Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

No, I meant something a great deal broader and more diffuse than that. Imagine a spectrum. At one end is organised religion and churches/mosques/temples. At the other extreme of the spectrum are things like meditation. That spectrum is spirituality? "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature" are spiritual concepts.

But they are concepts that don't pin down spirituality when one really asks about what it is. What is the formal definition? Mother nature, well, is seriously ambiguous. Meditation, but is this just sitting quietly and doing nothing (as Alan Watts once put it), or is there some higher dimension to this.

A "formal" definition? Can there be such a thing, for something as general and all-embracing as spirituality? Is there a formal definition of "cloudy", or "muddled"? Some terms are general, capturing and carrying a selection or variety of meanings. Such terms are difficult to define precisely, as they should be, because they aren't precise terms.

But instead of simply wondering how a formal definition might be approached or discovered, I ask this — if we had/have a formal definition of spirituality, what do we gain? What is the use or benefit of this precision?

[Pattern-chaser]

If science is the enemy, then all we have left is a dictator to tell us what's true, eg. Stalin, Kim or God's latest alleged representative.

Science is not, and never has been, the enemy, as you say. It's the dogmatic zealots who proclaim that science is the One and Only investigative tool available to serious thinkers. *They* are the "enemy", IMO.

[Gee]

Science does not ignore emotion and probabl has more and meaningful things to say about it - things that you can trust as being verifyable - than any other discipline.

Propaganda. The only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior, because science is looking for control.

This is not quite right. Science is about increasing control over phenomena, not people.

But I did not state that science is about increasing control over people -- that would be a rather stupid thing to say. What I stated is that "the only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior". From understanding motivations, values, and to mental disorders, the study of emotion is all about behavior and how to control unwelcome behavior. If I am wrong, please do explain the other aspects of emotion that science studies.

You do science. I do science. Everyone does science. It's simply checking out reality and trying to work out what's going on, to detect patterns. I worked with scientists for many years. You will never find a straighter bunch. Alas, given how bent most people are, this is far from a claim that they are completely trustworthy. Scientists certainly do get up to shenanigans at times, but I suggest the percentage of dodgies is far lower than in most professions.

It's the nature of the field. If you are to be good at science, you need to ruthlessly examine and counter your biases. So it's disappointing to see so many people blaming science for the sins of corporations and politicians.

If science is the enemy, then all we have left is a dictator to tell us what's true, eg. Stalin, Kim or God's latest alleged representative.

This is nonsense. You are defending science against an imagined attack that never came; at least, not from me. You think that science works to "ruthlessly examine and counter" biases, but do not explain how this has anything to do with the scientific method. I always thought that this kind of examination came from philosophy.

On the other hand, you state, "If science is the enemy, then all we have left is a dictator", so you see science as the only valid path to knowledge. Stupid me. I thought there were three disciplines that gave us knowledge. We are in the RELIGION forum of a PHILOSOPHY web site, where you are extolling science as being the ONLY source of knowledge. Your bias is showing.

Please note that truth is subjective, science studies facts, the objective, so it does not tell us "what's true".

Gee, the issue you are identifying is a conflict of interest between properly conducted science and the vested interests of those with the capacity to provide project funding.

It has long been known that wealth is attracted to science and religion. The wealthy pour money into science in order to make their lives better, then pour it into religion in order to make their deaths better, but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that some people in this forum do not understand the true difference between science and religion. It is not about controlling people, it is not about which is better, it is not even about belief -- it is about subject matter. Science studies the physical; religion studies emotion; and they CAN NOT BE STUDIED IN THE SAME MANNER!!!

Another issue is historical, because those aligned with churches have long resented the field of science for disproving dogmas. Even today, more Americans believe that God magicked up the universe and created a woman from Adam's rib than they believe in evolution.

As your post proves, those aligned with science resent religion for the dogmas that science people do not understand.

Well, it is a lot easier for the ego to accept the "rib" idea, than it is to accept that everything is "random chance". One must choose their magic.

