thanks for the interesting post - some random thoughts: I think the way to honor the spirit is to make decisions in life based on your free will and good will (the Kantian good will). Your consciousness and mine and everybody else's cannot be represented wholly in the material world, but our actions can be done with good intent.

Rejecting spirit/consciousness is like denying that life is something special to be preserved. If spirit/consciousness is what separates this taco in my hand from me, denying me that spirit/consciousness will lessen the value of 1) life and 2) free will. I do not believe in the idea of reductionism. To honor the spirit/life/consciousness, do IT good and not the body good.

Does the earth have a spirit we should honor? I'm not going to attempt to answer that except to say that this planet has many natural and non-living cycles and components, but if life were to disappear over night, many of those cycles would break down. Certainly, life is something necessary for this planet and its function. Environmentalism is an application of this idea in the real world.

People who deny the existence of spirit/consciousness are called sociopaths. I'm curious to know if sociopaths see their own life as anything special, or just another object devoid of moral value. Everybody deserves freedom, and their feelings/attitude/morals are a result of their free will (well that's another discussion altogether actually), they are a conscious entity with spirit just like everybody else. They just see the world through a different lens.

Just so we're all on the same page, let's start with a thorough definition of what it means to be (that is, to have the essence known as "being") via wikipedia as a noun; and, for clarity, we'll add a full conjugation of the verb to be. This is one of the (if not THE) most commonly used words in any language, because it is so central to the notion of this quality of "spirit" (life essence, self awareness, etc., etc.) that you are inquiring about.

Now, so far, I have not brought religion or spirituality into this (those words by which you have framed this inquiry). This is merely concept - conventions by which we agree our life is meaningful to ourselves and to others: I am <this>; you are <that>; etc.

With this in mind, let us now look to an assessment of this concept via Platonic Forms. Plato asserts that for all things (both physical and conceptual) there are forms - sort of meta-conceptual versions of these things - the meta-notions by which we share and communicate our understanding of things. And, further, that these forms do in fact exist... and without them we would simply be uttering gibberish to one another (each not knowing what the other was babbling about). That is to say... because of the central necessity of these forms, they are, in fact, more purely "real" than any of their mundane manifestations (e.g., the form of "chair" is more centrally "real" than any physical chair... which is simply an 'aspiration to be like the form').

And, again, so far... I have not brought religion or spirituality into this... but now I shall.

All of the big four monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism) have this notion as the "name" of their "God". Being most familiar with Christian literature, I'll roll forward with that (for now):

In The Bible, see Exodus 3:14, where The Lord tells Moses His name, saying [depending on translation, approximately]: "I BEING [<--] THAT BEING." and "Tell them 'I AM' has sent you." Additionally, The Bible presents the minor (non-Platonic-Form) version of this in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34, where it is written "You are gods." (i.e., You are beings.)

I am secondarily familiar with Taoism, so I'll give a brief overview of the relationship there: "The Tao" translates to English, literally, as: "The Way" -- specifically: The Way of Being.

When one comes to understand essence of being - that quality that allows them to know of and to assert their self-awareness, as well as the awareness of others of the same kind (i.e., beings) - one has come to know that one and only thing (ala "Platonic Form") which could possibly be classified as "God" - and, going back to The Bible, this quality of assertable self-awareness is the central theme of all of the Old Testament scriptures (the more obvious and overt characterizations come from the stories of David and Goliath, and Samson and the temple -- wherein the "hero" of the story "asserts their being" - i.e., "calls upon the name of The Lord").

Institutionalized religion, however, does not actually teach these truths; rather, they dance about them in a ballet of distraction -- Why? Because this knowledge of the power of God (the ability to assert oneself) is a threat to institutions. Institutions are for social order... yet always get corrupted into social control. Thus, at best, religious institutions preserve the text. At worst, they hide the truth and oppress the flock.

This is the Truth which they hide:

• We live in this world as fully empowered beings (gods), but none of us is "God" (which is the Form - the "pure essence of what 'being' actually is").

• Born of man (human), and borne of mankind (humanity [oh, the humanity!]), Jesus then becomes "Son of Man[kind]" - one of many "sons of man", but also "The Son of Man" - And, being borne of "beings" (men/mankind), he is "Son of [Assertion]" (aka, Son of God) -- one of many children of God, but also "The Son".

Only through this path of understanding, can "God" be known in the way by which Institutionalized Religion gains its credibility... yet also loses that credibility by hiding these truths from the masses.

Assert yourself.

Call upon the name of The Lord.

Be.

Take care, however, that you do not call upon the name of The Lord in vain, unless you want to be humbled for your vanity.

EDIT: Spelling and formatting.

That depends on what you deny as spirit. I see spirit as a controlling energy force... Not to be confused with soul or identity.

Spirit=Chi, Chi=Energy

Like when a Kung Fu master bends an impossibly strong metal pipe with his bare hands.

