Posts from Which came first: matter or spirit?

Agilist, as I understand from your post, the "spirit" is consciousness, and a body without consciousness is not a living being. There is no consciousness without a body (or bodies), but if we talk about souls, which you don't believe in, that's a different question...
For example, a body without a soul and a soul without a body can exist, while a body without consciousness cannot...

A person loses consciousness (for example, from extreme fear), but it returns. A body without consciousness exists and lives. Haven't you seen in movies how heroes ask to be killed if they turn

In my opinion:

Matter is something that can be perceived by all the senses of its owner – the subject of consciousness – and is identified by the subject of consciousness as something that actually exists.

Spirit is the astral code of the subject of consciousness (entity), which is read by the astral code of another subject of consciousness (entity) and which can influence the subject of consciousness (subconsciously) in both a positive and a negative way. The astral code is formed in subjects of consciousness (entities) under the influence of various factors.
In subjects of consciousness, it is initially positive because it has a creative purpose. But it can change under the influence of various codes from other subjects of consciousness (entities), and the sum of these codes determines whether the code is positive or negative.
The astral code can be flexible or stable, depending on the subject of consciousness (entity) whose code it is.
The same subject of consciousness (entity) can be both a "receiver of information" and a "transmitter."
The same code from one subject of consciousness (entity) can evoke different meanings in the codes of other subjects of consciousness (entities) – for some, it may be positive, and for others, negative, depending on the state of the codes of the "receivers of information" at the time of "reception."

Subject of consciousness – a person, animal, plant, i.e., "living" nature.
Subject of entity – art, society, ethnicity, religion, etc.

Initially, the codes of subjects of consciousness form the codes of subjects of entities, i.e., they are "transmitters" of information. After the code of the subject of entity is formed, it (the subject of entity) itself becomes a "transmitter," and its "receivers" are already subjects of consciousness.

Two questions:
1) what, in this case, is the psyche?;
2) how should we deal with abstract concepts – for example, "positivity," "creativity," which appear at the very beginning of the reasoning?

A person loses consciousness (from extreme fear, for example), but it returns. The body without consciousness exists and lives. Haven't you seen in movies how heroes ask to be killed if they turn into a "vegetable" (i.e., unable to think or move, just existing)?

Firstly: Do you really believe everything you see in movies?... Movies exaggerate things to make them more interesting...

So, according to you, consciousness transfers from one person to another based on the principle of "what is lost in one place is gained in another"?...
Consciousness develops with a person and dies with them. Simply existing is not living; it's being dead, but not physically. It's impossible not to think; you can think at different levels, from a child to an elder. From unintelligent to a philosopher and back.
Regarding a body without consciousness:
A lifeless body exists, but a living one does not.
They turn into a "vegetable" when the body's life force is depleted, but it clings to life with all its remaining strength.

Two questions:
1) what, in this case, is the psyche?
2) how to deal with abstract concepts - for example, "positivity" and "creativity," which appear at the very beginning of the reasoning?

The psyche is, by definition, the overall state of the properties of a conscious subject. The astral code directly affects this overall state of properties. If the code is negative, then the state exhibits an imbalance, i.e., the state is in a negative value. This happens when the conscious subject systematically reads the negative codes of other conscious subjects or entities. And vice versa, when it "finds" positive codes, the state returns to a positive value. The higher the negative value of the code of a conscious subject, the stronger its mental disorder.

Positivity and creativity are initially embedded in the conscious subject because its code is positive. If the conscious subject works towards creation, then the entities it produces also have a positive code, and vice versa.

So, in my opinion, there is nothing "abstract" about this. Everything is concrete

Exactly! There is such a system – positivity/negativity. I don't understand whether positivity/negativity is matter – that is, whether it has some material embodiment – or not; if it doesn't, then we get something like a meta-spirit, a spirit of a spirit, which significantly complicates the initial division into spirit and matter and, in fact, contradicts it. And another question arose: what are the laws of physics? They certainly cannot be simply called matter, as they are a principle of organizing matter; however, it's hard to call them an astral code either.

First of all: Do you really believe everything in movies is real?... Movies are embellished to make them more interesting...

