And then we need to define “supernatural”. Does “natural” mean “all things that can exist in the world”? If so, then trivially, we can say that nothing supernatural can exist. If someone says that something supernatural does exist, then they’re clearly using some other definition. What is that definition?
So many of these “hard philosophical questions” are only hard because they’re ill-posed. Take the time to define your terms, and most of them suddenly become easy.
If your position is that life is not a physical/chemical process, just say so. There’s no need to be coy.
My objection was more linguistic than philosophical.
Allll right then… so that’s a yes for the bible study this Saturday morning?
I am firmly in the opposite camp from LSLGuy but I have no idea what the OP is referring to.
Could be anything from life force to totem animal. Can’t answer such a question.
Personally speaking, it’s a pangolin.
I’ll take a stab, in my usage ‘soul’ would refer to a person’s living essence, The soul is what animates the body we have, but the body is basically a machine that is used to explore and interact with the world. The soul is us, the living entity and came before the body and will continue after the body ceases to function. Through our journey in this body, we learn and our soul develops.
OTOH ‘spirit’ is a combined entity which is much larger than a single soul i.e. the Holy Spirit. It is an entity that can exist throughout many souls, and coordinate efforts between them. An example from my own life was when I was hiking the Appalachian Trail, time and time again not only did I receive gifts (this is so common for ‘thru hikers’ that there is a term ‘trail magic’ for this), but the gifts I received were so perfect in being exactly what I needed at that moment that I needed it, and no way the giver could have known by needs, that it lead me to conclude that this is indeed coordinated by spirit. In this case the spirit of Love, which is the spirit of God (as God is Love), which again is the Holy Spirit.
Well, Mr. Grant hates spunk, but I like it.
I believe I do. I believe it is part of the life force that permeates this planet and that presents itself in many different forms. I know because I saw someone die. The pupils dilated and, when I looked into the eyes, the person was … … “empty”. I can’t describe it in any other way. The spirit had left the body. This belief/feeling has nothing to do with any organized religion. It is just based on what I’ve personally seen and feel.
Mine would have to be the mountain lion, reflecting the primary ways that men interact with women.
That is kind of nonsensical, though. Living is literally the same thing as bodily function. Life is the conversion of stuff into other stuff in a coördinated way. If this “soul” infestation precedes the body and persists after, it would by definition be not living. I am not per se saying that it does not exist, just that “living” does not describe such a thing.
…by one definition of “living,” which is not the only definition and obviously not the one kanicbird had in mind, so this seems like a pointless objection.
We do? I missed that poll.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I would be really interested to know how many people:
Do not believe there is any intangible ‘spirit’ that transcends the physical function of our body and brain
AND
Do believe, in the ‘transporter thought experiment’, that you die and are replaced by an impostor
What would be a meaningful, useful definition of “living” that would work for a non-effective, non-corporeal thingy? Because I am struggling to imagine one that does not result in canceling what “living” actually means.
I’m a firm “agree” in your first question.
As to the second I’d ask what “imposter” means. From the POV of experience of consciousness, there is one continuous experience of consciousness. The experience is simply that the room you’re in changes from [here] to [there]. The actual consciousness that was in the old now-destroyed body is gone. The actual consciousness in the just-assembled body is brand new. But the experience is continuous.
Is that an “imposter”? You tell me.
I think I fit that criteria. And I’ve taken some grief for it on this board before. I believe in “continuity of person”. Sleeping doesn’t end this “continuity”, neither does unconsciousness. But being disassembled atom by atom, converted to energy, shipped and reassembled, IMO, does.
But until we get a working transporter that functions as the ST transporter is described as working, I’ll be content in my slightly irrational and unsupportable “belief”.
You mean women are prey animals? Jump on their back, bite through their spinal cord and drag them away and cover them with leaves so they can be eaten later?
My belief resembles that, kanicbird.
Life is, of course, a physical process (for most definitions of “physical” and “process”: We have to be careful with those words, too). But is a “spirit” a physical process?
And my resolution to the transporter thought experiment is that of course the person who steps out of the transporter is a different person than the one who steps in… but then, I’m also a different person than I was yesterday, or even than the person I was a tenth of a second ago. I’m a very, very similar person to the one I was a tenth of a second ago, but not-- quite-- identical.
What’s really pointless is to turn this into another logic/reason vs. belief/faith thread. Those issues will never be resolved, the two sides might as well be speaking different and mutually-incomprehensible languages. You would do better to read some books on epistemology to get your jollies.
Even if they will never be resolved, I find it potentially useful and interesting to discuss such issues so as to get a clearer understanding of what the two sides (are there only two?) believe and why, so that they’re not mutually incomprehensible. Mutual understanding doesn’t have to imply mutual agreement.
If it’s not, I’d be comfortable with calling it supernatural but I agree we have to be careful with terminology.