Which came first: matter or spirit? — Philosophy

AlexeyPank

4/8/2007 4:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I am responding to Silvanis.
Yes, a human body consists of cells, and the body of a mountain consists of stones. And every cell and every stone has its own soul. But the soul of a mountain is not the sum of the souls of all the stones that compose it, nor is the soul of a human the sum of the souls of its cells. When a body is assembled from parts, it acquires new properties that are not equal to the sum of the properties of individual elements. It is exactly the same with the soul.
And the soul of plasma or fire is extremely volatile. Every fraction of a second it changes, becoming unlike the previous one.
Furthermore, I do not consider myself a panpsychist; I am simply trying to look at the world objectively.
Regarding definitions:
Matter — a substance possessing physical properties and obeying physical laws.
Soul — an astral substance (or if that is clearer for some, an inophysical one), possessing properties that have no physical analogues.

Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.

In reply to AlexeyPank

REgulus

4/8/2007 5:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I was too lazy to read all the posts. It's interesting that many people refer to someone else in their attempt to answer the question. You talk about "your theories," but they are based on what you heard or read somewhere, while someone else pretends to be a new intellectual of the era and tries to come up with something original, telling themselves that they are clever for figuring it out first.
I'm not a very scientifically minded person. As a person, I can feel and live according to my feelings.
Here are some theses:
1. Everything is infinite.
2. Infinity consists of identical periods.
3. Everything acts according to laws.
4. Whoever understands all the laws places himself next to them (executive power).
5. ...
I could continue for a long time, but I don't see much point in it.
To answer the topic's question: in our period of infinity, matter is primary, but the SPIRIT fills it. The Spirit is probably the law.
I can't prove it, I just feel it. I don't want to think that after my death, my personality will cease to exist. I would even agree to helpless contemplation, being in a lifeless stone.

I agree with Silvanis that the question is incorrect.

Added 9 minutes ago

Ganymed;81380

Yes, it's turning into a bit of a storm in a teacup, I apologize...

So, since I was asked to give a definition of matter and spirit, I dared (to my own detriment) to outline my theory on this. If you disagree, by all means, present your own or don't present anything at all. But it's not necessary to build non-existent complexities on my scheme because of an unwillingness to understand the essence, dear Berserk.

Matter is things that are tangible to the senses of a person, animal, plant, that is, everything that I have defined as a subject of consciousness. I hope I don't need to explain that animals and plants have their own "sense organs" or reflexes and desire what humans do - to live. Further, I wrote something that Silvanis did not pay attention to: things are not just tangible, but also identified (that is, recognized) by consciousness as REALLY EXISTING. This also applies to the laws of physics. I hope you don't argue that they really exist, and therefore - matter, according to my (strictly!!!!!) definition.

As for the spirit, I will give a very characteristic example to illustrate what I wrote about it. A community of carriers of an astral code (i.e., a society) creates a subject entity - a social group, which is the sum of both positive and negative codes of the community of carriers of the astral code. This sum of codes creates its own code (public opinion), which in itself is a "subject code." By generating this code, the community moves from "transmitting" the code to "receiving" it, that is, 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 example, religion. It's all the same.

THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FORUM!!!! HOW WERE YOU TAUGHT TO SPEAK LIKE THAT?????
THIS IS A RUSSIAN-SPEAKING FORUM! THE QUESTION IS IN RUSSIAN! SO WHY ARE YOU, A BEARER OF THE GREAT AND MIGHTY LANGUAGE, USING ONLY PREPOSITIONS?
WHAT IS THIS ABSTRACTION! I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PRIMARY FOR YOU!
APPARENTLY LATIN AND ANCIENT GREEK!! BUT UNDERSTAND: USING THE LANGUAGE OF LEARNED MEN DOES NOT MAKE YOU SMARTER!!!!!!

DON'T BE OFFENDED

Я лишь с теми, кто ищет истину...

