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]

Hugh wrote:

I would suggest that this may be a form of 'reciprocal altruism', which has much of its root in self-interest and thus can be a survival trait.

Thank You Hugh and QED. These are very good answers. And they exemplify the ability of science to create a matrix of understanding in which certain actions or motivations for those actions can be explained. And while the explanation seem to serve the function of helping us to understand these phenomenon they don’t exclude the possibility of or the existence of other explanations or theoretical matrices attempting to explain and understand the same phenomenon. So while these truths exist they are not the only possible or absolute truths in our efforts to understand these things.

Reciprocal altruism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation. This is equivalent to the Tit for tat strategy in game theory. It would only be expected to evolve in the presence of a mechanism to identify and punish "cheaters". An example of reciprocal altruism is blood-sharing in the vampire bat, in which bats feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation; cheaters are remembered by the colony and ousted from this collaboration.
In a series of ground-breaking contributions to biology in the early 1970s Robert Trivers introduced the theories of reciprocal altruism (1971), parental investment (1972), and parent-offspring conflict (1974). Trivers' paper "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971) elaborates the mathematics of reciprocal altruism and includes human reciprocal altruism as one of the three examples used to illustrate the model, arguing that "it can be shown that the details of the psychological system that regulates this altruism can be explained by this model." In particular, Trivers argues for the following characteristics as functional processes subserving reciprocal altruism:
Contents
[hide]
 1 A complex regulating system
 1.1 Friendship and the emotions of liking and disliking
 1.2 Moralistic aggression
 1.3 Gratitude, sympathy, and the cost/benefit ratio of an altruistic act
 1.4 Guilt and reparative altruism
 1.5 Subtle cheating: the evolution of mimics
 1.6 Detection of the subtle cheater: trust-worthiness, trust, and suspicion
 1.7 Setting up altruistic partnerships
 1.8 Multiparty interactions
 1.9 Developmental plasticity
 2 References
 3 See also
 4 External links

Hugh also wrote

Allowing an innocent 2 year-old child to die will at the very least offend the sensibilities of most Westerners. It also plays up to that massive influence called ego: the idea of being a 'hero' and 'winning' combined with the horror of seeing an innocent massacred would be enough to motivate many people to make the sacrifice. The reciprocation for such sacrifice might only be a 'self-satisfaction' one - which is very powerful in itself - but it could involve advancement of social status for having performed such an act (as opposed to perhaps being called a 'coward' and having the ego live with that forever).

It is recognised as a high-risk strategy, but is seen amongst the 'brainier' species'.

I think there's a strong biological and evolutionary underpinning to reciporocal altruism if you do a search on Google or whatever.

QED wrote:

HughDP has put forward a possible explanation, but I happen to think it's more appropriate to see this in the light of a slow but cumulative effect. Very often causes in evolution are very slow and diffuse -- and in the case of the sort of human behaviour you mention, I would suggest that it is "recognised" by evolution that populations tend to fill with the sort of people (already of parenting age) that risk their own lives in saving the young (not yet old enough to be a parent). I appreciate that not everyone has "the knack" of seeing how this thing works, but the logic is quite straightforward and I could probably explain it further if you needed me to.

What you have to take on board is that the motivation has to be effective. This guarentees that the individual will perceive a strong compulsion. I have likened this before with the feeling of pain. Pain is a vital feedback to us that something wrong is going on with our bodies -- and if ever there was an individual who didn't get an effective feeling of pain, (e.g. a secondary effect of leprosy) then natural deselection is not far away.

QED also wrote:

joer wrote:
But what ever logic you use to account for the life saving, self-sacrificing behaviour I described will probably also account for the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range, or what I call the behaviour guided by the "spirit of God".

And I call it a form of cooperative strategy, fixed into our genome, which basically reduces it all to information. I'm pretty sure this is what people have traditionally labelled "spirit" in the absence of an understanding of natural selection.

Than QED wrote

joer wrote:

So I get “the spirit of God” is congruous with but not equal to “the natural form of existence or energy that is guided and/or created by some form of intelligence that exists outside our scientific detection range”. That’s a bit different than what you said it seemed like I was saying. What do you think about that?

I just think it continues in the tradition of the aethers introduced to plug a temporary gap in our understanding.

QED wrote:

Remember, I believe that causality in evolution is slow and diffuse. Because of this I'm not convinced that there is an "envelope" that evolution must work within...

This is interesting. I wonder is your concept of “causality in evolution” similar to St Augustine’s causality argument in his so called Causual proof of the exsistence of God.