So, according to you, consciousness transfers from one person to another based on the principle of "what is lost in one place is gained in another"?...
Consciousness develops within a person and dies with them. Simply existing is not living; it's being dead, but not physically. One cannot stop thinking; one can only think at different levels, from a child to an elder. From unintelligent to a philosopher and back.
Regarding a body without consciousness:
A lifeless body exists, but a living one does not.
They turn into a "vegetative state" when the body's life force is depleted, but it clings to life with all its remaining strength.

I am sure that consciousness appears in a living organism at a high level of development. It does not transfer or fly around. It is something that exists within a conscious being and dies with it.

I am sure that consciousness appears in a living organism at a high level of development. It does not transfer, it does not fly. It is what exists in a conscious being and dies with it.

Consciousness is always present, and it develops...

And you recently described situations contradicting this...

Well, never mind...

Why a meta-spirit? In my interpretation, the spirit is simply described using understandable material terms, given that we are discussing what a spirit is. In a nutshell, a spirit is a combination of 0 and 1, which is how a computer operates. We don't see these combinations when we look at a monitor, but they actually influence everything the computer does. Similarly, a spirit is not material to the touch, but it is alive. The laws of physics are laws because they describe real, existing phenomena that are tangible. No one invented them; they discovered what has always existed.

Consciousness is always present, and it develops...

And you were recently describing situations that contradict you regarding the transition...

Well, never mind...

No, I wasn't contradicting myself. It was written there for whom the option was intended. And I don't deny that consciousness is always present, but then it is at a very low level in animals.

Why "meta-spirit"? In my interpretation, the spirit is simply described using understandable material terms, given that we are discussing what a spirit is.

Actually, the prefix "meta" is a normal scientific term... In psychology, for example, "meta-memory" means a person's knowledge of their own memory.

In a nutshell, a spirit is a combination of 0 and 1, which is how a computer works. We don't see these combinations when we look at a monitor, but they actually affect everything the computer does.
Similarly, a spirit is not material to the touch, but it is vital.
It seems clear now... So, is a spirit the same as the system of creation/destruction?

The laws of physics are laws because they describe real, existing phenomena that are tangible. No one invented them; they discovered what has always existed.

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question well... I meant the following: the laws of physics are not matter. This is obvious – we certainly can't touch them. (by the way, as Berserk rightly pointed out, relying on one's own perception is also wrong; especially since we cannot perceive many other sources of information – for example, heat, the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, etc.; I'm willing to bet that there are many such sources of information that we don't even know about! By the way, Kant believed that time was not an objective reality, but a property of human consciousness – a human way of perceiving the world.) However, it is still impossible to say that the laws of physics are encoded according to the system of the spirit you described. And where do they fit in the dichotomy of spirit and matter?

By the way, does everything that exists have a spirit? I mean, is it only in humans, or in humans and animals, or also in plants, or maybe even in everything in general – as numerous panpsychists, including AlexeyPunk, assure us?

Added 4 minutes later

Consciousness is always present, and it develops...

Not everyone believes that. For example, the domestic school of psychology, founded by Vygotsky and developed by Leontiev, believes that consciousness exists only in social beings (humans). Personally, I don't agree with their position.

But what cannot be disputed is that if you get hit hard on the head, you will lose consciousness. Again, there is such a mysterious and as yet undiscovered phenomenon as sleep, during which you are not aware of the surrounding world; according to the most popular view in the scientific community, the state of sleep is considered a state of unconsciousness...

Read my description of the matter again, more carefully; my point of view should be quite clear there.

Ganymede, your posts are as clear as day, or rather, even more complex than Remedi's treatises. It's possible to complicate things so much or create such a combination of words that you end up believing what you're trying so hard to convince yourself of. I sincerely believe that people who understand that they are wrong or cannot explain their point of view in simple words resort to complex pyramids of words and lexemes in the hope of convincing us that the world is actually just an incredibly complex system of codes, Australians, matter, and so on...
And in the end: each philosopher, like Ganymede, will have their own theory, while others will be divided into masses.