In reply to Берсерк

Agilist

4/8/2007 5:11 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Berserk;81343

Quote:
"Logic, therefore logic. Let's consider the situation. A soul floats 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 not do anything with a two-dimensional one? Interesting statement :)
In reality, we have a much wider range of possibilities than those who live in a two-dimensional world. Take a sheet of paper and poke it with your finger! You have a unique ability to create holes in two-dimensional matter :)

Mistake! A sheet of paper is a three-dimensional object. This is easily proven by stacking several dozen of these sheets. If they were two-dimensional, the stack of sheets would be as flat as one.

Berserk;81343

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 (with their own beliefs, of course, not science), as they do not rely on facts, although they try to prove to the whole world that science is on their side.

But isn't science saying: "Prove it, and I'll believe"? If I am proven that a person has a soul, that there is heaven and hell, I will believe it. And science is on the side of atheists, because atheists try to find a non-divine explanation for everything, while believers seek a divine, unproven explanation.

Berserk;81343

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

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

"Nothing is created from nothing. Everything tends towards chaos."
That is, these elements are inclined only to chaos and further self-destruction! Gentlemen, 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 time."

I meant living matter. And yes, I do enjoy science fiction :)

Berserk;81343

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 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 example of the similarity between humans and monkeys at the genetic and chemical level. A watermelon is 99% the same in composition as a cloud. And that's a fact. I had a table of such similarities somewhere, and there are hundreds of them! Absolutely different bodies and creatures consist of 90-99% of the same material!

The first egg was indeed laid by a reptile, that's a fact, and that's paleontology. I don't know who laid the first egg from which a chick hatched, but that's far from the example of a cat and a dog.

Berserk;81343

Thus, by concretizing 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.

What are these atheistic systems?

Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.

Берсерк

4/8/2007 5:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I read Ganymede's new post twice, and I feel like an idiot.
Sincerely, Ganymede, I hope you weren't offended by my remarks. In any case, regardless of our theories, we can still maintain a friendly relationship.
But your theory is really quite difficult to grasp. Sometimes it's clear to you, but not to others.
But I found another victim.
Mr. AlexeyPunk believes that everything has a soul. The Japanese seem to think so too. The sum of souls creates a new one. Human cells make up some kind of new soul as a whole. I'll continue. All people and animals make up one soul (by analogy with inclusion or the action of electric fields). I'll stop here for now. The soul controls matter. Therefore: all organisms + all inanimate objects + the Earth itself make up an even larger soul in order. The soul controls matter. This means that we are all controlled by a mega-soul. Therefore, fate exists. There is no meaning to life. What do your miserable cells mean when you are decaying? You will have a new soul = 50% former cells + earth + rot. Then your soul will consist of bones alone. In general, it's a terrible dream and nonsense.

In reply to Agilist

Леля

4/8/2007 5:19 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In my opinion, a spirit is a special kind of matter... :)

Agilist

4/8/2007 5:20 PM UTC

Auto-translated

As for the paper and its ability to be altered, here's what I have to say. The soul is either immaterial or weighs 29 grams (experiments have proven that after death, all people become lighter by this amount). In the first case, it cannot change anything. In the second case, it can, but then it must be sustained by something (replenishing energy) according to the law of conservation of energy.

Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.

Берсерк

4/8/2007 5:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Yes, cut off a finger, and you'll reduce your soul (the number of cells will be smaller). Well, I'll answer Agilist too. Quote: "Mistake! A sheet of paper is a three-dimensional object. This is easy to verify by folding several dozen of these sheets. If they were two-dimensional, the stack of sheets would be as flat as one." I thought you would understand. :) I'm taking a two-dimensional plane in the ideal case, where the thickness tends to 0. Is that okay? Quote: "Isn't it science that says: 'Prove it, and I'll believe'?" If they prove to me that humans have a soul, that there is hell and heaven, I will believe it." Science says that, and yet it uses unverified data? Science says? You surprise me. It turns out that we, the poor, backward fanatics, have to prove it to scientific minds, just because they can't prove the opposite!!! :) Here's what you're doing: you contemptuously say, "religion is prejudice," but you don't have any scientific facts or evidence to support such a statement! You violate your own principle, which means you become just as bad as we are. You BELIEVE, and we BELIEVE. You have no proof, and neither do we. Or rather, we do (both of us), but this is an area of debate. "I meant living matter." In your understanding, the spirit is just the biochemical processes of the brain, and you casually throw around phrases like "to possess." In the end, I understood your idea. 1) The universe has always existed. 2) In some way, non-living matter can develop, turn into living matter, and evolve. 3) The thought processes of living matter are the spirit. In general, it's the classic theory of evolution, for which I have countless scientific counter-arguments. Quote: "And what are these atheistic systems?" This is Ganymede's theory, which even scientists don't practice. That's why I said other systems.