St Agustine said:

5. There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone. There is One by whom the supreme Majesty utters and reveals Himself, namely, the Word, not inferior to Him by whom it is begotten and uttered, by which Word He who begets it is manifested. There is One who is holiness, the sanctifier of all that becomes holy, who is the inseparable and undivided mutual communion between this unchangeable Word by whom that First Cause is revealed, and that First Cause who reveals Himself by the Word which is His equal. But who is able with perfectly calm and pure mind to contemplate this whole Essence (whom I have endeavoured to describe without giving His name, instead of giving His name without describing Him), and to draw blessedness from that contemplation, and by sinking, as it were, in the rapture of such meditation, to become oblivious of self, and to press on to that the sight of which is beyond our sphere of perception; in other words, to be clothed with immortality, and obtain that eternal salvation which you were pleased to desire on my behalf in your greeting? Who, I say, is able to do this but the man who, confessing his sins, shall have levelled with the dust all the vain risings of pride, and prostrated himself in meekness and humility to receive God as his Teacher?

St. Augustine argues that causality gets it’s impetus from the “Creator and First Cause” and it all goes on from their according to the first First Causes infinite plan. Which seems to correlate to your “causality in evolution” without and envelope (infinite) rather than within an envelope of perception. (finite – existing within the parameters of the perception.)

QED continued with:

joer wrote:

But when we start selecting our own genes and making choices in creating our kind of human beings without the genes for many diseases built in, what’s going to guide those choices? And will it still be called “natural selection” or Eugenics? Or is Eugenics a branch of Natural Selection? Will our choices be guided by the "spirit of choice" contained in evolution, mutation, natural selection or will they be guide by "the spirit of choice" we search for scientifically, logically, morally, spiritually and philosophically?

...I believe we evolved with emphasis on the development of our brains. This was a switch away from teeth, claws and fur towards the use of imagination and technology to provide us with weapons and clothing. I would suggest that the same imagination and technology are leading us towards a time when we will use our existing strategies as a guide when altering the course of evolution.

I have to complement you on the avoidance of the use of charged words, like: Eugenics, "spirit of choice" contained in evolution, mutation, natural selection and "the spirit of choice" we search for scientifically, logically, morally, spiritually and philosophically?

I’m looking to see if we can break into some new ground and escape the bounds of known concepts that I would say are like envelopes of perception. We can view things through many envelopes of perception rose colored envelopes tint ones and as many different envelopes as there are methods of perceiving the nature of spirit. I try to identify some difference between how you view spirit and how I view it. I tried to establish that your method of perception was encapsulated by your concepts of Spirit. I thought that you might see intelligence as being contained within your conceptualization of evolution but you wrote:

I believe that causality in evolution is slow and diffuse. Because of this I'm not convinced that there is an "envelope" that evolution must work within...

What about your introduction of the AP? Wouldn’t that relegate your “that causality in evolution is slow and diffuse” to be contained with the envelope (preception) of ambiguity? And of all the parameters I mentioned of perceiving our evolutionary being: Eugenics, scientifically, logically, morally, spiritually and philosophically evolution, mutation, natural selection and the imagination and technology that you mentioned, which could be contained in an envelope of preception of our evolutionary being, wouldn’t “spirituality” be outside that envelope for you?

It seems like your are saying The envelope of spiritually (the spiritual perception) is contained within the other parameters within your envelope of perception that you’re not convinced is an envelope. Is that right? Am I reading you correctly?

I’m just curious because I would like to have a consensual understanding of what spirituality is as defined within yours and Hugh’s means of perception. Is spirituality 'reciprocal altruism'? Is it a part of casual evolution expressed within the confines of the conceptions of mutation, natural selection, Eugenics, science, logic, morality, philosophy, imagination and technology? Is it an expression of Game Theory Cooperation?

Is spirituality as you both see an expression of a concept or reality that is defined by all of these other concepts or reality. Once I get that tied down, I can look for other expressions of spirituality and see if they are contained within the precepts of your ideas of spirituality. Or I may find there exists other concepts of spirituality that seem to give comparable or better explanations of the meanings of those expressions of spirituality.

I look forward to your answers. Thank you again for putting up with my questions and for being candid in your answers, in our efforts to understand the nature of "spirit".

[HughDP]

I’m just curious because I would like to have a consensual understanding of what spirituality is as defined within yours and Hugh’s means of perception. Is spirituality 'reciprocal altruism'? Is it a part of casual evolution expressed within the confines of the conceptions of mutation, natural selection, Eugenics, science, logic, morality, philosophy, imagination and technology? Is it an expression of Game Theory Cooperation?

The honest answer, joer, is that I don't know if 'reciprocal altruism' is the source of what we define as spirit in the 'saving the child' example we were using. It seems plausible, but my cursory, layman's knowledge of biology might be limiting in that respect.

Is spirituality as you both see an expression of a concept or reality that is defined by all of these other concepts or reality. Once I get that tied down, I can look for other expressions of spirituality and see if they are contained within the precepts of your ideas of spirituality. Or I may find there exists other concepts of spirituality that seem to give comparable or better explanations of the meanings of those expressions of spirituality.

Well I tend to think that spirit - when we talk in terms of 'acting in good spirit' - is a relative expression, comparing someone's behaviour to our own values and the prevailing consensus in society. As to why people act in the ways which exhibit what we're calling spirit, I think that's part of a response to the need to survive and function within society, and that - at its root - will have arisen through both learned behaviour and instinct (genetics, if you like).