The ramblings of a mad man. As far as I can tell, your central point comes down to: "If there's no spirit why would killing be wrong? If there was no spirit, burning a living being would be the same as burning a pile of dirt." Yet you compare spirit to consciousness, so who are these "dangerous" people who deny that other people are conscious?

How can it possibly be made more clear? If you think you're identical to a name or any matter you are denying the existence of spirit.

You don't seem to be able to ascertain the difference between matter and consciousness or the links inbetween. You do realise that people have brains and this organ of matter has synapses which fire in ways which give us our ability to think and be conscious? Phrases you use such as "if you think you're identical to a name" show a real lack of understanding and an inability to follow arguments through to a conclusion. This kind of "A says this and B says this so therefore C is not possible" thinking is a strong sign of mental illness.

You do realise that people have brains and this organ of matter has synapses which fire in ways which give us our ability to think and be conscious?

Obviously, but you don't think you are a brain do you? If not, then you should be able to realize that you're not a name...

I am a brain, a man, a name, a consciousness, a writer, a musician, I am all of these and more. Why would identifying myself with a name mean that I disregard anything else? I would identify as a sportsman but this does not mean that I accept that I'm not human. Your arguments are entirely devoid of all logic.

I think you don't understand the definition of identity, so here you go:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity

the condition of being the same with something described or asserted <establish the identity of stolen goods>

Are you the same as a name? If so, how can you be anything more than a name?

For you to be the same as all the things you listed, all the things you listed must be the same, right? Are you saying all the things you listed are the same?

identity

Masters level sociologist here. You have no idea what you are talking about re: identity. Read up on dramaturgy, front stage/backstage, and the work of Goffman.

Could you explain why you think I'm wrong (Other than dick waving and saying I got a degree...)?

Identity is far more complex than self-applied labels. Identity is transient and changes - i might be a firefighter at work but a father at home...

Google dramaturgy and Goffman. There are many other theorists dealing with identity as well, but Goffman is a good start.

downvotes are for unrelated content, not people disagreeing with you.

I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the definition of identity. The entire purpose of identification is to draw similarities between people/ object to save time in communication. Simply being identified as a particular thing does not mean that you cannot also be something else, I identify as a squash player, so does this mean that I cannot also identify as anything else? You are wasting your time obsessing over this inane topic.

I identify as a squash player, so does this mean that I cannot also identify as anything else?

No, that means you can't also logically identify as something that's not the same as a squash player.

For example, for the two claims "I'm a name" and "I'm a living spirit" to both be true, both the name and the living spirit need to be the same.

I have no idea how you've managed to convince yourself of this but you are quite magnificently mistaken. We seem to have got to the crux of your problem with: "For example, for the two claims "I'm a name" and "I'm a living spirit" to both be true, both a name and a living spirit must be the same."

So in your eyes, I cannot identify as English and a squash player as being English and being a squash player are entirely different things? Are you really arguing that no one can identify as more than one thing? Gay Australians don't exist? Tall, fat basketball players especially so?

So in your eyes, I cannot identify as English and a squash player as being English and being a squash player are entirely different things?

All I'm saying is that you can only be the same as both if both are the same.

You appear to have stopped arguing now and are just repeating yourself, an inability to question your own conclusions is also a sign of mental illness. I'll cease arguing with you now as I see I'm not getting through but I'll leave you with this. If a name is an immaterial thing and consciousness is also immaterial then how is there a problem in identifying yourself as a name as well as being conscious?

You appear to have stopped arguing now and are just repeating yourself

yeah, cause it seems like you still don't get it...

If a name is an immaterial thing and consciousness is also immaterial then how is there a problem in identifying yourself as a name as well as being conscious?

For you to be consciousness and a name, both the name and consciousness have to be the same, and you have to be the same as both. You already said consciousness is immaterial and so is a name, so are you immaterial and is a name the same as consciousness?

Your central point is wrong:

"For you to be consciousness and a name, both the name and consciousness have to be the same"

This can easily be shown by replacing consciousness and name, for instance:

"For you to be tall and English, both being tall and being English have to be the same"

This is simply not true.

Phrases you use such as "if you think you're identical to a name" show a real lack of understanding and an inability to follow arguments through to a conclusion.

I would ask you to elaborate, but I doubt it would be worth it...

Why would I want to argue anyway?

I think what you are calling 'spirit' is better called 'consciousness', and better discussed in r/psych or r/sociology

the reason I posted here is because the conspiracy culture seems to be into stuff that keeps tptb off their backs...

How does pseudoscience affect the power elite at all?

[deleted]

Consciousness doesn't exist!

/s

[deleted]

How then do you explain the changes that occur during the double slit experiment when observation is performed?

[deleted]

The change occurs because of conservation of momentum.

Could you elaborate?