides, I do not think it is human nature to be untruthful. I go along with Plato, Sophistes, in which he says something to the effect that every soul is unwillingly deprived of the truth.
It’s just that all too often what seems to a man to be true is in fact false!
détrop wrote
What you “say” or “think” doesn’t mean anything.
Yet you accept Marx pseudo-scientific theory?
Reality, whatever that is, existence, (?perhaps?) cannot be apprehended without the light of language and understanding.
GuyNamedJohn wrote
the meme of spirituality came to flourish in man only after his diverse peoples could arrive at the idea
Yeah. And the chicken came before the egg!
Ierrellus wrote
The first error in all of this is seeing truth as a stopping place, an eternal rest, for evolving creatures such as we are.
Your statement exemplifies the, “error,†you speak of, namely, that of, “seeing," the, “truth,” of your own statement, "as a stopping place.â€
Regards,
Peter
If this is a move to make existence the result of transcendental “a priori” truths which work in language and cannot be “real” unless they are understood and spoken about, then I won’t buy it.
What is real is what exists. What is said and thought is historically contingent…“it doesn’t have to be said or thought.” This is useless Hegelian dialectics-- that “light” and “language” reveal “truths” in reality.
No. We know that the mind is synapses and brain-stuff.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=
We know because we can take a piece of a persons brain out or disconnect certain parts of it, and the person’s mind changes. Or you can infect the brain with certain parasites, and the mind changes also.
Premise A: Man flourishes when he is true to his nature.
Premise B: Man is always true to his nature.
Conclusion: Man always flourishes.
This is a valid argument, but I disagree with its conclusion. As I agree with premise B, however, I must disagree with premise A. Man does not flourish when he is true to his nature, but when he is overcoming his nature.
“Not “mankind” but overman is the goal!”
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1001.]
Détrop
Sorry, I meant to say, “Yet you accept Marxist pseudo-scientific theory?â€
You wrote
I don’t think, “existence,†is a, “result,†so to speak, so much as a problematic. I don’t know what exactly—or inexactly—it is and I don’t think it is possible to know what it is!
I believe we can only fumble about this life, (another impossible word,) with the aid of metaphor, or theory, and that these aids necessarily require language.
I don’t know whether the object of our examination is transcendental or immanent—or otherwise!
I do not believe the, “real,†is ever disclosed to us because there is no, “real.â€
As I said, there is no, “real,” or reality, except the one each of us constructs piecemeal out of the stuff of his existence.
Oh, sure, there is the blind reality of the brute which requires nothing of us beyond the basic satisfaction of the necessities of life, but after we are sated, what then?
Regards,
Peter