I don't think there's any physical 'reality' to spirit; just the interpretations we place upon someone or something's 'is-ness' or actions. Rather like the concept of 'self'.

People do certain things and we assign the term 'spirit' to them as a convenient categorization.

If Fred helps old ladies across the road, is kind to children and animals, doesn't thump the postman and always says good morning to me, I might see him as a 'kind spirit', but I'm just using that as a convenient label. I don't see one stream of 'something' running through him which makes him all those things; I see a complex series of biological and behavioural inputs that make him who he is today.

I look forward to your answers. Thank you again for putting up with my questions and for being candid in your answers, in our efforts to understand the nature of "spirit".

I hope what I wrote is comprehensible!

[QED]

Thank You Hugh and QED. These are very good answers. And they exemplify the ability of science to create a matrix of understanding in which certain actions or motivations for those actions can be explained. And while the explanation seem to serve the function of helping us to understand these phenomenon they don’t exclude the possibility of or the existence of other explanations or theoretical matrices attempting to explain and understand the same phenomenon.

All potential explanations are welcome of course

So while these truths exist they are not the only possible or absolute truths in our efforts to understand these things.

Only religion deals in "absolute truths". If there was some flaw that could be identified in the matrix of explanation afforded by natural selection, it would certainly open up the field for alternative explanations.

This is interesting. I wonder is your concept of “causality in evolution” similar to St Augustine’s causality argument in his so called Causual proof of the exsistence of God.

St Augustine was interested in the "First Cause". The causality I mentioned in evolution is obviously a matter of subsequent cause. I talked about causality as being diffuse in evolution because some people seem to expect something quite different. The effects are very slow and cumulative and as such slight trends only become amplified into significant changes over time.

What about your introduction of the AP? Wouldn’t that relegate your “that causality in evolution is slow and diffuse” to be contained with the envelope (preception) of ambiguity? And of all the parameters I mentioned of perceiving our evolutionary being: Eugenics, scientifically, logically, morally, spiritually and philosophically evolution, mutation, natural selection and the imagination and technology that you mentioned, which could be contained in an envelope of preception of our evolutionary being, wouldn’t “spirituality” be outside that envelope for you?

I don't think the AP has anything to do with a discussion of the nature of spirit. Spirit is synonymous with feeling and feeling is, for me, clearly an evolutionary imperative.

It seems like your are saying The envelope of spiritually (the spiritual perception) is contained within the other parameters within your envelope of perception that you’re not convinced is an envelope. Is that right? Am I reading you correctly?

Nothing stands out as being particularly wrong with that.

I’m just curious because I would like to have a consensual understanding of what spirituality is as defined within yours and Hugh’s means of perception. Is spirituality 'reciprocal altruism'? Is it a part of casual evolution expressed within the confines of the conceptions of mutation, natural selection, Eugenics, science, logic, morality, philosophy, imagination and technology? Is it an expression of Game Theory Cooperation?

I would welcome a suggestion for a "spirit" or feeling that could not be explained in the way I suggest.

Is spirituality as you both see an expression of a concept or reality that is defined by all of these other concepts or reality. Once I get that tied down, I can look for other expressions of spirituality and see if they are contained within the precepts of your ideas of spirituality. Or I may find there exists other concepts of spirituality that seem to give comparable or better explanations of the meanings of those expressions of spirituality.

Be my guest

[joer]

Hugh DP wrote:
The honest answer, joer, is that I don't know if 'reciprocal altruism' is the source of what we define as spirit in the 'saving the child' example we were using. It seems plausible, but my cursory, layman's knowledge of biology might be limiting in that respect.

That’s O.K. That’s good Hugh. What I was trying to establish is how “spirit” is viewed from yours and OED’s point of view. Just to understand that point of view before moving on to explore other ideas of Spirit.

From what I’ve gathered and please correct me if I’m wrong, it appears that “Spirit” is not:

a separate entity outside the realm of human concepts, such as but not limited to : Eugenics, science, logic, morality, philosophy, evolution, mutation, natural selection, imagination and technology.

“Spirit” has no intelligence inherent in it’s own separate existence but is only extant within human perception normally as a description of a feeling or a particular desirable human behavior. Although in the same line of understanding it has also been applied as a descriptor of negative or bad behavior or natural phenomenon sometimes perceived as something other than natural.

Does that sum it up good enough for the purposes of our discussion?

I think this is born out in your following comments Hugh:

Well I tend to think that spirit - when we talk in terms of 'acting in good spirit' - is a relative expression, comparing someone's behaviour to our own values and the prevailing consensus in society. As to why people act in the ways which exhibit what we're calling spirit, I think that's part of a response to the need to survive and function within society, and that - at its root - will have arisen through both learned behaviour and instinct (genetics, if you like).

I don't think there's any physical 'reality' to spirit; just the interpretations we place upon someone or something's 'is-ness' or actions. Rather like the concept of 'self'.

People do certain things and we assign the term 'spirit' to them as a convenient categorization.