AlexeyPank

4/8/2007 5:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

And you will cut off your finger. Your perception of the surrounding world will change dramatically. This means that your soul will also change. And the sum of everything constitutes the universal soul, BUT! This does not mean that the value of each small soul is insignificant compared to the large one. They are equal! What is more valuable - a gold ring or the gold from which it is made? If there is no second, there will be no first, but the second can exist without the first. And matter is an integral part of the PHYSICAL world, where the soul does not have its own properties and characteristics. And in our world, without matter, there is no soul. And without a soul, matter has no connection with an extra-physical reality (like time). And therefore, in our world, they could only arise together.

Мы спасемся? Я не знаю. Верьте...
Геройский Интернационал
Клан Homo homini - основатель клана
Член РКСМ с 07.07.07.
ФЛУДОВСКИЕ ССЫЛКИ!- сообщить о бесполезной теме/сообщении.

In reply to Берсерк

Agilist

4/8/2007 6:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Berserker;81409

Here is what you are doing: you contemptuously say, "religion is superstition," but you don't have anywhere near enough scientific facts and evidence for such a statement! You are violating your own principle, which means you are descending to the same level as we are. You BELIEVE and we BELIEVE. You have no proof and neither do we. Or rather, they exist (for both), but it is an area of dispute.
"I meant living matter."

You have no facts, we have almost none, except for one: nobody has seen this, therefore it can be assumed that it does not exist. And I mentioned "possessing" etc., in order to more effectively prove my idea. I am trying both to prove my own and to refute others'.

Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.

Берсерк

4/8/2007 6:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

You don’t have them either. There aren’t any that our scientists haven’t refuted. And I’ve read the works of creationist scientists, where the theory of evolution is skillfully reduced to dust with facts. So, there are very strong scientific facts against your theory (just ask, and I’ll provide them), and therefore, from a scientific point of view, it cannot be true until these facts are refuted. Consequently, other theories and hypotheses can be put forward, and I choose Creation. And here you are in the same position as we are: there is no tangible evidence for or against.

Agilist

4/8/2007 6:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Facts! Facts!

Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.

Берсерк

4/8/2007 7:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I can't remember everything, many were mentioned, but off the top of my head:

1) The Second Law of Thermodynamics
2) The spiral motion of galaxies and solar systems.
Scientists have found that all galaxies and systems are contracting; at the moment of maximum contraction, they explode, forming new galaxies and systems. Scientists calculated the contraction speed of our system and found that a maximum of 60 million years is needed for a system like the solar system to cease to exist. This blatantly does not fit into the 5 billion years of Earth's existence.
3) A law of physics regarding the continuation of particle rotation in the same direction the object was moving before destruction. If you throw a (rotten) branch, when it breaks apart in the air, every fragment will rotate in the same direction. This contradicts proponents of the Big Bang; there was an explosion, yet all galaxies, planets, and systems rotate in different directions. This is impossible and contradicts the law.
4) It is known that the amount of salt in the World Ocean is constantly increasing. Creationists gave you a chance and suggested that from the moment of Earth's creation, the ocean contained 0% salt. According to mathematical calculations, in a maximum of 60 million years, the ocean would have become absolutely salty and all life within it would have died. This makes the origin of life in water or the existence of the planet for more than 60 million years impossible.
5) As is known, Earth's magnetic field is constantly weakening, which negatively affects the continuation of human life. According to scientists' calculations, in 60 million years, the field would simply vanish, which would exclude the possibility of life existing on Earth.
6) According to scientists, humans lived 100000 years ago. If you calculate that a new generation begins while the old one is still alive (a 20-year difference), then in the end, there should be as many burials and corpses as there are people living on earth now, and that is just for those 100000 years of the Stone Age. Scientists only find some excavations. Counter-argument: bones decompose. Answer: but not all of them; additionally, people always placed weapons, clothing, and other things with the dead. Where is all that?
7) Amazing finds have been discovered in Antarctica, and generally at the North Pole. Entire frozen cemeteries... of flowers, mammoths, wild beasts, green fauna, which confirms the fact that once there was summer across the entire Earth (Earth was created, with a layer of water above creating a greenhouse effect, which was destroyed with the start of the Flood).
8) The error of the famous methods of analyzing the age of rocks and organisms, and specifically carbon analysis.