It's not because they are all stupid (a Bell curve applies) but there is a hangover of Church resentment against science, so it doesn't take much provocation for that to flare up. It's similar to anti-Semitism, which seems to pop up at every opportunity, for some reason.

It goes both ways, and if you understood emotion a little better, you would not expect it to be otherwise.

Another issue is media. Science reporting is extremely variable. Many of the headlines are either misleading clickbait, a mountain made out of a molehill or simply a misinterpretation of science too complex for the journalist to comprehend. Then there are suppressed findings, eg. that EVs are worse for the environment if they draw from coal-fired power, or that masks don't work, or that the COVID vaccines did actually have problems, that COVID did not start in Wuhan, despite being next to a facility that designed coronaviruses, etc.

Then there's a daily articles about the latest medical "breakthroughs" - none of which ever seem to flow down to the general public, while being routinely accessed by VIPs.

I expect that a percentage of people who distrust science had their trust eroded by the conduct of journalists and editors rather than that of scientists.

Trust in all public institutions generally has been eroded, and rightly so, given the rapidly widening wealth gap. The institutions we once trusted all proved themselves to be trustworthy. We live in interesting times.

The problem is not with the media, nor is it with misinterpretation, or VIPs, or with public institutions; the problem is with subjectivity and emotion. There is no integrity, no nobility, no honor, and therefore no trust.

Personally, I'm not sure what spirituality is. I suspect I'll find out a whole lot more when I'm gasping my last on my deathbed. (I'm not looking forward to the "life review" stage! *cringe*).

If you do not understand spirituality, then what are you doing here other than trying to defend science from it?

I try not to take myself too seriously these days. I know what I am and I see a lot more impressive people out there than me. Good for them! Acceptance of one's relative mediocrity brings a measure of peace, especially when balanced against the fact that all life, and the planet that exuded that life, are extraordinary, with astonishing a complexity and depth.

Our minds, of course, evolved to survive and reproduce. While we/science have noticed a tremendous amount about our reality, we also clearly miss an awful lot.

We will miss less when we remember that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, and have science that studies the physical, philosophy that studies the mental, and religion that studies the spiritual.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

Science does not ignore emotion and probabl has more and meaningful things to say about it - things that you can trust as being verifyable - than any other discipline.

Propaganda. The only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior, because science is looking for control.

This is not quite right. Science is about increasing control over phenomena, not people.

But I did not state that science is about increasing control over people -- that would be a rather stupid thing to say. What I stated is that "the only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior". From understanding motivations, values, and to mental disorders, the study of emotion is all about behavior and how to control unwelcome behavior. If I am wrong, please do explain the other aspects of emotion that science studies.

You do science. I do science. Everyone does science. It's simply checking out reality and trying to work out what's going on, to detect patterns. I worked with scientists for many years. You will never find a straighter bunch. Alas, given how bent most people are, this is far from a claim that they are completely trustworthy. Scientists certainly do get up to shenanigans at times, but I suggest the percentage of dodgies is far lower than in most professions.

It's the nature of the field. If you are to be good at science, you need to ruthlessly examine and counter your biases. So it's disappointing to see so many people blaming science for the sins of corporations and politicians.

If science is the enemy, then all we have left is a dictator to tell us what's true, eg. Stalin, Kim or God's latest alleged representative.

This is nonsense. You are defending science against an imagined attack that never came; at least, not from me. You think that science works to "ruthlessly examine and counter" biases, but do not explain how this has anything to do with the scientific method. I always thought that this kind of examination came from philosophy.

On the other hand, you state, "If science is the enemy, then all we have left is a dictator", so you see science as the only valid path to knowledge. Stupid me. I thought there were three disciplines that gave us knowledge. We are in the RELIGION forum of a PHILOSOPHY web site, where you are extolling science as being the ONLY source of knowledge. Your bias is showing.

Please note that truth is subjective, science studies facts, the objective, so it does not tell us "what's true".

Gee, the issue you are identifying is a conflict of interest between properly conducted science and the vested interests of those with the capacity to provide project funding.