If Fred helps old ladies across the road, is kind to children and animals, doesn't thump the postman and always says good morning to me, I might see him as a 'kind spirit', but I'm just using that as a convenient label. I don't see one stream of 'something' running through him which makes him all those things; I see a complex series of biological and behavioural inputs that make him who he is today.

I hope what I wrote is comprehensible!

If my prior summary made sense to you than I think I may have comprehended it correctly. It seemed to make perfect sense to me.

QED wrote:

All potential explanations are welcome of course

joer wrote:

So while these truths exist they are not the only possible or absolute truths in our efforts to understand these things.

Only religion deals in "absolute truths". If there was some flaw that could be identified in the matrix of explanation afforded by natural selection, it would certainly open up the field for alternative explanations.

I wasn’t thinking of a flaw in the matrix of explanation afforded by natural selection. I was actually thinking that maybe there exists other natural phenomenon that actually fit within the same matrix and follow the same or similar rules of natural selection but that haven’t been scientifically detected or identified yet. But in fact concepts these phenomenon do exist and are popular but remain scientifically unproven.

QED also wrote:

joer wrote:
This is interesting. I wonder is your concept of “causality in evolution” similar to St Augustine’s causality argument in his so called Causual proof of the exsistence of God.

St Augustine was interested in the "First Cause". The causality I mentioned in evolution is obviously a matter of subsequent cause. I talked about causality as being diffuse in evolution because some people seem to expect something quite different. The effects are very slow and cumulative and as such slight trends only become amplified into significant changes over time.

He was interested in causality and postulated causality back to a “First Cause”, much the same way that modern scientists extrapolated the origins of the Universe back to the Big Bang. St Augustine used logic as a means to work backwards to the First Cause while modern scientists use logic along modern theoretical critical thinking with quantitative scientific and mathematical analysis to work backwards to the Big Bang.

Their (Augustine and modern scientists) efforts are similar but the tools available to them to do their work were quite different. Considering the eras in which they did their respective works both bodies of work were remarkable for their time.

QED wrote:
I don't think the AP has anything to do with a discussion of the nature of spirit. Spirit is synonymous with feeling and feeling is, for me, clearly an evolutionary imperative.
joer wrote:

It seems like your are saying The envelope of spiritually (the spiritual perception) is contained within the other parameters within your envelope of perception that you’re not convinced is an envelope. Is that right? Am I reading you correctly?

Nothing stands out as being particularly wrong with that.

Cool! We can proceed.

QED wrote:

I would welcome a suggestion for a "spirit" or feeling that could not be explained in the way I suggest.
Be my guest.

Well Hugh and QED lets see. I don’t expect that “the nature of spirit” will fail to be able to be explained by human concepts. That would be impossible for us, as humans to do. The challenge to me seems to be to find adequate conceptualization to pro-offer a proof of spirit that exists as an intelligent entity or identifiable energy that has not yet been scientifically detected. But just as many an energy and concepts that have existed undetected since the beginning of time or should I say for the purposes of our region of space since the beginning of the Big Bang or at least a few milli-seconds there after; so could spiritual energy, intellgence and conceptualization so exists now. And I don’t mind seeing if we can pick up the trail, the hints, the impressions, the sense, that may someday lead to it’s scientific detection.

And so we proceed.

What are the indications of a “spiritual nature” that is both expressed as if it has an intelligent origin and as a form of energy?

There are many things that happen that are claimed by those that they happen to as “spiritual” in nature. These things can be explained within the current bounds (concepts) of natural phenomenon and understanding. But to those that they occur to, many insist that they are beyond those “bounds”.

What is “it” that is being sensed as existing beyond known scientific boundaries?
Why do these things have to be seen as supernatural?
Why can’t they just be seen as undetected or unproven natural phenomenon?
Is there a way to understand cryptic occurrences, writings or sayings that makes natural sense?
Why should we even try to understand some of these unusual things that billions of people ascribed to a “spirituality” outside the bounds of the scientific concepts we discussed before?
Why not do it as effort in reconciliation of the some of the diverse ideas of “The nature of Spirit”?

Let me start that investigation in my next post.

[/quote]

[joer]

One thing I find interesting in the popular understanding of Spiritual matters is that often there are spiritual concepts or ideas that seemed to be understood here on earth in multiple destinations, through seemingly unrelated distinct phenomenon or methods of contact with unusually similar messages received over periods of time of impending changes about to occur on earth.

QED said in this thread in the forum it came from:

What I wanted to convey most was the timetable that divine revelation seemed to be working to. With the exception of rare events such as the Urantia Book, most of the major parlance and interaction on a one-to-one basis with God(s) appears during the earliest periods of human art and literature. It's almost as if Jesus had the final say on things when he wrapped it up nearly 2000 years ago. Why has God since taken a back seat to apparently watch us stumble even deeper into trouble.