a) Carbon analysis takes the assertion that throughout Earth's history, the amount of C-14 carbon remained unchanged, which is fundamentally impossible given the infinite contacts with cosmic bodies.
b) A large amount of absolutely stupid data regarding carbon analysis.
The same object in two laboratories was determined to be 180 million years and 300 million years old. A living mollusk showed 65 million years (about 10 examples exist in sources + links to more than 100).
Despite having blatantly erroneous analysis, atheists nevertheless present it as maximally reliable.

9) No positive mutations leading to a change in species have been registered, nor obtained by any experiment. Dogs have still failed to cross the boundary of being dogs :(

10) In biology textbooks, we were often told about vestigial parts (of reptiles, amphibians) in the human body. Like the appendix. Creationist scientists discovered an important significance for EVERY part for humans. One of them, by the way, is responsible for potency.

11) The drawing by an atheist (I don't remember the name), who drew human embryos and showed that they are similar to amphibian tadpoles, is absolutely false. When comparing real images of humans, it turned out that the "scientist" simply intentionally made them look similar. Despite the exposure, this "fact" is presented in all textbooks as evidence of evolution.
12) The chance of obtaining 20 nucleotides from non-living matter = 1/googol (one and a hundred zeros)
13) The geological column. After reading a biology textbook, I realized that creatures are dated by the fossils of rock layers. This leads to the logical question: how are the rocks themselves dated?
"...even better, rocks are dated by the organisms found in them." Really? Rocks by organisms, and organisms by rocks? Mr. Lawyer drew up the scale himself, which is considered correct even today! Circular reasoning is used there! The geological scale was made up randomly, without evidence :(

14) There is much more, but quoting entire lectures is difficult; I will try to find it all directly in articles. Here is a link to one:
http://www.filemaster.ru/files/c0646

In general, almost all the info is in the lectures of the Christian scientist Dr. Hovind. There you will learn a lot about what you have been lied to about since childhood.

Silvanis

4/9/2007 5:35 PM UTC

Auto-translated

An example of positive (or at least not harmful) mutations is the artificial breeding of dog breeds and plant varieties. People selected the traits they needed and crossbred dogs/plants in such a way that they obtained, for example, large, strong, and aggressive Rottweilers, or even larger and stronger, but more docile, Saint Bernards, etc. According to the theory of evolution, the same thing happens in the natural environment – only there, the selection is carried out not by humans, but by the conditions of the surrounding world.

However, it is difficult to imagine, for example, semi-flying birds or semi-aquatic dolphins (do they have gills or lungs?).

С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис

Agilist

4/9/2007 5:41 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I consider myself an example of positive mutations (I'm not a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle). My dad has quite fragile bones. Mine, on the other hand, are quite strong (I've never complained) and I've never broken anything, even though others have broken bones in similar situations:smile47:.

Умирает не тот, кто устал, а тот, кто остановился.

In reply to Agilist

REgulus

4/9/2007 6:16 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Agilist;81736

I consider myself an example of positive mutations (I'm not a Ninja Turtle). My dad has rather fragile bones. Mine, on the other hand, are quite strong (I've never complained) and I've never broken anything, even though others have broken bones in similar situations:smile47:.

What about your grandparents? How strong were their bones? As far as I know, pathologies are passed down through generations, including positive ones, although less frequently!
As for the spirit (soul), I'm not sure how much of it I inherited from my ancestors, although there probably is some. These qualities have simply adapted to the surrounding world, so they seem to be my individual traits.

Я лишь с теми, кто ищет истину...