The nature of 'spirit'

[QED]

We often hear talk of 'spirit' as if it was some aether-like entity that permeates space. In another debate I mentioned to Joer that positive human spirits such as generosity and kindness could be seen as logical entities arising from Game Theory. Here rules are developed through the application of various cooperative strategies with Evolution, qua trial and error, selecting and fixing the most successful of these into the human genome. Joer appears to want to test this against some alternative explanation as he outlined here...

I was interested in seeing "Proofs" or demonstrable “tests” of the "tenets of Spirit" that QED and I posited in this thread. I did it in the interest of proving the existence of GOD. QED claimed that "spirit" is “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

If you review a few pages back you’ll see:

QED said:
At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

Then I said:
And as you so aptly describe instances in the concept of evolution in the physical realm. So to can you easily see the parallel to evolution of the concept of GOD in the Spiritual realm. From totems and spirits inhabiting water, stone, trees, to Gods of the sun moon planets etc. on to today where the concept of God is evolving to the initiator essence of all that is know and the unknown.

I mean I don’t really see a lot of difference in the processes of evolution. Only in the subject matter the evolutionary process in theory is being applied to. Do you see any difference other than that OED?
QED said:
Quote:
I'm just as much a sucker for a really good hunch as the next guy.

Good that keeps us game.
QED said:
Quote:
Just so long as it isn't contradicted by any simple observation.


And that remains too be seen. Perhaps we can soon get into what is getting contradicted, by what observation and how simple the observation really is. I wouldn’t mind that. The empirical data observed and gathered from the test we apply.

I’d like to see if we can agree on something to test. I’d liked to see what we could come up with for an experiment.

QED said:
This spirit has not being channeled down from above the clouds, it has lain in wait in logic for ever. Make of that what you will

Joer said:
This is interesting maybe we can develop some tests for "spirit". Maybe you can come up with a test of Spirit through game theory and I can come up with a test of Spirit through invocation via Prayer. Than we’d have to try to setup some blinds for each test and regulate the observation to the tightest controls we can muster without to much difficulty. Spirit in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving as being controlled by “the large neo-cortex (the part of the brain that does all the planning and reflecting).” To perhaps counter the effects of the amygdala, which you say, “ provides instinctive reactions like aggression, nurture, fear and desire”.

What do you say QED? Want to test your Game Theory of Spirit against the God Theory of Spirit to compare and contrast the results and compile data form those results?

All of this discussion on “Spirit” developed originally from what seems like an “a priori” acceptance by McCulloch and QED of the existence of Santa Claus…Maybe Hugh DP can say if this looks like an “a priori”

According to: Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. states:

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity: “most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”

McCulluch said:

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it.

QED said:

I absolutely agree with McCulloch

.

So the discussion of Spirit is a building block to step up to the existence of GOD. Which is necessary to validate any discussion this thread on whether or not The Bible is the Word of God. Even Cephus agreed with me on that as you can see in the previous pages so I don’t have to keep bringing everything forward to clarify. Any post by an atheist about the percentage of the Bible being the Word of God would be null because they don’t even believe in GOD. So we can work on the preliminary proofs here as we have been or move it somewhere else and make this a Believers Only thread since it would only be valid for them as believers in the existence in God to post. Isn’t that logical?

Personally if QED or others are willing to continue the establishment of whether:

“spirit” is, “in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.”

OR
As I said:

“Spirit”, “in God theory is suppose to be functioning as an aid to humankind in advancing the kind of things you mentioned like kindness, mercy and giving…”

OR

BOTH.

OR

Something all together different.

So QED or anyone else care to show me “proof” or demonstrate “spirit” “as quantified in game theory?” I’d like to try to see if there’s anything in your demonstration that I can relate the “Spirit” of God to. So I can attempt to make it relevant to atheists as well as believers. I might end up alienating both believers and atheists but that’s the risk for finding a common denominator. I’m willing to take it, if an atheist is willing to work with me backing up their point of view. That way I can have their part of the equation that needs to be resolved. And we can do something other than lip service to the complaint:

One thing everybody complains about is, "just because you say it doesn't it make it so."

Thank you for your participation.

I suggest we use this thread to debate the nature of spirit.

[joer]

Sounds Good to me. You are most gracious (I'm saying "gracious" in the moral not biblical sense) QED. Do you have any more detail on the quantifiable aspect of "spirit" as perhaps in Game theory as you mentioned?