That is as far from the truth as you can get. The problem is that while there are voluminous communications from God in form of spiritual communication, documentation, proliferation and wide spread recognition of those communications are not embraced as “real” or even known of by the world population at large. While multitude evidence exists of God’s communication to us, it is not widely sought after. The Church while being reproached by many for canonizing Saints and recognizing miraculous appearances or communications form God is geologically slow in its recognition of the multitude of communications, humans received from so called spiritual phenomenon. Dr. Thomas W. Petrisko in his book, The Fatima Prophecies, documents numerous modern day phenomenons related to God or spirituality.

http://www.saintandrew.com/fatima.html

It is interesting that according to wikipedia on Stairway to Heaven, the most often play Rock Song in the History of Rock and Roll, that it is stated that The lyrics, written by Led Zeppelin vocalist Robert Plant next to an evening log fire, were inspired by his search for spiritual perfection.

And if you click on spiritual wikipidea gives you this definition. If you click on the discussion of spiritual in wikipedia it’s still waiting to be written.
Spiritual
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
/wiki/Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png/wiki/Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png
Wiktionary has related dictionary definitions, such as:
spiritual
Spiritual may refer to:
 Spirituality, a concern with matters of the spirit
 Spiritual music, an African American song, usually with a Christian religious text
 Spiritual dance
 Spiritual possession, a concept of many religions, where it is believed that a demon may take temporary control of a human body
 Lords Spiritual, clergymen of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lords
 Supernatural, refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific understanding. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics.

It is interesting that according to wikipedia on Stairway to Heaven, the most often played Rock Song in the History of Rock and Roll, that it is stated that The lyrics, written by Led Zeppelin vocalist Robert Plant next to an evening log fire, were inspired by his search for spiritual perfection.

If you look at the words of this cryptic song which is mystical in it’s appeal that has spaned so many years I can easily see the same spiritual message that has been communicated from appearances of spiritual entities to hundreds or even thousands and thousands of humans. The message almost always contains three points for the advancement of humanity. And you don’t have to be spiritual to understand the validity of the message.

1. Honor God. Give God, God’s due. So QED in your matrix that would translate to honor Nature and all that is natural and that exists within that matrix natural causal evolution.
2. Repent of your Sins and follow God’s laws. Well that’s a no brainer. An arrow that sins, misses the mark. What ever were doing that misses the mark, correct ourselves so we don’t miss the mark. Stop doing what’s wrong and start doing what right. That’s pretty simple to understand and to understand how it will save and enhance humanity if we do that. Right. Stop Global Warming. Save the World. Stop burning Fossil fuels save the world right. Use early warning worldwide- save hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings lives. Right? We have the technology use it! Quit falling back on the archaic excuse Why does God allow us to die? Wha wha wha boo hoo. Wake up! God’s not allowing us to die. We’re killing ourselves! Stop it!.
3. The last spiritual message we receive repeatedly is Atone for the sins of our fellow human beings. Well da! If we’ve done stupid things as a race the way to atone for it is stop doing those things and correct the damage done by the short sighted idiots that screwed things up before and the ones that are still doing it now. As for us here in the U.S.A. The sooner we get Bush and his cronies out. The sooner we can start repairing the damage they’re doing to the environment and our international relationships. You know what I mean?

So this spiritual stuff isn’t brain surgery it just using a little common sense. These appearances appear as image voices but more often than not thoughts that occur in our own minds. So I believe an important phenomena to study in the investigation of spiritual phenomena is the thoughts that seem to be percolating up from unknown sources into the thoughts patterns extant in our minds.

How would one study these thoughts that seem to come from without our known existences?

The other thing I would be interested in studying is how prayer seems to illicit these thoughts from without ourselves.

Here’s an interpretation of Stairway to Heaven that seems to carry these three aspects.
1.Repent
2.Honor God by choosing right.
3.Atone by doing right to make up for past wrong doing

Stairway To Heaven
Zeppelin IV
Words to the song are in Bold. My words are regular.

There's a lady who's sure - The Virgin Mary Holy Mother of GOD
All that glitters is gold – Any thing of value is golden. The golden rule golden opportunities etc.
And she's buying a stairway to heaven. – She buying a stairway to heaven – Recent appearances and devotion to her as she becomes the Co-Redemtrix. She preaches – for salvation: Honor God, repent and stop sinning, make atonement for the sins of others. If we do this we do our part in helping her build the stairway to heaven by honoring God and doing right. And paying for it by atoning for the sins of others. The way that Jesus paid for our salvation through his sacrifice on the cross.
When she gets there she knows – In heaven she knows of God’s love and knows he will receive us when we show up with her by our side.
If the stores are all closed – Even if the doors to salvation close because of our sins…

With a word she can get what she came for – She knows God full of Mercy will forgive us – “only say the word and ours souls shall be healed.”
Ooh, ooh, and she's buying a stairway to heaven. - Through her work with us here on earth, she buying us a Stairway to Heaven.

There's a sign on the wall – Historically and biblically there’s the saying “you can see the sign on the wall” or “the writing on the wall.” Meaning there are signs of what’s happening. If you look for the signs it should be obvious.
But she wants to be sure – She doesn’t want us to be left out because we couldn’t understand the signs.
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings. - sometimes signs can be ambiguous.
In a tree by the brook
There's a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven. - From places of peacefulness and beauty we receive messages from beautiful sources (represented by the songbird) That help us through our doubts and unsureness.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder. We wonder what is truth and what is not?