It has long been known that wealth is attracted to science and religion. The wealthy pour money into science in order to make their lives better, then pour it into religion in order to make their deaths better, but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that some people in this forum do not understand the true difference between science and religion. It is not about controlling people, it is not about which is better, it is not even about belief -- it is about subject matter. Science studies the physical; religion studies emotion; and they CAN NOT BE STUDIED IN THE SAME MANNER!!!

Another issue is historical, because those aligned with churches have long resented the field of science for disproving dogmas. Even today, more Americans believe that God magicked up the universe and created a woman from Adam's rib than they believe in evolution.

As your post proves, those aligned with science resent religion for the dogmas that science people do not understand.

Well, it is a lot easier for the ego to accept the "rib" idea, than it is to accept that everything is "random chance". One must choose their magic.

It's not because they are all stupid (a Bell curve applies) but there is a hangover of Church resentment against science, so it doesn't take much provocation for that to flare up. It's similar to anti-Semitism, which seems to pop up at every opportunity, for some reason.

It goes both ways, and if you understood emotion a little better, you would not expect it to be otherwise.

Another issue is media. Science reporting is extremely variable. Many of the headlines are either misleading clickbait, a mountain made out of a molehill or simply a misinterpretation of science too complex for the journalist to comprehend. Then there are suppressed findings, eg. that EVs are worse for the environment if they draw from coal-fired power, or that masks don't work, or that the COVID vaccines did actually have problems, that COVID did not start in Wuhan, despite being next to a facility that designed coronaviruses, etc.

Then there's a daily articles about the latest medical "breakthroughs" - none of which ever seem to flow down to the general public, while being routinely accessed by VIPs.

I expect that a percentage of people who distrust science had their trust eroded by the conduct of journalists and editors rather than that of scientists.

Trust in all public institutions generally has been eroded, and rightly so, given the rapidly widening wealth gap. The institutions we once trusted all proved themselves to be trustworthy. We live in interesting times.

The problem is not with the media, nor is it with misinterpretation, or VIPs, or with public institutions; the problem is with subjectivity and emotion. There is no integrity, no nobility, no honor, and therefore no trust.

Personally, I'm not sure what spirituality is. I suspect I'll find out a whole lot more when I'm gasping my last on my deathbed. (I'm not looking forward to the "life review" stage! *cringe*).

If you do not understand spirituality, then what are you doing here other than trying to defend science from it?

I try not to take myself too seriously these days. I know what I am and I see a lot more impressive people out there than me. Good for them! Acceptance of one's relative mediocrity brings a measure of peace, especially when balanced against the fact that all life, and the planet that exuded that life, are extraordinary, with astonishing a complexity and depth.

Our minds, of course, evolved to survive and reproduce. While we/science have noticed a tremendous amount about our reality, we also clearly miss an awful lot.

We will miss less when we remember that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, and have science that studies the physical, philosophy that studies the mental, and religion that studies the spiritual.

Gee

I started replying to your particular points when I realised that your post actually has no real content to address. Your claims that I don't understand emotion and spirituality - as though you have some special understanding or I am especially deficient - were absurd.

Your post comes across as an angry complaint about the unemotional nature of science. For some reason, you treat me as a representative of science's non-emotion. You complain that science and its people don't address emotion - but that has nothing at all to do with my post.

This thread is about non-religious spirituality, not sly religious spirituality pretending to be secular.

If one ignores psychology, medicine and brain studies then, yes, science might seem to ignore emotion - as it should. Science has to cover almost everything, so expecting emotion to be given a special place is irrational. It is a subject for study, like any other.

[Belindi]

Gee wrote:
"But I did not state that science is about increasing control over people -- that would be a rather stupid thing to say. What I stated is that "the only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior". From understanding motivations, values, and to mental disorders, the study of emotion is all about behavior and how to control unwelcome behavior. If I am wrong, please do explain the other aspects of emotion that science studies."

I forget how to make a quotation box.

Emotions can be studied subjectively as in when you introspect, and hypothetically a neuroscientist can look at your brain's behaviour while you feel an emotion;emotions can be engendered by music, pictures,insults, pornography and so forth.The neuroscientist can compare your reports of what you feel with what is going on in your brain or body proper. Properly speaking, emotions are what is going on in your body and are the result of nerve and endocrine activity. Feelings are emotions that you attribute( via your central nervous system) to incoming or remembered data , and that you can verbalise if you are human or an advanced AI.