Thank You!

[Bugmaster]

I'm a bit confused by the OP: Do you mean "spirit" as in "soul", or "spirit" as in "certain good feelings that humans feel, and certain good behaviors that humans engage in" ? The word "spirit" is so overloaded...

[QED]

I'm a bit confused by the OP: Do you mean "spirit" as in "soul", or "spirit" as in "certain good feelings that humans feel, and certain good behaviors that humans engage in" ? The word "spirit" is so overloaded...

Well this all started with me pondering how ancient philosophers, in the absence of our modern perspective on evolution, might come to contrast what we might term the negative and positive qualities of human feeling and behaviour. So here we might say "He acted in the spirit of kindness.".

As for joer's request for a more quantifiable aspect of spirit, I would start with a study of The Prisoners' Dilemma. This demonstrates in a mathematical fashion how cooperation can be the most beneficial strategy.

[joer]

Actually Bugmaster, I have a little different perspective on how this all started.

In the other thread, I was talking about viewing GOD as a concept and theory and having as much validity as such as any other theory in science. I mentioned "M" theory developed from string theory as an example not proven to exist but something many people (atheist and religious alike) "believe" in.

Since I've seen "believing in Santa Claus" brought up so often by atheists to attack the belief in GOD, I started with a posit that Santa Claus really exists in "Spirit". That's also stated in the quote QED posted of mine.

Now QED hassince proposed starting with the The Prisoners' Dilemma as a primer into how game theory deals wih quantifing "spirit". I looked at his link and didn't find the relationship to "spirit".

I would propose that the following article might be more to the point of dealing with game theory and "spirit":

Title: The coming conflict between science and spirit
Author(s): William E. Halal
Journal: On the Horizon ISSN: 1074-8121 Year: Dec 2003 Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Page: 25 - 28 DOI: 10.1108/10748120310508055
Publisher: MCB UP Ltd
Abstract: This review of a fine book on recent advances in neuroscience shows that the field has successfully demonstrated the use of game theory and probability to model animal behavior. However, science may be claiming too much by contending that this approach explains away consciousness, will, and other qualities attributed to mind and spirit. A balanced assessment of evidence on both sides of this historic debate shows that it is impossible to resolve this issue now, but the results of this great social experiment can be expected by about 2020 when computer power matches the brain.
Keywords: Cognition, Consciousness, Game theory, Probability theory Article Type: Case study Article URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/1 ... 310508055

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see: game (disambiguation), a band named Game Theory, or combinatorial game theory (used to study games like nim, chess, and go).
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic situations where players choose different actions in an attempt to maximize their returns. First developed as a tool for understanding economic behavior, game theory is now used in many diverse academic fields, ranging from biology and psychology to sociology and philosophy. Beginning in the 1970s, game theory has been applied to animal behavior, including species' development by natural selection. Because of interesting games like the prisoner's dilemma, in which rational self-interest hurts everyone, game theory has been used in political science, ethics and philosophy. Finally, game theory has recently drawn attention from computer scientists because of its use in artificial intelligence and cybernetics.
In addition to its academic interest, game theory has received attention in popular culture. A Nobel Prize-winning game theorist, John Nash was the subject of the 1998 biography by Sylvia Nasar and the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind. Game theory was also a theme in the 1983 film WarGames. Several game shows have adopted game theoretic situations, including Friend or Foe? and to some extent Survivor. The character of Jack Bristow on the television show Alias is one of the few fictional game theorists in popular culture. [1]
Although similar to decision theory, game theory studies decisions that are made in an environment where various players interact. In other words, game theory studies choice of optimal behavior when costs and benefits of each option are not fixed, but depend upon the choices of other individuals.

I would still like to see how game-theory quantifies "spirit" as QED says. I've spent several hours looking at googled sites today, but I don't see the information readily available. Maybe it's (spirit as quantified by game-theory) an obscure or rare concept in game theory.

Can you help QED? Do you have any other references more directly related to spirit as quantified by game-theory? Perhaps I can find a more common secularly defined concept of "spirit" to compare to the religiously defined concept of "spirit". Do you know of any Bugmaster?

Thanks for your help gentleman! Positive affirmations be with you!