There's a feeling I get
When I look to the west,- The west is where the sun sets. It represents the setting of the sun on the world as we know it before the dawn of a new day- where life and living will be what it was always supposed to be.
And my spirit is crying for leaving. - We long to leave Sin and be with God.
In my thoughts I have seen
Rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking. - People in awe in the End Times the Second coming of Christ.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder. - We wonder how it will be in the new world.

And it's whispered that soon
If we all call the tune – If we follow the advice of the Holy Mother of God.
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn – Then through the teachings of Jesus and God (the piper) we will be led to a new day of reason and peace.
For those who stand long - for those who have faith and keep God’s Will.
And the forests will echo with laughter. They will enjoy peace and harmony on earth.

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow – If things look wrong and bad in the world around you.
Don't be alarmed now, Don’t worry!
It's just a spring clean for the May queen. - Just like spring cleaning when we clean our houses after the long Winter so too will the World be cleansed of all evil and wrong doing for Mary the Queen of heaven, The Queen of Angels, the Queen of all saints.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by – You can choose right or wrong
But in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on. You can always mend your ways. Choose good instead of evil, right instead of wrong.
And it makes me wonder. It worth contemplating.

Your head is humming and it won't go - All this craziness in the world is bothering us.
In case you don't know,
The piper's calling you to join him, - In case you don’t know Jesus is calling you to follow Him, follow his example of dedicating ourselves to do God’s Will.
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow,
And did you know Mary knows that the craziness of the world is like a blowing whirling hurricane.
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind. - But the path (stairway) to heaven is hidden in the storm like the calm (whispering wind) in the eye of the Hurricane.

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul. So as we go through life our propensity to choose bad over good (our shadow) seems larger than our soul (God within us)
There walks a lady we all know - But The Virgin Mary we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How ev'rything still turns to gold. Goes before us as a beacon who shows us the way to how we gain “heaven on earth”! (ev'rything still turns to gold).
And if you listen very hard - if we look for the good amongst all the evil in the world.
The tune will come to you at last. We will find it at last.
When all are one and one is all – When we become one with (like) God.
To be a rock and not to roll. - Our lives will become steady like an immovable rock

And she's buying a stairway to heaven. And our Holy Mother who loves us is paying for this path to heaven as the Co- Redemtrix with Jesus through Atonement for our sins.

This plan will be completed and complete us by allowing us to know our long repressed Feminine and Life Saving Aspect of God. Though Woman and God the Mother – War will End and Peace will inherit the Earth. Thank You Dear Lady!


The song is so cryptic like Dillon’s Mr. Tambourine Man, many meanings can be interpreted from it. But this is the interpretation I finally got from it, not when I first heard it but later in life. When I was younger I felt like it had something wonderful and special within it apocalyptic and offering Peace and beauty at the same time. I could never figure out what gave ME that sense of Hope and Promised Peace. The sounds of the music we’re so moving but then contrasted with such force and violence like a storm and then peace and a sense of sadness and joy mixed together at the end. Now I know why I “sensed” those things and I'm not surprised why it’s the most played and requested rock and roll song ever. Rock and Roll was never just a hedonistic (pleasure seeking) medium. It more often than not dealt with meaningful controversial, spiritual, deeply seeded and moving issues of life. How else could it have attracted such a strong following and lasted for so long.

[HughDP]

joer, forgive me, but I seem to have missed the point.

Your post, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to offer reasons as to why the spirit is in some way a separate entity of supernatural or unknown origin.

I can see (I think) what you're calling 'spirit', but I can't see any clues as to where the source of that spirit is.

Your interpretation of Stairway To Heaven shows that you perceive spirituality in it, which I can understand, and you make passing reference to the Fatima Prophecies, which I class as dubious on many grounds, but I'm not sure how these references define 'the spirit'.

Are you simply postulating that spirit is so powerful that it must be a God-inspired phenomenom? That things like Stairway To Heaven and the Fatima Prophecies could not have occured without some separate, pervasive entity that we define as spirit?

[joer]

Hugh thanks for the reply.

Your post, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to offer reasons as to why the spirit is in some way a separate entity of supernatural or unknown origin.

You are absolutely right. Let me clarify. I was just trying to present some other perspectives of “spirit” I wasn’t trying to classify them yet. I’m sorry I let some of my own beliefs color what I was trying to present. Apart from what I believe. There are several points of fact that I was trying to present here.

I was contending a point made previously by QED that God has seemingly abandoned us for the last 2000 years. “It's almost as if Jesus had the final say on things when he wrapped it up nearly 2000 years ago. Why has God since taken a back seat to apparently watch us stumble even deeper into trouble.” The Fatima Prophesies was jus ONE example that contains hundreds of documented instances of reported revelations from GOD.