I can assume that there is a Mind, a Creator, because there are many simple logical arguments. But, excuse me, to take a system of codes out of nowhere and build your worldview on the schemes you created yourself is to go beyond the bounds of logic. Respected Ganymede said that he believes in what he sees, but I cannot believe that such systems are taken from experience or a series of logical inferences. However, if there is at least a logical chain of evidence (preferably one that is difficult to dispute), I will gladly listen to it; otherwise, I can create any system based on atheistic views, but without a foundation.

Quote:
"Logic, so logic. Let's consider a situation. A soul flies around the Earth. Since it is not in our plane, it cannot change anything here."

STOP! If we are in a three-dimensional space, can we do nothing with a two-dimensional one? Interesting statement :)
In reality, we have a much wider range of possibilities than those who live in two dimensions. Take a sheet of paper and poke it with your finger! You have the unique ability to create holes in two-dimensional matter :)

Quote:
"Once upon a time, there was matter on Earth."

With your permission, I will start differently:
"Once upon a time, in a certain kingdom..."
And to be precise, it's time to state:

1) Atheists are no more than religious believers (their faith, of course, is not science), because they do not rely on facts, although they try to prove to the whole world that science is on their side.

Data:
1) Not a single case of a positive mutation has been scientifically recorded throughout the history of mankind.

Nevertheless, biologists are feeding us the idea that only 99.999% of mutations lead to negative consequences. Positive ones have NOT BEEN RECORDED, but how can we remove the cornerstone of Darwin's fairy tale?

2) It has never been recorded or obtained through experiments:
The creation of living matter from non-living matter.

What atheists do: some scientist (I don't remember the name) conducts an experiment to obtain living matter under the influence of water, electricity, and also having stones, in general, everything that, in their opinion, was on the hot earth xxx billion years ago. As a result, he gets two types of nucleotides (20 are needed), which gives him nothing.

1) They decay back very quickly.
2) If there is a chance of obtaining all the components (like a mixture for life = 1/1 * Google chance), then it will immediately be destroyed by electrical shocks (one of the flasks) and in any case will not be able to hold.

In short, life was not created, BUT: (as evolutionists do)
This experiment is included in every biology textbook as proof of the possibility of creating life from non-living matter. "Heresy," you say. "Science," the atheist proudly replies.

So, they have neither life nor mutations. On what scientific basis, which is your main argument, do you say that it is possible for matter to exist at all?

Quote:
"Situation 2. Once upon a time, there was matter on Earth. It did not think, but it reacted to certain events. What prevents the spirit from entering such matter (for non-atheists) or why cannot this organism become more complex and react differently to stimuli and with variations and eventually become a human (for atheists)?"

For the spirit to enter matter? What came first, the spirit or the matter? :)
For organisms to develop? You must be very fond of science fiction! (I love it too). Dead matter, namely stones, hydrogen, and helium, can develop! The second law of thermodynamics:

"Nothing is created from nothing. Everything tends towards chaos."
That is, these elements themselves tend only to chaos and further self-destruction! I didn't invent science.

After your tales, I re-examined my view of the tale of the Frog Princess. Can a frog turn into a prince? No, you say. But if it is a VERY, VERY LONG PROCESS... you are hypnotized. If millions and billions of years pass... you say like a zombie: "Maybe it can. Anything can happen in such a period."

I was sincerely amused by the post about the chicken and the egg, where it was written that the egg came from a reptile. But no bitch (female dog) has ever given birth to a cat and NEVER will. Because the Creator invented DNA, the Creator created the world, and he KNEW how to do it. Therefore, a dog will always be a dog, a monkey a monkey, and a human a human.

But don't bring up the fact about the similarity between humans and monkeys at the genetic and chemical level. A watermelon is 99% the same as a cloud in its composition. And that's a fact. Somewhere I had a table of such similarities, and there are hundreds of them! Absolutely different bodies and creatures consist of 90-99% of the same material!

Thus, having specified the philosophical themes of this forum, I find three directions:

1) Religious. With slight differences.
2) Classical atheistic.
3) Their own atheistic systems, the likes of which I have not encountered before.

Therefore, the first question will always be: Creation or Evolution, and then everything is clear.