[QED]

joer, you're asking for other references more directly related to spirit as quantified by game-theory, but if you recall the story of Pilate that coincided with my sketch of a powerful man contemplating the nature of mercy, I can't see how you could fail to make the connection.

For the benefit of anyone new to this topic I would mention again the physical structure and function of the human brain; with the early 'reptilian brain' (the amygdala) supplying instinctive reactions evolved over many millions of years overlaid by (and sharing many of the same sensory inputs) the more recent structure called the neo-cortex. Loosely speaking, this part has the capacity to do all the pondering and contemplating but is often in tension with the instinctive reactions that have, for so long, served the survival of the organism that is us. Once such judgments can be made contrasts in approach can be identified. I believe that these contrasts are mistakenly identified as differences between carnal and the divine spirits.

[joer]

QED said:

joer, you're asking for other references more directly related to spirit as quantified by game-theory, but if you recall the story of Pilate that coincided with my sketch of a powerful man contemplating the nature of mercy, I can't see how you could fail to make the connection.

QED, how does that sketch show the connection between Game Theory and "Spirit"? You ask "how you could fail to make the connection". Well more than fail to make the connection, I don't see how your answer relates to my question at all.

I think you believe "spirit" has no basis other than a natural orgin and source of existence.

I believe "spirit" has both a natural and divine orgin. I was just lloking for documented direct evidence other than books on the general subject of a part of our opinion like The Prisoners' Dilemma, on game theory.

Thanks Joer

[QED]

So you believe that "spirit" has both a natural and divine origin. What is it about the natural origin that is insufficient in your view, for it to account for spirit in its entirety? Parsimony tells us to restrict ourselves to the minimum sufficient explanation as is possible. Introducing divinity would seem to multiply the number of entities used in our explanation by an incalculable amount.

Take the golden rule for example; if we do not treat others as we would not ourselves wish to be treated then I think it's pretty trivial stuff to see how this produces a spirit of kindness, and if practiced methodically and universally then we could get closer to some imaginary utopia. This is how I believe game theory relates to your question. I'm absolutely sure that any spirit you care to mention can be traced back to some form of cooperative or combative strategy such as this.

[joer]

QED wrote:

So you believe that "spirit" has both a natural and divine origin. What is it about the natural origin that is insufficient in your view, for it to account for spirit in its entirety? Parsimony tells us to restrict ourselves to the minimum sufficient explanation as is possible. Introducing divinity would seem to multiply the number of entities used in our explanation by an incalculable amount.

Take the golden rule for example; if we do not treat others as we would not ourselves wish to be treated then I think it's pretty trivial stuff to see how this produces a spirit of kindness, and if practiced methodically and universally then we could get closer to some imaginary utopia. This is how I believe game theory relates to your question. I'm absolutely sure that any spirit you care to mention can be traced back to some form of cooperative or combative strategy such as this.

You are quite slippery QED. You avoid answering direct questions. And you question direct statements.

Then you often mix reality with fiction in your statements and don’t’ make a distinction between which is what. Why does it have to be “some imaginary utopia” why can’t it be a “possible future reality”?

Smoke screens and mirrors. Do you ever work anything all the way through? Stand on and defend a position?

You throw in “Anthropic Principle” which is just a blurring tool because it sounds grand but basically renders “everything” on our side of the horizon as ambiguous at best science as well as religion. Then we talk about “Spirit” and you throw in “Game Theory”. Now that “Game Theory” is questionable you’re throwing in “Parsimony”. You throw in a lot of fancy words but what’s the use of using them and of what substance are they if your just going to abandon them? Are you just going to keep jumping from side to side or are you ever going to take a stand somewhere and back up your point?

Is there anything thing that you question or believe in staunchly in your heart of hearts that your willing to take a stand on without abandoning your points?

You stated:

I mentioned to Joer that positive human spirits such as generosity and kindness could be seen as logical entities arising from Game Theory. Here rules are developed through the application of various cooperative strategies with Evolution, qua trial and error, selecting and fixing the most successful of these into the human genome.

This seems to be backing off somewhat from what you stated originally,

At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

You also state:

We often hear talk of 'spirit' as if it was some aether-like entity that permeates space.

And before you stated:

At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source.

It's sounds like you disbelieve these ideas. Do you and are you going to defend that position? Or are you just making comments?

In your last post here you state:

Take the golden rule for example; if we do not treat others as we would not ourselves wish to be treated then I think it's pretty trivial stuff to see how this produces a spirit of kindness.