My point being that if you recognize that GOD revealed God’s self and purpose to us before you need to recognize that this revelation has not stopped but still continues today. So you can say God NEVER revealed God’s self to us or God has always revealed God’s self to us. But it would be a fallacy to say God revealed Himself to us but stopped this revelation 2000 years ago. It wouldn’t be logical, because if you accepted the premise for the prior revelation you would have to accept the same premise for the continued revelation. Wouldn’t You?

I can see (I think) what you're calling 'spirit', but I can't see any clues as to where the source of that spirit is.

You’re right again Hugh. I don’t have clues to the “source” but I believe I do have clues to some interesting “aspects” of a phenomenon of spirit called revelation.

Now The Fatima Prophesies and the Stairway to Heaven I mentioned to point out that one aspect of “spiritual revelation” is that it seems to occur in a variety of forms while presenting the same or similar message. I found that interesting Hugh. I’m not postulating yet where it comes from. I’m just identifying it as consistent aspect of “revelatory spirit”. I mentioned The Fatima Prophesies and the Stairway to Heaven as modern evidence of a so called “spiritual revelation” on how to live life. I analyzed 3 points in the revelation and I submitted that this same revelation has been occurring for thousands of years.

You wrote:

Are you simply postulating that spirit is so powerful that it must be a God-inspired phenomenom? That things like Stairway To Heaven and the Fatima Prophecies could not have occured without some separate, pervasive entity that we define as spirit?

No I’m not postulating that Hugh.

I’m asking the question where does this repetitive phenomena of the same message purported to be spiritually derived from GOD come from? And what is this phenomena? Can it be measured? Can you mentally petition it and have it occur? Would that be measurable? How much energy does a thought use or expend? We can see in CAT SCANS of the brain through dramatic coloration techniques that parts of the brain that are activated as we think. We can see the areas of the brain from where thoughts emanate. We know the brain is being activated but how can we tell if the activation is being generated solely from within the brain or if there is an outside as of yet undetectable energy that is stimulating activity inside the brain?

Carl Jung talked about a collective unconscious. Do the repetitive ideas that pop up in different eras and in different parts of the world seemingly isolated from each other come from this collective unconscious? When Robert Plant was searching for spiritual perfection the night he wrote Stairway to Heaven did he tie into this collective unconsciousness of mankind and extract archetypes that connected with images in the collective unconsciousness of thousands of people who listened to his song in the many years after he wrote it? What is this collective unconscious? What is it made of? Does it have any relation to spirit or spiritual energy?

These are the questions I would like to try to answer Hugh. I’m not “postulating that spirit is so powerful that it must be a God-inspired phenomenon? That things like Stairway To Heaven and the Fatima Prophecies could not have occurred without some separate, pervasive entity that we define as spirit?”

I am postulating that there is something there. There is something behind these ideas and phenomena labeled as spirit or spiritual and I think that it’s way past the time to demystify it. We need to get behind it and find out what it is.

[QED]

And I've been trying to learn to play that darn song on my acoustic guitar! It's still pretty though

I think I can see how the strength of feelings engendered in us in moments of inspiration, sorrow or joy might seem so overpowering that they could somehow appear to be "coming in from the outside" but there are simply too many pointers to the fact that they are purely internal constructs of our mental states. For example I can easily picture someone falling into one of these distinctive states purely by mistake.

joer talks of "thoughts that seem to be percolating up from unknown sources". I don't know what the significance of this would be. I do know that we seem to be running a separate and sub-conscious process that feeds things into our conscious. For one trivial example I seem to have a 'pun' subroutine that unconsciously feeds puns into my conversations -- such that people often get them before I do. But soldiers will tell you that they operate almost entirely on this background system when they are really "up against it". This brings me back to the instinctive drivers that sometimes result in others being aware of our reactions (to emergency situations) before we are. I understand that we are experiencing what it's like being a more primitive animal at times like this. Again our neo-cortex blurs out all this instinctive stuff most of the time but I get the feeling that the symbiosis is still very much in an adaptive phase.

There's another set of mysterious "spiritual" like feelings that I can identify with, one that is personal for me but probably shared. I often recall how, as a teenager, I would sit at the window watching the sun set and be overwhelmed by feelings of, well, I guess it was excitement. A feeling of general excitement, about nothing in particular. I can still just about summon this feeling but it used to come alot more effortlessly. Now do I think some as yet unidentified external spiritual field was being intercepted by my brain? Why would this be a sensible conclusion when it is fairly obvious that my mind can grasp that the world is a vast place full of opportunity and the universe is an awesome structure full of potential intruige. I really can't see any justification for looking beyond the fantasticallycomplex organ called the brain for sources of spirituality. Not when so many powerful feelings are understandable in so many natural ways.

[HughDP]

Hugh thanks for the reply.

Your post, whilst interesting, doesn't seem to offer reasons as to why the spirit is in some way a separate entity of supernatural or unknown origin.

You are absolutely right. Let me clarify. I was just trying to present some other perspectives of “spirit” I wasn’t trying to classify them yet. I’m sorry I let some of my own beliefs color what I was trying to present. Apart from what I believe. There are several points of fact that I was trying to present here.