[Pattern-chaser]

I forget how to make a quotation box.

If you can't use the quotation button, surround the quoted text with "Quote" and "/Quote", but change the double quotes to square brackets.

Emotions can be studied subjectively as in when you introspect, and hypothetically a neuroscientist can look at your brain's behaviour while you feel an emotion...

Yes. The point here is surely that science (or something similar) can only observe emotions indirectly. A 'black box' approach. We don't know what's going on inside the box. We have to try to work it out from what we observe from the outside. Heavily indirect. Too indirect to produce the standard of evidence that science (etc) needs to do its work. So science can't really help us very much with things like emotion, mind, and (veering back on-topic) spirituality.

[Lagayascienza]

Propaganda. The only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior, because science is looking for control.

But I did not state that science is about increasing control over people -- that would be a rather stupid thing to say. What I stated is that "the only thing that science studies with regard to emotion is behavior". From understanding motivations, values, and to mental disorders, the study of emotion is all about behavior and how to control unwelcome behavior.

I don't think this can be right. If a patent has an appointment with her doctor and the doctor suspects that the patient is suffering from a mental illness, let's say depression, he will be unlikely to have been in a position to observe her behaviour. The doctor will be asking questions like: How are you feeling? Are you able to enjoy life ? How is your appetite? Are you feeling tired?" Are you sleeping ok? These are questions about how the patient is feeling both physically AND emotionally. Medical science does not discount emotion and focus solely on behaviour. It will not, in the first instance, be about controlling the depressed patient's behaviour. It will be about getting an understanding of how she is feeling emotionally and then, if she is in fact suffering from depression, working out ways to make her feel better emotionally so that her emotional state does not control her behaviour to the extent that she cannot live her heretofore normal day to day life. Feeling, emption, comes first. Trying to first control her behaviour without reference to her emotional state would be to put the cart before the horse.

[Lagayascienza]

Unless of course she had suicidal ideation. Then, making sure that she would not behave in a suicidal way, may take precedence and require that she be restrained. But her emotional state must still be addressed because it is her emotional sate that is causing the suicidal ideation. People don't think about topping themselves when they are feeling fine emotionally. Medical science perforce deals with both emotion and behaviour.

[Gee]

I started replying to your particular points when I realised that your post actually has no real content to address.

As I suspected. Is it possible that emotion does have content, but you are unaware of it?

Your claims that I don't understand emotion and spirituality - as though you have some special understanding or I am especially deficient - were absurd.

Not so absurd since most people do not understand it. If you have some understanding of the unconscious, you may know.

You complain that science and its people don't address emotion - but that has nothing at all to do with my post.

This thread is about non-religious spirituality, not sly religious spirituality pretending to be secular.

Well, it has everything to do with this thread. Do you know what the difference is between spirituality and non-religious spirituality?

If one ignores psychology, medicine and brain studies then, yes, science might seem to ignore emotion - as it should.

Why should it?? Science studies other aspects of life. Why not emotion? Science can not even tell me what the properties of emotion are. Just a lot of hand waving about how we feel.

Since I have gotten so many responses on this post, I have been trying to write a post to answer some of the questions, but it will take a few days, so I thought I would post this to let people know that I am working on it.

Gee

Belindi

Emotions can be studied subjectively as in when you introspect, and hypothetically a neuroscientist can look at your brain's behaviour while you feel an emotion;emotions can be engendered by music, pictures,insults, pornography and so forth.The neuroscientist can compare your reports of what you feel with what is going on in your brain or body proper. Properly speaking, emotions are what is going on in your body and are the result of nerve and endocrine activity. Feelings are emotions that you attribute( via your central nervous system) to incoming or remembered data , and that you can verbalise if you are human or an advanced AI.

At least you tried to give me an accurate response. Let me ask you a question, what if a life form is a plant? I don't think that a neurologist would be studying a plant. Is that because a plant does not have feelings and emotions? Actually they do, unless they are dead. There is a great deal more to feelings and emotions than most people realize and to be frank, we really don't want to know.