For Creation, the Creator created the laws, and everything is perfectly clear (if you don't get confused).
For atheists, it is generally stupid to discuss such a question. Chaos, chance, and the struggle for survival rule everything. What is good and evil? What are these silly concepts? My great-great-great-grandfather knew only one good thing - to be full. :)
What is evil? What is it? Evolution is a constant process. Helium, hydrogen, and stones can develop at any moment, and we will get living races. Do what you want - the strongest will survive, and they will move on to the next stage of evolution.
(And I have a good project for you. In order for the new generation of evolving organisms in billions of years not to ask the same questions, we need:

1) To leave various traces of civilization on the most reliable planets and where possible, and then blow up our planet, let new creatures rule the world, they will know the truth... :-) )

Added 13 minutes ago
Quote:
"Logic, so logic. Let's consider a situation. A soul flies around the Earth. Since it is not in our plane, it cannot change anything here."

It occurred to me that you mean that the Spirit does not have Energy! This is where the mistake lies. The Spirit can easily apply energy, while still living in three-dimensional space. I am talking about the Spirit (God), and not about the souls of people, because, according to the condition, they cannot be before matter.

This has turned into a somewhat nonsensical debate. For Ganymede, for example, a spirit is code. For Berserk, it's God, and in principle, also the souls of people and, possibly, angels/demons (correct me if I'm wrong!). For me, a spirit is a kind of transcendent entity that gives a person the ability to choose between good and evil... And at the same time, since the topic is formulated as "What came first: matter or spirit?", for me (within the context of this topic), spirit is equated with everything immaterial - for example, the meaning of a text, the laws of physics, etc.

Berserk's example about the experiment to create life is correct - Oparin's experiment is indeed not very convincing; but he clearly messed up with mutations. We are all mutants to some extent; in each of us, the genetic code of our parents has been greatly changed. If all mutations were harmful, then over the course of its existence, humanity would have degraded to an appalling degree.
Something also needs to be said about the example with paper and a soul from another plane - dear Berserk, paper exists in three dimensions; it's just very thin; but, nevertheless, I fully support this metaphor with dimensions!
Ganymede, I must honestly admit that after reading your "main" text (where the definitions of soul and body were given), I felt as if someone was deliberately pulling the rug out from under me... The definition of some concepts, which are vague in themselves, is given through even more vague concepts. Therefore, I cannot be sure that I interpreted the text correctly, and I ask you to somehow rephrase the definition of matter. But at the same time, I realized that questions about physics, etc., are essentially off-topic, as they relate not to the spirit, but to the ideal. I withdraw the questions

Silvanis, I know about mutations. BUT!!! Combinatorial mutations do not lead to a change in species!!! And evolution implies exactly that!!!
And all the mutations that humans caused through irradiation, exposure to radiation, and other means – after them, there were only outright negative consequences! So, I didn't get it wrong (there is an offended smiley face here).

Well, it seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill, and I apologize for that... So, since I was asked to define matter and spirit, I dared (perhaps foolishly) to outline my theory on this. If you disagree, feel free to present your own, or don't present anything at all. But there's absolutely no need to create non-existent complexities based on a reluctance to understand the core idea, dear Berserk. Matter is what can be perceived by the senses of a human, animal, or plant – that is, anything I've defined as a subject of consciousness. I hope it's not necessary to explain that animals and plants have their own "sensory organs" or reflexes and desire what humans do – to live. Furthermore, I wrote something that Silvanis didn't pay attention to: things are not just perceptible, but also identifiable (i.e., recognizable) by consciousness as REAL. This also applies to the laws of physics. I hope you don't argue that they really exist, and therefore, according to my (strictly!) definition, they are matter. As for spirit, I'll give a very characteristic example to illustrate what I wrote about it. A certain Community of astral code carriers (i.e., a society) creates a subject entity – a social structure, which is the sum of both positive and negative codes of the Community of astral code carriers. This sum of codes creates its own code (public opinion), which in itself is a "subject code." By generating this code, the Community transitions from "transmitting" the code to "receiving" it, i.e., public opinion begins to encode each subject of consciousness and act on its personal code. For one subject of consciousness, it adds up in a positive way, for another – in a negative way. Here is a rather simple scheme, if you think about it. And it is common to any example, for instance, religion. It's all the same.