Okay, understood.

I was contending a point made previously by QED that God has seemingly abandoned us for the last 2000 years. “It's almost as if Jesus had the final say on things when he wrapped it up nearly 2000 years ago. Why has God since taken a back seat to apparently watch us stumble even deeper into trouble.” The Fatima Prophesies was jus ONE example that contains hundreds of documented instances of reported revelations from GOD.

My point being that if you recognize that GOD revealed God’s self and purpose to us before you need to recognize that this revelation has not stopped but still continues today. So you can say God NEVER revealed God’s self to us or God has always revealed God’s self to us. But it would be a fallacy to say God revealed Himself to us but stopped this revelation 2000 years ago. It wouldn’t be logical, because if you accepted the premise for the prior revelation you would have to accept the same premise for the continued revelation. Wouldn’t You?

I'm not convinced joer. If I believed in an all-powerful God, I wouldn't presume to know about His plans for revealing Himself to me. God could choose to reveal himself whenever and in whatever way he chose.

To the non-believer it seems perhaps 'convenient' that God revealed Himself 2000 years ago and not now, but that generally doesn't matter to the believer.

The most illogical thing a God could do would be to reveal Himself to three 10 year old kids, which is what he supposedly did in the case of the Fatima Prophecies. Why bother? Why play games? Why not just have one grand worldwide revealing: a huge voice booming across the planet saying "I am God and I will make it rain penguins everywhere for 30 minutes as proof of my existence"? Something that nobody could miss.

I can see (I think) what you're calling 'spirit', but I can't see any clues as to where the source of that spirit is.

You’re right again Hugh. I don’t have clues to the “source” but I believe I do have clues to some interesting “aspects” of a phenomenon of spirit called revelation.

OK.

Now The Fatima Prophesies and the Stairway to Heaven I mentioned to point out that one aspect of “spiritual revelation” is that it seems to occur in a variety of forms while presenting the same or similar message. I found that interesting Hugh. I’m not postulating yet where it comes from. I’m just identifying it as consistent aspect of “revelatory spirit”. I mentioned The Fatima Prophesies and the Stairway to Heaven as modern evidence of a so called “spiritual revelation” on how to live life. I analyzed 3 points in the revelation and I submitted that this same revelation has been occurring for thousands of years.

Okay, so we're moving a bit away from 'good spirit' and 'bad spirit' and towards the way this spirit reveals itself. Understood. No problem.

You wrote:

Are you simply postulating that spirit is so powerful that it must be a God-inspired phenomenom? That things like Stairway To Heaven and the Fatima Prophecies could not have occured without some separate, pervasive entity that we define as spirit?

No I’m not postulating that Hugh.

I’m asking the question where does this repetitive phenomena of the same message purported to be spiritually derived from GOD come from? And what is this phenomena? Can it be measured? Can you mentally petition it and have it occur? Would that be measurable? How much energy does a thought use or expend? We can see in CAT SCANS of the brain through dramatic coloration techniques that parts of the brain that are activated as we think. We can see the areas of the brain from where thoughts emanate. We know the brain is being activated but how can we tell if the activation is being generated solely from within the brain or if there is an outside as of yet undetectable energy that is stimulating activity inside the brain?

Carl Jung talked about a collective unconscious. Do the repetitive ideas that pop up in different eras and in different parts of the world seemingly isolated from each other come from this collective unconscious? When Robert Plant was searching for spiritual perfection the night he wrote Stairway to Heaven did he tie into this collective unconsciousness of mankind and extract archetypes that connected with images in the collective unconsciousness of thousands of people who listened to his song in the many years after he wrote it? What is this collective unconscious? What is it made of? Does it have any relation to spirit or spiritual energy?

These are the questions I would like to try to answer Hugh. I’m not “postulating that spirit is so powerful that it must be a God-inspired phenomenon? That things like Stairway To Heaven and the Fatima Prophecies could not have occurred without some separate, pervasive entity that we define as spirit?”

I am postulating that there is something there. There is something behind these ideas and phenomena labeled as spirit or spiritual and I think that it’s way past the time to demystify it. We need to get behind it and find out what it is.

Good idea.

I think you probably know how I'd try to answer the questions above. I'd suggest that the 'collective' look of the spirit is because we're a species that has evolved similar characteristics. We've evolved the ability to imagine, to conceptualise and to create. The 'whole' of that seems quite amazing, but it can broken down into constituent inputs which can be identified in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless, I will think more on this.

[QED]

I’m asking the question where does this repetitive phenomena of the same message purported to be spiritually derived from GOD come from?

I get the feeling that some people interpret the fact that the phenomenon is experienced by all peoples in all times as meaning that the common component exists externally to the individuals concerned. Clearly this would be jumping to conclusions. All cats seem to be curious; I don't think this should lead us to believe that there exists a spirit of curiosity which pervades the atmosphere, to be picked up by animals with the appropriate sensors.