I don’t think it trivial at all. I think it’s quite an important recognition. And I see it as a failure on our part as humanity to marginalize it and actually promote the opposite; killing, maiming and doing harm to others.

Furthermore where does the impetus to act in a way to produce a spirit of kindness come from? Is it possible that it emanates from a form of "spirit" inherent within our personality? Are there genes on the DNA coded to be “spirit”, expressions of spirit, manifestations of spirit, etc.?

QED what’s this?

Oh Holy Spirit of God guide us to find the natural, material, divine and any or all aspects of the nature of spirit. Oh Beneficent Creator of all that we perceive including ourselves in all our capabilities to perceive and understand, help us to see and understand “spirit” as we honestly, earnestly and energetically look for understanding of the concept, essence and existence of spirit.

Open our hearts to the understanding what awaits us if we are willing to “see” it. Help to make us willing to understand the nature of your creation of spirit as it exists within and without of us. This I ask in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who lived his life as one of us as an example of how to live this life on this world. Let us live life the way You meant it to be lived and not the erroneous ways we choose to live it instead.

Open QED’s heart as he is a good human being and strives to help and uplift others. Allow him to see and feel the “Spirit” in all it’s forms as he has the capacity to perceive, working through him to continue to help and uplift others. I cannot convince him Lord to look in new ways for what exists. Only You and he in a cooperative effort can allow him to know You and Your infinite all pervasive Spirit. He knows people speak of it Lord, but he has not sensed it. Peek his senses Lord allow him to feel the Spirit of God within and without Him. He knows what a cooperative effort is as he sees it explained in game theory. Your Who are All-Loving let him feel your Love, let Him feel you Love, let him feel you Love.

Amen.

Would you say it was a Prayer QED? If you do think it is what do you think about this statement:

Prayer, even as a purely human practice, a dialogue with one's alter ego, constitutes a technique of the most efficient approach to the realization of those reserve powers of human nature which are stored and conserved in the unconscious realms of the human mind. Prayer is a sound psychologic practice, aside from its religious implications and its spiritual significance. It is a fact of human experience that most persons, if sufficiently hard pressed, will pray in some way to some source of help.

Be well my friend. I await your post.

By the way to answer your question about the insufficiency of the natural origin of "spirit". Nothing, except believing that that is all there is to it.

[bernee51]

I suggest we use this thread to debate the nature of spirit.

The following is some thoughts on 'spirit' I gleaned from discussions in 'another place'. The writer considers himself to be a "Natural/Scientific Pantheist"

"What is spirit? Like soul, this is another tricky question. Many religions leave this vague and ill-defined. Some think of angels or demons. Others think of transparent, shining ghosts, with sunbeams giving them a nimbus glow.

But a spirit has to be something, if it exists at all. And I do think it exists. It is the difference between a walking, talking human being, and a pile of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. It is the difference between a living human being, and a moment later a dead human being.

So what is spirit that encapsulates those two criteria? One is structure. The structure of any human being. The structure of each molecule in the human body. The location of each molecule. But there is more than that, otherwise what accounts for the difference between a living human being one moment, and a dead human being a moment later.

The processes are also important. In addition to the structure, the processes of a working human metabolism which is called life. So spirit is the structure and processes.

The spirit is not energy. The spirit is only structure and processes. Energy, as in how energy is used in the physics sense, is something different.

There is human spirit. A human spirit is the form and anima of a human. Saying human entails human spirit. The human spirit is intrinsic to human-ness.

There is canine spirit. Like human and human spirit, being canine entails canine spirit. The canine spirit is intrinsic to canine-ness.

Every living organism has spirit, that is, has structure and processes. Every non-living organism has spirit as well. That is, absolutely everything has structure and processes.

Moreso, the whole planet has a structure and has global processes – the Earth has Earth spirit. All human spirits and part of the Earth spirit. All canine spirits are part of the Earth spirit. Because all of us humans are part of the Earth. With the momentary exception of those few astronauts and cosmonauts who took our race’s first baby steps from our home.

Even grander yet, the entire universe has structure and processes. As with all spirits, the totality of the cosmos is always in a state of flux, always changing, always becoming. And spirit of the entire universe is what I call the Holy Spirit. And remember, we are all part of universe – we are all part of the Holy Spirit."