Gee

Lagayscienza

Wait until I post tomorrow. Maybe you will be able to see what I am talking about.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

Why should it?? Science studies other aspects of life. Why not emotion? Science can not even tell me what the properties of emotion are. Just a lot of hand waving about how we feel.

As stated, science does address emotion, and extensively - in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, neuroscience. You might have been too distracted to notice.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you know what the difference is between spirituality and non-religious spirituality?

I think that's one of the core questions this topic poses, isn't it? What *is* spirituality?

[Gee]

Why should it?? Science studies other aspects of life. Why not emotion? Science can not even tell me what the properties of emotion are. Just a lot of hand waving about how we feel.

As stated, science does address emotion, and extensively - in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, neuroscience. You might have been too distracted to notice.

Oh well! I must have missed that, so tell me, what are the properties of emotion? What is it? Is it physical? What does it do? Where does it come from? How does it work? What can you tell me except a little psychology and about the brain. Is emotion the brain?

Gee

[Gee]

Do you know what the difference is between spirituality and non-religious spirituality?

I think that's one of the core questions this topic poses, isn't it? What *is* spirituality?

Yes. That is the core question that everyone works around, but does not address. We tend to take the religious explanations, or value and judgments regarding spirituality without questioning what we are actually talking about.

That is what I have been working on.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

Why should it?? Science studies other aspects of life. Why not emotion? Science can not even tell me what the properties of emotion are. Just a lot of hand waving about how we feel.

As stated, science does address emotion, and extensively - in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, neuroscience. You might have been too distracted to notice.

Oh well! I must have missed that, so tell me, what are the properties of emotion? What is it? Is it physical? What does it do? Where does it come from? How does it work? What can you tell me except a little psychology and about the brain. Is emotion the brain?

Gee

It appears that brains are needed to feel emotions. Jellyfish don't display anything that appears to be emotions, but another goopy marine species - the octopus - certainly has emotions.

I think emotions are the bridge between the intellect and the body, the language through which mind and matter communicate via electrical signals. Is language physical? It requires physical actors, but languages are more inherently informational - informational connectors between entities.

[Gee]

Why should it?? Science studies other aspects of life. Why not emotion? Science can not even tell me what the properties of emotion are. Just a lot of hand waving about how we feel.

As stated, science does address emotion, and extensively - in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, neuroscience. You might have been too distracted to notice.

Oh well! I must have missed that, so tell me, what are the properties of emotion? What is it? Is it physical? What does it do? Where does it come from? How does it work? What can you tell me except a little psychology and about the brain. Is emotion the brain?

Gee

It appears that brains are needed to feel emotions.

I seriously doubt this. It appears you are using the logic that was used in the 1600's to prove that anyone who did not have language did not have consciousness -- there is no evidence to support this position. All life forms, ALL of them, have survival instincts and all of those survival instincts use hormones to work the instincts and all of those instincts are initiated by a feeling and/or emotion that is prompted by said hormones.

It is possible that one would need a brain to write a sonnet about their emotions.

Jellyfish don't display anything that appears to be emotions,

So they don't mate? Produce offspring? Get hungry or tired? Try to protect their lives? etc.

but another goopy marine species - the octopus - certainly has emotions.

Of course. What does it do that the jellyfish does not?

I think emotions are the bridge between the intellect and the body, the language through which mind and matter communicate via electrical signals.

I agree that emotion is the bridge between the mental and the physical, and there are some that believe it is also the source. I don't think the communication is "via electrical signals"; if anything, that seems to be a byproduct of the communication not the source. The Frankenstein thing did not work.

Is language physical? It requires physical actors, but languages are more inherently informational - informational connectors between entities.

I agree. Language is more like thought, it is digital and allows us to arrange it as we like, which is what makes up the rational aspect of mind. Feeling and emotion are analogue and fluid, so they are not very arrangeable and often won't stay put. They rule the unconscious and are mostly reactionary, not directed by us, but they do have their own force.

Gee